Search

I think that adding more evidentiary support such as data analysis r statistics would have enhanced this video's educational value. It would have shown the physical evidence and the magnitude of the disaster. I also believe that citing more government officials and getting statements from more hospital workers, doctors and first responders would have given this film a more well rounded and accurate depiction of all sides of the outbreak. 

This article was published in Public Health Reports, this is the official journal of the US public Health Service and Surgeon General of the United States. Topics and issues of public health law, public health practice and research as well as schools and teaching are published in this journal. Overall, this journal is highly regarded. It is peer reviewed and publishes original work. Being the official journal of US departments reflects its validity. 

"In any number of disaster over the past two centuries, the "disaster investigation," far from proving itself the dispassionate, scientific verdict on causality and blame, actually emerges as hard-fought honest is to define the moment in politics and society, in technology and culture."

"history shows that, with time, a given community of engineers and scientists has generally proven able to explain the technical particulars of a structural collapse."

"By reviewing the history of disaster investigations in the US, we therefore gain a broader context for understanding the early pitfalls and the future prospects for the World Trade Center investigation,"

First of all I would like to highlight the first source used in the new. The map with the risk on air polution in Newark.

Now I'll point out the two qutes suggested:

"Air quality was analyzed using proximity to 5 factors: major roads, truck routes, rail lines, Newark airport are all nonpoint sources and facilities that have violated their major permit at least once within the last 3 years are point sources. Point sources were buffered 1 miles for the area of high risk, and 1.5 miles for the area of elevated risk."

(at the begging of the last paragraph)

"This project is an attempt to identify those areas of high risk and the people being affected by poor air quality. It can be used to inform the public about their risk and to influence policy makers and developers."

(the fourth paragraph)

I would say that a situation where this site would be difficult to work with would be in an urgent, or time sensitive situation. Let's say during a situation where quick medical care is needed, this site would be difficult to work with and not a good source of information during that time. Yet in most situations and settings this would prove to be a good source of data. 

The DRLA works to provide resilience to communities that have been impacted by a disaster according to their mission statement. They do so through leadership, humanitarianism, education and research. They work to increase leadership in these areas and help identify any weaknesses and vulnerabilities like social inequality and poverty. This program prides itself on its unique focus on leadership and providing programs in increasing resilience and leadership development in areas that have been effected. 

I further researched governmental policies on natural disasters as well as the agencies that were frequently discussed in the article such as FEMA. I also researched the general current state of New Orleans today in comparison to pre Hurricane and post Hurricane (within the first few years) conditions and then compared it with today. I also researched any forms of direct emergency response that occurred during the hurricane and after out of interest on the topic. 

The bibliography shows that there was an extensive amount of research done and that this article truly doesn't encompass most of the findings on this topic. There are studies dated back to the 40s as well as published by world renown experts on the study of disaster and its effects on mental health. There is also a great array of different types of publication types as well. The bibliography clearly shows an intense amount of work that went into putting this research article together. 

The report heavily discuss the effect that the radiation had on the people and environment around the plant. Not only is there a deep scientific analysis of the effects that the radiation had on local areas surrounding the plant, but conclusions as well as recommendations for future research as well as recommendations for countermeasures are also suggested and discussed. Health concerns of those exposed to radiation as well as amounts they were exposed to is discussed and measures those can take to counteract and protect themselves in the future.