Search

This gas leak took place in Bhopal, India and I think that the location has an important impact on the aftermath of the situation. After the gas leaked people protested to be compensated for their lost ones but many died before they were able to be justified. I feel that if this happened in America, circumstances would have been different, there would have been more media coverage, and action would be taken more swiftly. The location of this occurrence had an impact with how it was handled after and if it had occurred some place else then it would have been different. 

This film focuses on the environmental and social problem of having large gas (lethal) plants near cities or other populated areas where people can be harmed. Environmentally these gasses are no good because they are emitted into the air and are very soluble in the water which leads to ocean acidification. Ocean acidification makes it so that the ocean has a lower pH level, this can harm marine wildlife. Socially, the gas is toxic to people and as seen in the Bhopal tragedy, it can kill people or severely alter their lives. This could be seen through the immediate deaths of civilians, deformities of children born after the incident, and the families affected even years after hoping for justice.

From watching the video, I feel affected emotionally because it was definitely hard to watch so many people die, especially the innocent children. It is a hard pill to swallow to watch the lives of so many people taken away from them so unexpectedly in their own homes. I feel affected by seeing the photo of the unknown child because it was hauntingly touching as it was for so many people that advocated for justice after this tragedy. It was also really daunting seeing so many people being buried and burned in mass because they were not granted the ability to be respectfully honored for their death which I think is something very valuable. Intellectually I think that this film made me think about how this tragedy could have been possibly prevented if the plant had been maintained and checked up on regularly or if the plant wasn’t so close to a whole city in the first place. And I also feel gratitude to those who are still advocating for justice for the victims and trying to get people with government power to make that change.

1) I looked into how other countries that faced significant disaster dealt with their displaced populations. (http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/situation-of-the-evacuees)

2) Next, I researched the American Psychological Association’s views on mental health and disasters. (http://www.apa.org/topics/disasters/)

3) Lastly, I looked into “price gouging” during and after natural disasters and both sides of the argument. Pros: (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-mccaffrey/5-reasons-price-gouging-is-okay_b_3487621.html) and cons: (https://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/pricegou.html)

The main focus of the article is mental health issues resulting in the aftermath of a major disaster. Mental health is rarely discussed in these types of environments but persists long after the dust has settled and the houses rebuilt. This article seeks to explore the current state of mental health care in disaster environments.

The points I followed up on to get a better understanding of disaster aftermaths, especially ones involving nuclear technology were: 1) Fukushima 2) Three Mile Island and 3) more research into the Chernobyl incident through other articles.

How did it happen (complete failure of cooling and reactors exploding)?

                Although the earthquakes killed workers and wreaked havoc on the region, Japans’ nuclear plants were not compromised by the quakes. It was only the tsunami that caused Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, & 3’s power and backup power to fail, allowing the meltdown to take place. (world-nuclearworld-nuclear.org)

Why was radioactive water released (purposely) into the ocean as stated in the article?

                I found that although radioactive water was never “purposely” released into the ocean, it was known that it would likely end up there due to the failed ocean barrier wall. The water came from the necessity of cooling the overheated plants to prevent further meltdown and further contamination. The good news is that by 2012 the water within the Fukushima area was considered non-toxic to humans and aquatic species that live there. However, less is known about the effects on the ocean floor, where the radioactive matter is collecting in the sediment. (cnn.com)

What (if anything) has been done to further an international response team/plan for nuclear emergencies?

While my research turned up little results for international response development, countries have been developing their own response teams. China will have a national nuclear response team by the end of 2018 which will be made up of over 300 individuals and will meet the requirements for an international response team. This makes sense since China has more nuclear power plants than any other country in the world and expects to double its nuclear output over the next few decades. (firedirect.net)