Search

Outside of this class and STS 6834 at Virgina Tech, it was difficult to find other places where this article was referenced. Because the article was published as part of a collection of articles related to this same topic, I assume that those who purchase the book for educational and research purposes read and discus the article at some length.

“More than 20 years ago, social scientists Harry Otway and Brian Wayne cautioned that accident prevention (safer designs, better operator training, etc. , but even more so emergency planning, faced significant economic and managerial hurdles.”(p199)

“Nuclear accidents have tended to trigger organizational reform with regard to nuclear emergency response, but not on an international level. In considering this problematic ground, where might we start to develop a global approach to nuclear disaster mitigation?”(p200)

“The specific kinds of highly specialized knowledge involved with operation nuclear reactors however may not be accessible to broad public debate to the same degree as, for example, evacuation policies. But in the interest of sustainable, socially legitimate solutions, arguably decisions about even the technical responses to disasters should not be left to scientists and engineers alone, whether they are based within the nuclear industry, a regulatory bod, or a nongovernmental organization.”(p196)

“For all its undeniable flaws, the nuclear industry worked for several decades- in Japan and elsewhere. That is also the truly frightening realization after Fukushima: this disaster was not ‘waiting to happen’, but occurred in a system that had been functioning reasonable well for quite some time.”(p198)

“…The Way Forward is embedded in a technocratic rationality that seeks an effective ‘technical fix’ for reducing the risk of a nuclear disaster to manageable proportions. That misses the less tangible social expertise and improvisational skills inevitable involved in any successful disaster response.” (p206)

The citations ranged widely. Many of the citations at the beginning of the article seemed to not be related to treatment as much as they were to social issues. There were also several articles that the authors referenced that the authors had written previously. Finally, there were also articles relating to treatment and statistics based on different treatment strategies on micro- and macro-scales. These citations show that the authors may have a decent support in social reform. I'm not sure how common it is to cite your own works as fact in academia, so I will withhold comment on that.

The American Red Cross uses the gold-standard products for most of its research and service. For disaster response, the ARC utilizes the good-will of its volunteers to address needs such as shelter, food, and health services. On the local level, chapters of the ARC have disaster action teams that respond to smaller emergencies and provide transition services to the victims of such emergencies. They also have a larger wokforce of volunteers to pull from and use for support services. 

"...responses to the problem of health and security are still taking shape" (p. 28)

" But in recent decades ... there has been an alarming shift in the 'elicate balance between humans and microbes.” (p. 7)

"The current concern with new microbial threats has developed in ... distinct domains: emerging infectious disease; bioterrorism; the cutting-edge life sciences; and food safety." (p. 9)

The authors are Stephen Collier, PhD and Andrew Lakoff, PhD. Dr, Collier is an associate professor of international affairs at UC Berkeley. He is an anthropologist by training, and focuses his research on a variety of political schools of thought and their applications. Dr, Lakoff is an associate professor of sociology and focuses his research globalization, biomedical innovation and the history of human sciences.