Search

The article uses a combination of sources, such as research, epidemiology, and "ethnograpic portrayals" by affected individuals. These are compared to form a comprehensive view of the aftermath of Katrina, and how the government was not prepared to address the large scale relief efforts neccessary. 

The Mental Health Action planned was published by the World Health Organization, with colaboration from its members states, the general population, and other international agencies.

"The violence broke out when the patient spit at the Emergency Service Unit officers and swore at them. The officers responded by hitting him in the face, hauling him off the stretcher to the ground and then tossing him back on the stretcher, the EMTs said in written statements submitted to the FDNY."

""Three cops began to punch the patient in the face, EMS (had) to get in the middle of it to intervene. Pt's. wounds and injuries cleaned in the (ambulance)," the report said"

Dr. Peter Kramer- a clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown University. Author of the article. 

This is a program targeted to students with bachelors, masters, or professional degrees who desire to protect people from the various consequences of nuclear disasters. 

The information used to produce and support the arguments made in the article comes from a number of articles and reports, as well as interviews. For example, the author communicated with the former scientific director of Spetsatom and used that information to form a better image of the situation post-Chernobyl. This information could then be contrasted to other disasters and the organizations formed in the aftermath. The author could then use research papers as a source for statistical data, as well as scientific reports as a basis for the disaster’s existence and its implications. These all together are used to form an interdisciplinary view of disaster relief, and the steps needed to prevent and respond to another nuclear disaster.

The largest challenge faced by the ARC seems to be organizing such a large group of volunteers for specific response. There are so many different pieces to disaster respones, and with mostly volunteers organizing things, a strong central leadership is needed, which seems to be lacking in the group as a whole. 

The rise and emergence of infectious diseases has led to a number of puclic health "scares" over the years. The creation of national and international frameworks, as well as focus groups, has brought the struggle of infectious diseases like AIDS to light. Looking at diseases with the combined inputs of governmental and philanthropic organizations has had a positive influence on the fight against them. In the realm of bioterrorism, many factors are at play. First is the terrorist act itself and the social issues that lead to a terrorist being created. Then there is themethod, which is the numerous diseases that can be weaponized. These diseases are researched at the government level as potential additions to the arsenal of weapons a country has. However, they are also used at the individual level. With highly educated individuals and any number of social ideologies, the risk for bioterrorism increases. By looking at bioterrorism through the lens of both a social expert and scientist, the roots of bioterrorism can be examined. 

The causes for these examinations are events that have had a largescale effect on multiple levels of expertise. These "focusing events" have a lot of factors and players, and thus require a lot of different views to analyze, as the article argues.