Search

I'm interested in better understanding the ongoing geological processes that shape St. Louis and the Mississippi Valley region. So far, I've been looking into the history of seismicity in the region, focusing on the fascinating but little known history of the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811 and 1812 -- the most devastating earthquakes to have hit the US east of the Rockies. I've also been exploring how St. Louis and surrounding areas are dealing with the possibility of another earthquake occurring in the future. According to one article I read, one of the biggest uncertainties is what would happen to the heavily engineered Mississippi River in the case of another major tremblor. The shaking could break the levees, flooding wide areas along the river and creating cascading effects. The flow of the river might also reverse completely, as occurred during the New Madrid earthquakes.

On these possibilities and the lack of scientific consensus surrounding intraplate seismicity in this zone, see this article in The Atlantic.

On current efforts to create earthquake hazard maps in St. Louis, see this overview on the US Geological Survey site.

For a deeper dive into the history of the New Madrid earthquakes, see this book by historian of science Conevery Bolton Valencius. 

The report was published by L'institut de hautes études internationales et du développement on revues.org

This policy directly affects first responders and technical professionals as they will be the ones interacting with patients and following the protocols outlined in this plan. First responders are required to recognize and report suspected ebola incidents, use appropriate PPE, and transport to appropriate facilities if feasible.

The IHS is funded by Congress after being reviewed by The House, Senate, and Congressional committees annually. A budget is formulated by a division within the IHS for approval each year. This means that their way of thinking about disaster and health must be approved by Congress, since they are a Federal agency.

The program collaborates with international universities, private companies, international organizations (including the IAEA), and I assume receives funding as such.

I have not found any opinions in the news about the program but several other educational institutions have released announcements about the program appearing to be advertisements.

The report addresses disaster and health in how it describes actors' emergency response to the initial disaster as adequate but states the aid supplied does not allow progress to occur. The victims of the disaster were given temporary shelter in tents, but many still live in tents at the time of this report being written. These conditions led to a cholera outbreak which the actors did not seem to care about or provide aid for.

No references are provided so it is unknown how the author obtained their information. They reference "EPA estimates" of how much pollutants were kicked up into the air after the collapse of the towers but no official reference is provided. Quotes are also provided from various government and EPA officials.

I could not find any opinions of this agency in regards to what is challenging in dealing with disaster or health.

One argument presented is that public engagement leads to increased vigilance and emergency preparedness. Nuclear emergency response should not be governed by one elite body of scientists. Information should be crowd sourced from the public to increase awareness and transparency and lead to more ideas as well as public support. Another argument presented is that risk prevention has historically been the focus of governing bodies instead of risk acceptance and emergency response. A nuclear reactor being placed near the ocean is more fiscally responsible but natural disasters are unavoidable, regardless of the amount of risk prevention that has been taken. Instead, the focus should be on emergency response after natural disaster strikes. Safety is also sometimes substituted for profitability.