Search

The article appears to produced from numerous studies and research articles with data, as mentioned above, from sources like the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Emergency response does not appear to be specifically mentioned, instead the factors that could lead up to epidemics and disasters are studied. The conditions in the aftermath of disasters were also studied.

The policy was drafted by Governor Cuomo as well as the NYS DOH

I'm not sure what this question is asking. The situation was clearly worsened by the EPA allowing people to move back into their homes following the collapses and no reference to damage control was made in this article.

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

The report was published by L'institut de hautes études internationales et du développement on revues.org

The only major complaint in regards to the plan that I have found is that it costs the designated ebola treatment hospitals significant amounts of money for appropriate waste disposal of PPE used during treatment.

Legislation including the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act and the Snyder Act are the bases on which the IHS was founded. The passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act by President Obama is the cornerstone of the IHS, however no single event seems to shape the agency's way of approaching health.

This article brings Newark’s water contamination problem up, specifically the amount of lead found in recent studies. Newark’s water was found to have three times the amount of acceptable lead in its tap water, but no specific locations were give as to what places are being affected by this contamination. Newarks Water Department will be required to take actions such as testing public school water supplies, changing lead pipe lines, and maintaining more accurate maintainence schedules and records. By holding people accountable, Newark is changing its vulnerability towards water contamination 

One argument presented is that public engagement leads to increased vigilance and emergency preparedness. Nuclear emergency response should not be governed by one elite body of scientists. Information should be crowd sourced from the public to increase awareness and transparency and lead to more ideas as well as public support. Another argument presented is that risk prevention has historically been the focus of governing bodies instead of risk acceptance and emergency response. A nuclear reactor being placed near the ocean is more fiscally responsible but natural disasters are unavoidable, regardless of the amount of risk prevention that has been taken. Instead, the focus should be on emergency response after natural disaster strikes. Safety is also sometimes substituted for profitability.