Search

I teach anthropology and environmental studies at Haveford College, just outside of Philly. Currently, I'm holed up in a cabin in the Adirondacks in upstate New York with several family members, including my spouse and 4 year old daughter and 3 dogs. I started working on disasters by accident, when one day in 2001 I was walking to class at NYU and saw the World Trade Center buildings on flames. I have known Kim for a few year and I contacted her to connect with folks around Covid-19 and its imacts.

I'm particularly intersted in issues of communal grief, mourning, and bereavement. Also, I'm interested in the religious response to Covid-19.

The article is largely a review/update on the state of the research being done into disaster-related mental health conditions. Thus all the support for the arguments is research based rather than example based. The author backs up their definition of disasters in three categories: natural, human-made nonintentional, and human-made intentional. These criteria affect the outcomes for the psyches of the victims, with the human-made disasters carrying more weight, particularily the intentional ones. 

PTSD has been continually supported in literature, and the author simply recites sources of research dating back to the Vietnam War. The WHO has since devleoped more detailed planning tools and treatment tools for victims of trauma. 

The authors also cite multiple levels of research into the risk factors for multiple mental health issues, regardless of and related to specific disasters. 

The app is from ISCE, and has some "offline servers" (whatever that means) that it stores information on. The app is sold through the apple app store. 

The author based their research on personal experience as a physician and writer. His examination of how doctors write about their patients and publish in journals can be taken as accurate, sue simply to experience. 

Funding appears to come from the university, along with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

The shift in thought from prevention to response is well supported as a necessary move. This can obviously be seen by the occurrence of these accidents despite adequate regulation. Nuclear energy is a promising, but dangerous thing, and can quickly become disastrous despite efforts to maintain control. This was seen in the accident at Fukushima, following the earthquake and resulting tsunami in the region. Despite preparation for such an event and the existence of backup generators and batteries, responders were rendered useless in the efforts as they could not access the area. This is where the need for a prepared system of nuclear response is needed. Historically, such emergency response groups have been poorly resourced and short-lived, such as the Soviet Spetsatom developed after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. This group, which focused on preserving lessons learned and developing response systems, was absorbed by a larger ministry with the goal of integrated disaster response.

Additionally, the author cites a number of factors that played a role in creating the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster, such as “environmental, social, and technical systems” that, due to their complexity and separate protocol, resulted in lack or preparedness for the disaster. Following the disaster, the response efforts were delayed by this lack of preparation, and the media called out TEPCO and the Japanese government for this. STS analysis is important in this aftermath as much as in the creation of the initial plan. By utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, the media (and the people) can be heard and used to reform existing policies, or create new ones. This establishes a continuously evolving system of response that can adapt and take into account many different view of disaster relief. 

Funding for the ARC comes from donations, selling of health and safety products designed by the red cross, and the selling of blood products collected by the red cross. 

The film largely plays on emotional appeals and drama. By documenting the interviews of the doctors, which often are about the other doctors, the viewers see just how hard it is to detach ones self from their work. There is a scene in which the doctors talk about how, despite all the issues they face in the medical setting, everything at the end of the day is about personal relationships. It even briefly touches on sex between the medical staff and how that contributes to the care given. Since the film is based on personal interviews, little to no scientific information is given about the disease and injuries seen; its all based on personal opinion. 

No bibliography found.