Search

The author of this article is Sonja D. Schmid.  Sonja has degrees in science, technology and society (STS) as well as experience in organizational theory, disaster social issues, and studied risk in relation to different societies and cultures throughout the world.

The report data covers from April 26th 1986 (the date of the disaster) to 2006 (the year the report was published).

The IAEA failed to properly prevent the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl incidents. After these events the IAEA started two conventions for notification and response to nuclear disasters. Since the Fukushima incident, the IAEA has evolved the way they approach disaster and health to include even the most outlandish scenarios and actively trains first responders how to deal with such occurrences.  (iaea.org)

Emergency response is not addressed in this article. But the information provided could be useful for disaster relief workers operating in evironments like these.

                The object of the study “Epidemics After Natural Disasters” by John T. Watson, Michelle Gayer, and Maire A. Connolly is to dispel common misconceptions about disasters and communicable diseases. Further, the study seeks to identify the real leading causes of diseases after a disaster: population displacement, clean water and facilities availability, the amount of crowding, the baseline health of the population, and the availability of healthcare to mitigate the disease risks to the population.

While most hospitals would provide stabilizing, lifesaving treatment to those that needed it, there were some that did not. This act really helps the good hospitals (the majority of them) that were already doing what this policy made law, but there were enough instances and examples of hospitals that were not, so the legislature acted. It is also important to note that this act was part of a larger bill (COBRA) that dealt with national healthcare and social security policy.