Gulf Coast Overflights for Environmental and Disaster Monitoring
Various flights with SouthWings to document Gulf Coast infrastructure and pollution.
Various flights with SouthWings to document Gulf Coast infrastructure and pollution.
The app is from ISCE, and has some "offline servers" (whatever that means) that it stores information on. The app is sold through the apple app store.
The assessments that patients take are not visible to the public so I can not elaborate on it. This is what is quoted from the company’s website about the “Easy Clinical Screenings”:
“Patients take digital, gamified mental health assessments conveniently on their mobile device to learn their actual diagnosis and become more self aware. Providers can deploy customized assessment questions specific to each patient. Patients can see their charted progress over time. Assessments are reimbursable by insurers.”
The author based their research on personal experience as a physician and writer. His examination of how doctors write about their patients and publish in journals can be taken as accurate, sue simply to experience.
Funding appears to come from the university, along with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
1) The effects from the initial accident are recounted from the past history.
2) The healthcare system that deals with treating these patients are investigated.
3) The politics revolving around the first and second arguments form the third way that the author supports their argument.
1) “Mismanagement was not the only charge mounted against the Japanese Utility that operated the reactors at Fukushima Diichi, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). In the aftermath of the disaster, international media charged workers at the plant, alternatingly, with a lack of expertise to handle the situation adequately, and with a lack of courage, when they retreated temporarily under the threat of dangerously high radiation levels.”
2) “But emergency preparedness is hardly ever considered ‘good enough’ in retrospect, especially after a disaster in which so many lives were lost or shattered.”
3) “Within the nuclear industry, an almost exclusive emphasis on accident avoidance has given way to a new strategy of accident preparedness and response.”
The shift in thought from prevention to response is well supported as a necessary move. This can obviously be seen by the occurrence of these accidents despite adequate regulation. Nuclear energy is a promising, but dangerous thing, and can quickly become disastrous despite efforts to maintain control. This was seen in the accident at Fukushima, following the earthquake and resulting tsunami in the region. Despite preparation for such an event and the existence of backup generators and batteries, responders were rendered useless in the efforts as they could not access the area. This is where the need for a prepared system of nuclear response is needed. Historically, such emergency response groups have been poorly resourced and short-lived, such as the Soviet Spetsatom developed after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. This group, which focused on preserving lessons learned and developing response systems, was absorbed by a larger ministry with the goal of integrated disaster response.
Additionally, the author cites a number of factors that played a role in creating the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster, such as “environmental, social, and technical systems” that, due to their complexity and separate protocol, resulted in lack or preparedness for the disaster. Following the disaster, the response efforts were delayed by this lack of preparation, and the media called out TEPCO and the Japanese government for this. STS analysis is important in this aftermath as much as in the creation of the initial plan. By utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, the media (and the people) can be heard and used to reform existing policies, or create new ones. This establishes a continuously evolving system of response that can adapt and take into account many different view of disaster relief.
The author conducted his research by personal experience and reference to case examples.
This organization seeks to promote the use of nuclear technology which creates an inherent bias in how it looks at nuclear disasters. On one side, it does not want any nuclear accidents and wants to promote safe nuclear use as disasters cause the public to be less favorable towards nuclear. On the other hand, in the event of a nuclear incident, the IAEA is biased against being too critical of the nuclear industry when assigning blame, as it did with the Fukushima incident.