Search

While there was criticism of the policy (see the Washington Post's rebuttal), the policy appeared to be well received until implementation of quarantine for returning health care workers. This, and the backlash, caused the policy to be revised and invited confusion about guidelines. Leaders may have lost political points by staying firm with their guidelines, but chose to revoke their initial decisions-- leading to confusion and worry in the general population. 

The program collaborates with international universities, private companies, international organizations (including the IAEA), and I assume receives funding as such.

Preston's article mentions the EPA still had not formulated and enacted a plan for cleanup-- it should be noted the year of publication was 2006. She claims "After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning". Moreover, in the 10 years since publication, several studies have indicated increased public health risks and chronic illness prevalence in populations near the disaster zone. It seems the approach of sit-and-wait did nothing but exacerbate the issue, leading me to believe this will serve as a symbol in any future pollutant-laden disasters.