Search

The report comes from the United Nations Science Committee's 60th meeting during May of 2013. It informs the general assembly of radiation effects experienced after the Fukushima nuclear disaster by both human and biological life. 

Information provided by the AWSD (Aid Worker Security Database), there were 251 individual attacks in 2013. This, and the subsequent 460 workers involved or affected, is in no way separated according to the aid work the individuals participated in. Thus, all 251 attacks may have been aimed at health care clinics, but only 50 of those injured may have been health care workers; the rest may have been members of peacekeeping forces. Further more, which members of the health care system are being harmed is extremely useful in future aid endeavors. Knowing who is targeted or particularly vulnerable could make the difference in the next incident.

Moreover, any data that is available can be difficult or complicated to obtain. Outside of the nuances of procuring data from different corporations or foundations, many organizations have individual categories for reporting incidents. They may even have different definitions of attacks and incidents-- eerily similar to how German and US officials view sexual assault in different lenses (German officials may often be disinclined to act unless penetration occurs, while US officials have been known to prosecute or bring charges for offenses such as groping).

These definition differences may also lead to an under reporting of incidents. While most available data contains information about abductions or fatalities, very little data can be accessed pertaining to threats or obstructions. This may also color how and what aid workers report; knowing that an incident did not culminate in a kidnapping or death may lead workers to be less inclined to report these issues, for fear of not being taken seriously. Aid workers may also feel that, during some stressful circumstances, reporting something that could be constituted as "mild" would only be a waste of time and resource. 

1) Partners In Health: Mostly known for its work within Haiti and its attempts to alter WHO tuberculosis protocols, this agency appears to be spreading into other international protocols as well. It would be interesting to see what other areas and epidemics they are currently focusing on. 

2) Breast feeding is cited as being a factor of mother to child (MTC) HIV/AIDs transmission. For whatever reason, there seems to be a certain fixation with the "Breast is best" ideology. I would be interested to see where and why this ideal started.

3) As is discussed in the article, the PIH model heavily relies on instituting proximal healthcare into these areas. This, within itself, seems to have a huge impact on serving needy areas. It would be interesting to see how mobile clinics and proximal care during an ongoing disaster effect patient outcomes and care.

1) DOTs: I chose to look into the TB-control program cited by Paul Farmer and several other global health experts. While this is a minute detail, it seems to be a program which encompasses everything wrong with our current model of biosecurity.

2) Doctors without Borders: Despite reading about this organization multiple times, I've yet to do in-depth research on its goals and capabilities. Recent information seems to indicate DWB (or MSF) struggles to be effective in a long-term way in many of its projects.

3) BSE and food safety: It's been quite a while since mad cow disease has reared its misfolded protein head, but it remains a speck on the public health radar. How agencies balance BSE outbreaks and public opinion can often indicate their level of success, both in terms of job fulfillment and ability to minimize public panic.