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_1474152409

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

The article highlights public health security and "biosecurity" in the context of large scale efforts/interventions in response to public health threats. Various frameworks have been proposed and implemented to analyze and respond to the new range of pathogenic threats. These take form as research groups, global health initiatives, legislation and emergency preparedness plans. The article proposes looking at biosecurity with an STS multidisciplinary approach (though not explicitly stated as such) and has separated biosecurity into four unique domains. These are emerging infection disease, bioterrorism, cutting-edge life-sciences, and food safety. These all overlap throughout the article. The article further highlights the faults of the "public health" approach and emphasized the trend towards a preparadness model.

pece_annotation_1475447818

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

The author cites a number of cases in which the law proved difficult to enforce. One example is seen when looking at the difference in residency application acceptance rates between different locales/prefects. The much larger and metropolitan areas would accept down to 47% of the applications, indicating a possibly fair division of candidates reviewed. Other more rural areas would accept over 90% of the applications, showing almost no distiguishment between ailments. The question becomes whether this is reflective on the doctors' judgements of "serious ailment" given location, the political beliefs of the prefect, or simply the lack of caring whether someone emmigrates or not. Another example of the flaws in this law is highlighted by a personal anecdote from a patient. The patient was given a diagnosis when originially coming to France on a personal visa. They were told their condition was quite serious and would require ongoing care. However, when the doctor who diagnosed him was asked to sign for evaluation for the residency permit, the doctor changed his diagnosis to something much less serious. The political thought behind the poicy came into play and interrupted the normal proceedings, tearing doctors between their obligations to the law (and only allow exceptional cases) and to medicine (and err on the side of caution).  

The author also highlights the development of this law and its effects in three stages. Pre-1990: Serious illness was a factor in residency completely at the discretion of local government. Immigrants were seen as workers and they served that purpose only. If a worker was sick, they were of no use to society. 1990-1998: Illness was more often factored into the decision making process, but those allowed to stay received no paid employment or social wellfare benefits. Post 1998: Written into law, ill immigrants were allowed to stay with the opportunity for pay and legal status in France. 

pece_annotation_1476986440

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

Emily Goldmann is an Assistant Research Professor at NYU in the College of Global Public Health. Her research primarily focuses on the social and environmental factors affecting mental health. She has written several articles on the mental health conditions in soldiers, which can sometimes be extended to emergency responders in disaster zones. 

Sandro Galea is a professor and dean at Bostom University and former Chair of Epidemiology at Columbia University. He formerly was an emergency physician and served with MSF. His research primarily focuses on the causes of mood and anxiety disorders in realtion to urban populations. He also talks on inequality in health care and the consequences of traumatic events on specific populations.

pece_annotation_1480364600

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

That is a very good question, I have seen reviews of it, but never about it actually being used for the intended purpose. Thats not surprising given the subject content. As a college student, I personally would be offended and more or less turned off if my partner decided to pull out their phone and record consent on it while we were going for it. Thats probably why its hard to find any good reviews...

pece_annotation_1472831256

ciera.williams
Annotation of
In response to

Emergency response is discussed in the context of a world post- Fukushima and the lessons learned from the incident. The article brings to discussion the pros and cons of an international nuclear emergency response team, which currently is non-existent. The paradigm has long been to focus on accident avoidance and regulation to prevent such disasters. The author cites several existing agencies (internationally) and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission as possible sources of knowledge and resources for the development of an internationally united response team, specializing in nuclear disaster relief.

They also emphasize the need for an interdisciplinary effort in creating and maintaining such a team. Researchers, operators, and policy-makers alike have a stake in the success of relief efforts, and thus should all be involved in creating the team. And not only does the effort have to be multidiscplinary, but international, which brings about questions of funding, protocols, and jurisdiction. Also, who will join, and where will they receive the necessary training needed for specific response? These are all challenges that need to be addressed prior to the creation of the team.