Search

The main argument is supported primarily with a detailed description of the events surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster on March 11th, 2011 as an example of the need for a specilized group to respond to nuclear emergencies. Schmid also supports the effectiveness of such a group by tracing the recent shift in opinion away from an accident prevention mindset to the idea that nuclear disasters are a risk in the nuclear industry and therefore plans for the effective response to future nuclear disasters must be made in order to mitigate the damage caused. Several other works addressing similar problems in risk management, such as Risk Society by Ulrich Beck, as also cited to support the main argument.

The article’s main argument is that the narration of an illness is founded in the emotional connection it has to the sufferers life, the place from which they view the illness which includes individual and cultural aspects. Furthermore any lack of factual accuracy is an indicator of the social and cultural environment in which the illness presents itself and is revealing as to how it will be perceived and treated.

The main argument is that susceptibility to certain diseases is not only determined by biology but also social conditions, leading to a disproportionate disease rate among the poor, and minority groups without access to medical services. The author shows that addressing these social conditions leads to a decrease in disease when combining treatment and prevention plans.

The film was educational in its own way, without using data or an excess of science to attempts to prove its point. I believe its educational value is in the simplicity of the message being presented and that adding explanations or scientific background for the grief process would detract from the films emotional impact.