Search

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.

This article primarily discusses the mental illnesses associated with disasters whether they be natural or instigated by humans. The article looks at mental illnesses themselves, such as PTSD, MDD, and substance abuse, and also the groups at risk for these mental illnesses. The article also breaks down the factors pre, peri, and post the disaster that can contribute to mental illness of victims, and what emergency response providers can do/provide in order to reduce these risks of mental illness. 

I have not found any opinions in the news about the program but several other educational institutions have released announcements about the program appearing to be advertisements.

The argument/narrative is made and sustained by the use of Sgt. Ensminger's back story and the stories of other Marine's and their families. The film includes interviews with chemist who tested the base's water supply in the 1980's, Senate and House committee meetings, testimony from USMC Colonel, and current chemical investigations at military bases.