Search

This article has been primarily referenced or discussed in other papers that discuss historical disasters. 

The article's bibliography contains a variety of scholarly articles built from those doing research in the field. The article is well developed and well supported. 

The primary view point of the film was from those directly affected by cancer from the polluted water or family members of those affected.  

The system was built to serve the general public.  This system was not only set up for the public use though, it is also used and produced by researchers. The researchers track the long term health effects 9/11 has had on those exposed.

The book from which this article was pulled has been referenced in multiple books and papers in regards to immigration policy. 

The main argument of this article is that there needs to be more of a focus on emergency response to nuclear disasters and less directed toward nuclear safety and that safety/emergency response should take a higher priority than company trademarks. She claims that nuclear emergency response should be more of an international response and less of a single nation response. 

The article establishes background information as to what a "narartive" of an illness is and how patients perceive their illnesses. The article makes use of an example of patients stories who suffer from epilepsy in Ankara and it uses statistics from studies in the Ankara region.

The study used ultrasound to detect if there was cancerous masses in the subjects thyroid. If cancer was detected subjects underwent surgerical treatments.