Search

1)  “Mismanagement was not the only charge mounted against the Japanese Utility that operated the reactors at Fukushima Diichi, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). In the aftermath of the disaster, international media charged workers at the plant, alternatingly, with a lack of expertise to handle the situation adequately, and with a lack of courage, when they retreated temporarily under the threat of dangerously high radiation levels.”

                2) “But emergency preparedness is hardly ever considered ‘good enough’ in retrospect, especially after a disaster in which so many lives were lost or shattered.”

                3) “Within the nuclear industry, an almost exclusive emphasis on accident avoidance has given way to a new strategy of accident preparedness and response.”

7. The article’s bibliography is extensive, this points out that there was time and effort put in place to gather the proper evidence in order to prove their argument. There is also a lot of supporting evidence, proving that the argument is valid.

The author conducted his research by personal experience and reference to case examples.

This organization seeks to promote the use of nuclear technology which creates an inherent bias in how it looks at nuclear disasters. On one side, it does not want any nuclear accidents and wants to promote safe nuclear use as disasters cause the public to be less favorable towards nuclear. On the other hand, in the event of a nuclear incident, the IAEA is biased against being too critical of the nuclear industry when assigning blame, as it did with the Fukushima incident. 

Routes of user engagement include an account customizable features, search engine, a mobile app (text and video chat enabled) as well as a wearable tracker feature.

The main argument of the article is that humanitarian efforts are far behind progress when it comes to gender violence due to politics, stereo types, and prioritization. 

This study addresses vulnerable populations by identifying the factors are that make one vulnerable. These factors are: loss of shelter, location of housing, access to clean water and sanitation, disruption to utilities, environmental changes, population displacement, health services, and response systems.

I found the part where the healthcare worker relates to the difficulty of his position most compelling and persuasive. A man on the burial team talks about some of the challenges he faced. He says that they are in denial about the disease. For example, a man’s wife died from the disease. They took the body and marked the room with the health tattoo, do not enter and barricaded the door. A health team was tasked to disinfect the building but the moment they left the husband bust the door down and went inside. He died as well. “You see the challenges? You tell people, don’t do this, they pass behind you go do it, don’t do this, they say we are eating free money, the government is lying”.

                I was probably influenced by the fact that I am a healthcare worker and while not the same situation, I can relate to his dilemma. 

The report's bibliography, while not directly presented, can presume to be very extensive. The atuhor needs evidence to support her argument as well as her field work. Backround knowledge also needs to be supported.

The audience the film best addresses is the public who knew about the nuclear event, but were not informed to the extent of what had happened or its ramifications on the future.