“Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site”
“By these actions," Judge Batts wrote, Mrs. Whitman "increased, and may have in fact created, the danger" to people living and working near the trade center.”
This group works with American natives and is a Federal agency so its conceptions of disaster and healthcare are politically based. This group's benefits focus on the needs of the native population assessed by information collected through the U.S. Census and other surveys.
I looked up how emergency responders deal with mental health, since the method that was described in this article is no longer recommended. I also investigated the types of disaster that people around the world face each year, besides for weather disasters. Furthermore, I looked at a map of the types of disasters across the globe.
The pdf did not include the bibliography, however I would assume that a lot of the scientific information came from other, more medical/chemical rather than sociological, Chernobyl research.
The article does not directly address emergency response, however it did address medical stories as being helpful to the public to feel supported and reach out when they realized they had a psychological condition. This is important in society, because if someone can get treated for something, or at least know they have it an take precautions, then they help themselves feel more comfortable and be more successful, they reduce the strain on those around them, and they make it easier for healthcare providers, if there is ever a related issue.
The author states a background in STS studies, futher work with organization, disasters, and sociocultural risk studies.
I looked up other cases of EMTs having to intervene with police, typical ways police help on medical calls, and how police are trained to deal with being spit on.
They started in 1987, and since then have been helping with one crisis after the other. Tuberculosis in 1989, womens health, HIV, and many others. They expanded and learned with each project.
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.
Data comes in post form, with the titles and a small blurb and you can click for the whole article. There are tags for each post and they are sorted into folders/categories as mentioned previously.