Much of the data gathered by Dr. Schmid comes from reports occuring in the aftermath of Fukushima. Additionally, Dr. Schmid appears to use multiple reviews of past nuclear emergencies and protocols. She uses these articles, international statements, policies, and current treaties to build her argument.
At this time, the group does not appear to have drawn any significant research nor produced any. I would be intrigued to see if medical personnel (such as emergency medicine residents doing their research fellowships) would have any interest in the group, their call volume, and patient outcomes.
"Third, we have seen that structural interventions can have an enormous impact on outcomes, even in the face of costeffectiveness analyses and the flawed policies of international bodies"
"These are not the tasks for which clinicians were trained, but they are central to the struggle to reduce premature suffering and death. The importance of structural interventions for the future of health care means that practitioners of medicine and public health must make common cause with others who are trained to intervene more proximally."
"Pioneers of modern public health during the nineteenth century, such as Rudolph Virchow, understood that epidemic disease and dismal life expectancies were tightly linked to social conditions"
"... it remains to be seen whether the 'nuclear village' [of STS scholars] is ready to collaborate in the international governance of nuclear emergencies" (Schmid, 207)
"... nuclear emergency preparedness has hardly gained traction." (Schmid, 200)
"In high-risk industries... safety sometimes gets pitted against profitability..." (Schmid, 199)
1) "Approaches based on preparedness may not be guided by rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Rather, they are aimed at developing the capability to respond to various types of potentially catastrophic biological events"
2) "This analytical approach, when turned to the field of biosecurity, makes neither broad prescriptions for the improvement of health and security, nor blanket denunciations of new biosecurity interventions. Rather, it examines how policymakers, scientists, and security planners have constituted potential future events as biosecurity threats, and have responded by criticizing, redeploying, or reworking existing apparatuses"
3) "But increased attention and funding to health preparedness by no means implies consensus around a single approach. The existing institutions of public health are not easily reconciled with the new demands and norms of health preparedness and there is considerable disagreement about the appropriate way to achieve preparedness."
The authors pulled information from a variety of sources and tools. They pulled from information procured by their non-profit, Partners in Health as well as from other research articles. Some of them are also on the ground level, treating and interacting with patients who are symptoms of their structural violence argument. These patients are able to provide first-hand information to the authors.
1) "The most bizarre, and perhaps most telling, moment in the hearing occurred when Rep Anthony D. Weiner of New York, addressing the panel of experts, asked for the person in charge of the investigation to raise his hand. When three hands went up..."
2) "Clashes over authority among powerful institutions both public and private, competition among rival experts for influence, inquiry into a disaster elevated to the status of a memorial for the dead: these are the base elements of the World Trade Center investigation. And yet, even a brief historical review shows us that these elements are not unique."
3) "They were not reassuring, or especially enlightening answers. Some things were already known."
Andrew Lakoff is an associate professor of anthropology, sociology, and communication at the University of Southern California, Berkeley. He expertise lies in the anthropology of science and medicine and the implications of biomedical innovations. He does not appear to be professionally situated in emergency response. He has only written on book on a macro scale titled, "Disaster and the Politics of Intervention," but he appears to have no further association or expertise in the field.
Stephen J. Collier is the chair of the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School in New York City. He is an expert in economic regulation, social welfare, and emergency management in Russia, the Republic of Georgia, and in the United States. He is currently researching the emergence of vital systems security in disaster policy, homeland security, and infrastructure protection. In this manner, he is related with emergency response. He also has a number of publications listed on his CV in relation to disaster response.
1) "In this new state of social world, the body of the immigrant has become illegitimate as labor force, since it is always suspected of deleteriously affecting the job market, but the body of the foreigner has found a new source of legitimacy through illness, which, under certain conditions of seriousness and impossibility of receiving treatment in the country of origin, makes it possible to obtain a residence permit on "humanitarian grounds."
2) "Yet the variation in medical opinions observed was due less to the form of the procedure than to the use the medical officer made of it."
3) "Evaluation of this criterion, however, was not the outcome of a unilateral decision by the examining doctor or the social worker. Foreigners and their families might also develop tactics once they knew how the system worked."