This program is offered on-campus at Columbia. There are Five Core Courses in Narrative Medicine (22 points) and the Research Methodology course (4 points), which is required for all students who have not taken a graduate-level course in research methodology.
The biggest stake holders in this are TEPCO, the Japanese Prime Minister, and the people of Japan are the largest stakeholders. There were many decisions made such as evacuation, releasing steam, pouring water, and leaving the fukushima fifty behind. Nobody was left without making a tough decision.
This article has implications for public health, as the treatment of people, rather than patients, is what is emphasized here.
The program is divided into three sub-programs: Radiation Disaster Medicine, Radioactivity Environmental Protection, and Radioactivity Social Recovery. The Radiation Disaster Medicine course is a four year PhD program, for those who already have professional degrees (medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, etc.) and master’s degrees (medical physics). The Radioactivity Environmental Protection course is a five year program for students who have completed a bachelors or masters in a related field. The Radioactivity Social Recovery course is a five year program for students with a bachelors or master’s. The curriculum is broken down into common subjects, specialized subjects, fieldwork, and internships.
"Data collection: Gather submissions from anyone, anytime, anywhere"
"Data management: Manage and triage reports with filters and workflows"
"Data visualization: Map submissions and chart what happened"
"Automatic alerts: Receive alerts about changes and update"
"Enterprise systems:Let our team help you build and scale your deployment"
“More than 20 years ago, social scientists Harry Otway and Brian Wayne cautioned that accident prevention (safer designs, better operator training, etc. , but even more so emergency planning, faced significant economic and managerial hurdles.”(p199)
“Nuclear accidents have tended to trigger organizational reform with regard to nuclear emergency response, but not on an international level. In considering this problematic ground, where might we start to develop a global approach to nuclear disaster mitigation?”(p200)
“The specific kinds of highly specialized knowledge involved with operation nuclear reactors however may not be accessible to broad public debate to the same degree as, for example, evacuation policies. But in the interest of sustainable, socially legitimate solutions, arguably decisions about even the technical responses to disasters should not be left to scientists and engineers alone, whether they are based within the nuclear industry, a regulatory bod, or a nongovernmental organization.”(p196)
“For all its undeniable flaws, the nuclear industry worked for several decades- in Japan and elsewhere. That is also the truly frightening realization after Fukushima: this disaster was not ‘waiting to happen’, but occurred in a system that had been functioning reasonable well for quite some time.”(p198)
“…The Way Forward is embedded in a technocratic rationality that seeks an effective ‘technical fix’ for reducing the risk of a nuclear disaster to manageable proportions. That misses the less tangible social expertise and improvisational skills inevitable involved in any successful disaster response.” (p206)
"The role of epidemiology in disaster response policy development" cites this epi study. This article addresses the role of epidemiology in informing policies after a disaster to mitigate ongoing exposures, provide care and compensation, and improve preparedness for future disasters. It uses our article to support the argument that epidemiology should be used for prep for disaster.