Search

Main argument

Anonymous (not verified)
In response to
Lee argues that EJ practice has long stagnated over an inability to properly define the concept of disproportionate (environmental and public health) impacts, but that national conversations on system racism and the development of EJ mapping tools have improved his outlook on the potential for better application of the concept of disproportionate impact. Lee identifies mapping tools (e.g. CalEnviroScreen) as a pathway for empirically based and analytically rigorous articulation and analysis of disproportionate impacts that are linked to systemic racism. In describing the scope and nature of application of mapping tools, Baker highlights the concept of cumulative impacts (the concentration of multiple environmental, public health, and social stressors), the importance of public participation (e.g. Hoffman’s community science model), the role of redlining in creating disproportionate vulnerabilities, and the importance of integrating research into decision making processes. Baker ultimately argues that mapping tools offer a promising opportunity for integrating research into policy decision making as part of a second generation of EJ practice. Key areas that Lee identifies as important to the continued development of more effective EJ practice include: identifying good models for quantitative studies and analysis, assembling a spectrum of different integrative approaches (to fit different contexts), connecting EJ research to policy implications, and being attentive to historical contexts and processes that produce/reproduce structural inequities.

pece_annotation_1474149950

Andreas_Rebmann
Annotation of
In response to

It was a new way of addressing disaster in 1971 when it was founded. 

“It’s simple really: go where the patients are. It seems obvious, but at the time it was a revolutionary concept because borders got in the way. It’s no coincidence that we called it ‘Médecins Sans Frontières.’”

pece_annotation_1474835380

Andreas_Rebmann
Annotation of
In response to

This article covers the investigation procedure following a tragedy, and how the outcomes of these investigations tend to be muddled due to factors outside of logic and reason. These influencing factors make it difficult to draw conclusions as to what contributing factors were most significant in the damage sustained during the tragedy, and how to best avoid them in the future. For this reason, it addresses how difficult it is to improve disaster-response when so little useful information can be gleaned from the modern investigatory procedure. 

pece_annotation_1476118377

Andreas_Rebmann
Annotation of
In response to

They use aggregated interviews wherein all or many of the survivors repeat the same issues with long term effects of the disaster.

They also study the socioeconomic longterm effects of the disaster by comparing New Orleans years later to the past, showing how permanent an effect the storm had despite eventual recovery.

They also used sociological surveys that showed widespread mental health disorders that developed throughout the survivor population in greater frequency than that of the normal population due to the events that occured.

pece_annotation_1473000117

Andreas_Rebmann
Annotation of
In response to

"This realization (of having to face Nuclear disasters) marks a major shift in our thinking about nuclear risk, away from accident prevention, and toward accident mitigation and more rigorous emergency preparedness."

"Severe nuclear accidents may thus require international instiutions to coordinate their mitigation."

"...the 'culture of control' (that is, attempts to regulate every last action of the operating staff) is too rigid to account for all imaginable situations... it would appear to be in the interest of voerall nuclear safety to log and learn from these incidents, rather than conceal them."