Search

Dr. Peter Kramer- a clinical professor of psychiatry at Brown University. Author of the article. 

This is a program targeted to students with bachelors, masters, or professional degrees who desire to protect people from the various consequences of nuclear disasters. 

The way that countries and the world address nuclear emergencies is addressed in this article. Currently there is no central international response resources or authority. Because of the rarity of nuclear catastrophic nuclear emergencies, there are few pockets of professionals with field experience with dealing with these types of emergencies. Japan greatly lacked the assistance of these people during this disaster. These things all contribute to a less optimal emergency response. By addressing these issues the quality of response to nuclear emergencies can be greatly increased.

The information used to produce and support the arguments made in the article comes from a number of articles and reports, as well as interviews. For example, the author communicated with the former scientific director of Spetsatom and used that information to form a better image of the situation post-Chernobyl. This information could then be contrasted to other disasters and the organizations formed in the aftermath. The author could then use research papers as a source for statistical data, as well as scientific reports as a basis for the disaster’s existence and its implications. These all together are used to form an interdisciplinary view of disaster relief, and the steps needed to prevent and respond to another nuclear disaster.

    The article: “Structural Violence and Clinical Medicine” was written by Paul E Farmer, Bruce Nizeye, Sara Stulac, and Salmaan Keshavjee. Paul Farmer is an anthropologist and physician who works professionally as a humanitarian healthcare worker in impoverished nations, physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital Division of Social Medicine and Health Inequalities, Professor at Harvard University, and cofounder of Partners In Health. Bruce Nizeye is a Director of the Program on Social and Economic Rights. Sara Stulac is a Director of Pediatric Programs at Inshuti Mu Buzima, in Rwanda, and Partners In Health’s deputy chief medical officer. Salmaan Keshavjee is also a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, an instructor at Harvard’s Department of Medicine, and a specialist at Partners In Health on tuberculosis.

                It is important to understand the work of Partners in Health (PIH) is to assist underdeveloped countries build high quality healthcare systems, when talking about the authors’ work.

This report contains five main topics: the radioactive contamination of the environment, environmental countermeasures and remediation, human exposure levels, radiation induced effects on plants and animals, environmental and radioactive waste management aspects of the dismantling of the Chernobyl shelter.

The largest challenge faced by the ARC seems to be organizing such a large group of volunteers for specific response. There are so many different pieces to disaster respones, and with mostly volunteers organizing things, a strong central leadership is needed, which seems to be lacking in the group as a whole. 

Andrew Lakoff is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Communication at the University of Southern California, Department of Sociology. His disciplines are: Social Theory, Medical Anthropology, and Cultural Anthropology.

Stephen Collier holds a Ph.D in Sociocultural Anthropology at the University of California Berkeley, Department of Department of Sociology. His disciplines are Social Policy, Social Theory, Social Theory, Foucault, and Neoliberalism. He was also Chair and Associate Professor at The New School, Department of International Affairs from 2003-2015.

Although they are not directly involved in emergency response, Stephen and Andrew have written extensively on the social aspects of medicine, especially in disaster scenarios. 

Interviews, data analysis, outside studies and research are all used to formulate the arguments in this article.

The rise and emergence of infectious diseases has led to a number of puclic health "scares" over the years. The creation of national and international frameworks, as well as focus groups, has brought the struggle of infectious diseases like AIDS to light. Looking at diseases with the combined inputs of governmental and philanthropic organizations has had a positive influence on the fight against them. In the realm of bioterrorism, many factors are at play. First is the terrorist act itself and the social issues that lead to a terrorist being created. Then there is themethod, which is the numerous diseases that can be weaponized. These diseases are researched at the government level as potential additions to the arsenal of weapons a country has. However, they are also used at the individual level. With highly educated individuals and any number of social ideologies, the risk for bioterrorism increases. By looking at bioterrorism through the lens of both a social expert and scientist, the roots of bioterrorism can be examined. 

The causes for these examinations are events that have had a largescale effect on multiple levels of expertise. These "focusing events" have a lot of factors and players, and thus require a lot of different views to analyze, as the article argues.