Search

CITIZEN SCIENCE

Epistemic negotiation

Stakeholders (indigenous groups, activist, scientist, scholars, etc)

There is a lot of discussion about emergency response in this paper, mainly on a global level. The current protocols in place are analyzed in terms of threat response, but also preventative measure and preparedness that is needed. Global health is widely discussed and the lack of emergency response seen in terms of AIDS, flu and smallpox in world history. The need for improvements in the biodefense response is analyzed. 

The registry is funded with federal tax dollars. New York City itself has funded specific projects for the registry research, for example the respiratory study of Lower Manhattan. The registry is hosted by NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene but is mostly paid for by federal taxes. 

It is important to note that this is the third chapter of the book, so when looking up the bibliography online, it was determined that for the entire book, there were hundreds of citations and references used. Most of them were studies, articles and other works ranging over years and years, done by experts in the field. There were also a lot of press articles and studies from foreign countries as well. This all showing an extensive and thorough amount of research that went into this book. 

http://14.139.206.50:8080/jspui/bitstream/1/2057/1/Fassin,%20Didier%20%…

Vincanne Adams is a PhD at UCSF School of Medicine, she's the former Director and Vice-Chair of Medical Anthropology and History and Social Medicine. Her areas of research and publications include: Global Health, Asian Medical Systems, Social Theory, Critical Medical Anthropology, Sexuality and Gender, Safe Motherhood and Disaster Recovery, Tibet, Nepal, China and the US. Van Hattum works at the Louisiana Public Health Institute and Diana English is a professor at Stanford hospital. They all deal with populations that are effected my disaster and are disadvantaged economically and socially. 

http://profiles.ucsf.edu/vincanne.adams

In terms of first responders, not much of this policy will effect them due to the fact that issues such as insurance and medicaid are not really an issue handled by EMS. The only thing I can think of is how this might effect a patient possibly worrying about insurance and wanting to refuse EMS services due to money issues. This might also play a role in where patients are taken as well, but more likely not since no matter what their insurance, etc is, they'll be transported to the hospital of their choice or depending on their condition, cardiac arrest-->closest hospital.

This article has been cited in 85 different papers according to Google scholar. Most of the works it has been cited in are about societies in distress and biological  citizenship. 

The author uses data from the chain of events and steps taken in response to the disaster in Fukushima along with recollection of the event. She analyzes and collects data about how previous situations similar to the one in Japan and involving nuclear fallout were handled and compared those reactions of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to the reactions that followed Japan's disaster. She also analyzes responses that leaders had in those nations as well as the public and the new policies that arose from those different situations. She pooled data about the reactions of the public, leaders, law and policies and responses. She then uses that data to develop a plan for possible emergency responses as well as support her argument.