Hts Essay

Front 1

2. Using examples from either Chernobyl or the Fukushima nuclear power accident, define all three of these terms from Charles Perrow’s book, Normal Accidents: system accident, a tightly coupled system, incomprehensibility.

Back 1

A Normal Accident, or system accident, is when interactive complexity and tight coupling of a system results in multiple connected failures that have unexpected interactions. One example of a normal accident is the Fukushima Nuclear Accident that occurred in 2011. To understand how this is classified as a normal accident, it is important to understand the terms used in the definition of a normal accident.

Perrow explains that there are four levels in a system: a part, a unit, a subsystem, and the system itself. He gives the example of a valve as the part, a steam generator as the unit, a secondary cooling system as the subsystem, and a nuclear power plant as the system. So, the power plant is defined as a system. Perrow defines an accident as an unexpected interruption that interrupts the intended function. Because the function of the plant was interrupted, Fukushima is an accident by Perrow’s definition.

So, the accident of Fukushima qualifies as being a “system” and an “accident,” but to be classified as a system accident, one of the requirements is for the system to be complex. Complex systems involve unplanned or unexpected sequences and are either not visible or not immediately comprehensible. These are interactions that were not intentionally designed into the system and can be difficult for operators to understand and predict. Common mode connections, feedback loops, and a limited understanding of the process can contribute to complex interactions. The events of Fukushima constituted a complex system. The levels of water in the system were an important variable that was not visible. The events that occurred, such as the core melting, and the hydrogen explosions, were not planned by design. All of the generators being out, as well as the power being out is a highly unusual circumstance that was not accounted for in design. Thus, the events that lead to the evacuations were unfamiliar, unplanned, and unexpected sequences, and are determined to be complex rather than linear.

Finally, a system accident must be tightly coupled. Events can be loosely or tightly coupled. Loosely coupled events are independent of each other. Tightly coupled events are dependent events in which one event triggers the other. Many of the events in the Fukushima disaster were tightly coupled. The use of much of the equipment was tightly coupled to having electricity. The temperature of the core was tightly coupled to the RHR process and the amount of water in the core. The amount of steam was dependent on how often the valve was opened to release it.

Hint 1

-System Accident definition

-System

-Accident

-Complex

-Tightly Coupled

Front 2

3. Briefly outline how a small group working for the Tobacco Industry became the “Merchants of Doubt” to which the title refers.

Back 2

Oreskes clearly illustrates how the tobacco industry used doubt mongering to delay the regulation of tobacco products. Although researchers knew that secondhand smoke “contained more toxic chemicals than mainstream smoke” by the 1970’s, the tobacco industry successful prevented extensive regulation for decades. They attacked the science behind secondhand smoke, attacked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and made unsupported allegations. The government had a difficult time combating the tobacco industry’s multimillion dollar campaign against tobacco regulation.

In 1980, research showed that non-smoking workers in smoky offices had lung function similar to smokers. This study was heavily criticized, but all critics had links to the Tobacco Industry. In 1981, Takeshi Hirayama “showed that Japanese women whose husbands smoked had much higher death rates from lung cancer than those whose husbands did not.”2 Again, the Tobacco Industry worked to counter these claims. They hired a statistician who claimed that Hirayama’s work had a serious statistical error. In a different study, the tobacco industry claimed the study used incorrect significance levels, when they did not. The Tobacco Industry bullied the media to cover both sides, under the Fairness Doctrine which says that the media should cover controversial issues in a balanced way. The problem is that the issue of tobacco was not controversial, and the Tobacco Industry was working hard to make it appear that it was.

The tobacco industry attempted to undermine the EPA in order to delay tobacco regulation. In 1991, Phillip Morris described the main goal of the tobacco industry as being to “maintain the controversy…about tobacco smoke in public and scientific forums.”3 Fred Singer wrote a book entitled Bad Science: A Resource Book, which attacked the EPA. Singer said that “controlling smoke would lead toward greater regulation in general,” and claimed that protecting smoking rights was protecting an individual’s liberty. The book had no primary sources. One assertion it makes with no sources is that “undue regulation cost a family of four $1,800 per year.”5 The book attacked the EPA for not using peer-reviewed studies, which was untrue. Another argument the book makes against the EPA is that there is a “threshold” for secondhand smoke that should have been considered in the EPA’s analysis. Meaning that at a low enough level, secondhand smoke did not have a negative effect. But the science did not support this. The peer review for the EPA’s study on secondhand smoke actually suggested that the report underreported the effects of secondhand smoke on children. The EPA released a website combatting the tobacco industry’s claims, but the website did not get much traffic. The tobacco industry claimed to want “sound science,” but their real goal was to prevent any science that infringed on the tobacco industry.

In Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes describes many case studies of doubt mongering. Secondhand smoke was a persuasive case study because it clearly shows how the tobacco industry delayed the regulation of secondhand smoke.

Hint 2

hey

Front 3

4. From this list of 4, first describe each briefly, and then explain which one of these elements you believe is the most important in order to allow trust to thrive? Moral pressures, reputational pressures, institutional pressures and security systems.

Back 3

In Liars and Outliers, Bruce Schneier describes how trust and cooperation are necessary for human societies to exist and thrive. He discusses moral pressures, reputational pressures, institutional pressures, and security systems as societal mechanisms that enable trust. I will discuss these as they relate to the example of marriage.

Moral Pressures are one method of enabling trust. If you are married to a person, you know morally that you should not cheat. You also have a moral obligation to be a good spouse and supportive of your partner.

Reputation is one method that Schneier discusses that enables trust in societies. Societies need trust in order to function, but everyone is not trustworthy. Reputation serves as a way to distinguish who is trustworthy. A good reputation is important on multiple levels. If we want others to cooperate with us, we need a good reputation. If we know someone has a bad reputation, we are less likely to trust them. Reputations work on a personal and a business level. Companies have a reputation for being good or bad as well. Rituals, such as a marriage ceremony, signal commitment. It serves as a way to put reputation at stake. When you announce to your families and communities that you have wed, it allows the community to observe your actions. If your actions are not in accordance to being married, then your reputation is damaged.

Institutions are another method of enabling trust in societies. Institutional consequences are “formal, codified, and tangible.” They can be sanctions to discourage actions, or incentives to encourage actions.3 An incentive for people to get married is tax breaks. Tax breaks are given by the government and are very clearly a form of an institutional incentive. Another incentive would be health insurance for the spouse through the employer. This is more difficult to classify as an institutional incentive since it is not given through the government, but it is a form of an incentive.

Lastly, security systems also enable trust in societies. Schneier discusses a few different types of security systems, many of which are present for the case of marriage. One type he discusses is a preemptive intervention, which takes place before an attack and modifies the risks involved. A prenuptial agreement changes the risks involved in a marriage by predetermining how assets will be divided. This is a more agreeable arrangement for some. Instead of having to worry about what will happen in the event of a divorce, the security system allows peace of mind and certainty of what would happen. Interventions are described as a security system that “either make defection harder or cooperation easier.”4 An example of this for marriage is couples therapy, which would make cooperation easier. Recovery systems are defined as a security system that makes it “easier for the victim to recover from an attack.”5 For marriage, this corresponds with alimony. Alimony is a payment one spouse makes to another after a divorce. Traditionally, it is the man paying the woman because she has not been working and will make less money than the man.

I think that security systems offer the most important way to enable trust in society.

Hint 3

hey

Front 4

5. Explain the idea of “O for the P” mentioned in “Mountains Beyond Mountains.” Beyond the public health interventions in Haiti that the book focuses on, what is one way "O for the P" could be practiced in this country in the realm of public health or in addressing other social policies?

Back 4

Liberation theology preaches that the morality of a community is determined by how it treats its most vulnerable members. It describes oppression of the poor as “institutionalized sin,” and asserts that the community and the church has an obligation to protect the poor. Haitians have a phrase that translates to “God gives but doesn’t share,” meaning that it is the responsibility of people to distribute the wealth that God provides. Farmer shortens the term “preferential option for the poor” to “O for the P,” which Kidder refers to several times throughout the book.

A theme of the book is the interconnectedness of poverty, illness, food, water, and education. To discuss public health, all of these issues must be discussed as well. For example, Haitians did not feel that the establishment of a school was out of place amongst the homelessness and hunger. A Haitian woman explains “a lot of us wondered what would have happened if we had known how to write.”

There are two specific scenarios that Farmer discusses of the poor Haitians being taken advantage of. The first is during the outbreak of swine fever in Africa. The United States fears a decrease in the American pork industry, and destroys all of the Creole pigs in Haiti. The U.S. replaced the Creole pigs with pigs from Iowa that were “much more delicate, much more expensive to house and feed, and they didn’t thrive.”6 In a country where people on average earn “little more than one American dollar a day,” it is easy to understand that pigs have a high value in Haiti.7 By destroying the Creole pigs, the U.S. put an unnecessary burden on the lives of Haitians. The second scenario of Haitians being taken advantage of is the Peligre dam that was built by the U.S. and planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was built without regard to the farmers who lived upstream of the dam. The farmers lost their livelihood as well as their homes, and were not compensated.

One could argue that a good first step towards “O for the P” is to have more consideration for the country when initiatives are taken. In both the case of the pigs and the case of the dam, the outcome of the projects should have been scrutinized more so that the livelihoods of the Haitians were not negatively affected. If the cases had been better scrutinized, the Haitians incomes would not have been affected, and public health would not decrease. More would have to be taken into account for public health to increase, but small positive changes to public health are better than no changes at all.

Hint 4

hey