Search

THe bibilography is made up mostly of other research articles and studies, suggesting this paper is more technical in nature than discussive. There is little to no opinion given, rather hard facts and statistics.

1. "Despite the overwhelming need for mental health services, few residents were able to access mental health support for their symptoms, simply because health care facilities and health care personnel were so scarce. Most health personnel were themselves experiencing the trauma of displacement, and few clinical facilities survived the disaster."
2. "...in the months following Katrina, that the suicide rate had tripled..."
3. "Lakeview, a predominantly Caucasian upper-middle class community, had perhaps made the most progress in rebuilding."
4. "However, for most urban poor residents, it became clear fairly soon after the disaster that they would not be welcomed back to the city."

Users for I've-Been-Violated just put in name, phone number, and email. It also documents location, sound, and video when you activate the service. 

The other two apps require registration with the system, though if you register for one, you aren't able to just use the same login for the other. The registration just asks for email and password. Not sure if it asks for more later, as the app was really glitchy when I tried.

Research using data from previous studies, interviews, and case studies helped the authors produce their claims. A strength to their methods is that they used anecdotes from not only doctors, but patients as well. Statistical data analysis also helped shape the argument about lack of mental health assistance and research. Their own professional capacity and knowledge also helped present their argument and formulate a cohesive, wholesome discussion.

The author is making the point that we are too caught up in the numbers and facts of medicine, and we need to go back to the narrative. The details that come with a patient's history and social actions contribute a great deal to outcome and treatment. The author supports this with several examples of cases he has had or heard of and how they changed his view of a treatment. 

The program is divided into three sub-programs: Radiation Disaster Medicine, Radioactivity Environmental Protection, and Radioactivity Social Recovery. The Radiation Disaster Medicine course is a four year PhD program, for those who already have professional degrees (medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, etc.) and master’s degrees (medical physics). The Radioactivity Environmental Protection course is a five year program for students who have completed a bachelors or masters in a related field. The Radioactivity Social Recovery course is a five year program for students with a bachelors or master’s. The curriculum is broken down into common subjects, specialized subjects, fieldwork, and internships. 

This article talks about the Chernobyl disaster and the sociopolitical factors that affect patient access to care. The author highlights the ways in which the government are able to intervene and effect the outcome of post disaster care and reaction. The author also uses her field research in the US, Russia, and Ukraine to not only compare the technology and radiology knowledge. She worked with resettled families and radiation-exposed workers in order to provide more information regarding their experience and how they were effected. 

"The Fukushima Effect: A New Geopolitan Terrain", edited by Richard A. Hindmarsh, Rebecca Priestley. 

“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)