Your evaluation should be a minimum of 750 words (most will take more words), using APA formatting and citations. You may need to do some additional research to answer the questions fully. Include the sources in your reference list and at least one in-text citation.
These evaluations will be graded based on your critical thinking about the case, how your evaluation is organized, grammar, correct spelling/punctuation, etc., and APA citations and reference list. I will make comments on your case study. Check the comments so you do not make the same mistakes on the second and third ones.
Include a word count (not including title or references.) Evaluations will be submitted to turnitin.com for plagiarism checking.
Specific directions:
Answer the following questions in your evaluation. Answer each question in a separate paragraph and number each paragraph – one per question. You may need to do additional research to answer some of the questions, depending on the case. All 10 questions need to be fully answered.
Paragraph 1. Provide a short summary of the issue/incident being addressed in the case study – what is it about, what happened, when, where, etc.
Paragraph 2. Who are the stakeholders and how are they affected? Stakeholders are not just the ‘victims’ but also anyone who could be impacted by the issue/incident. This may include the health care workers, emergency personnel, friends, neighbors, families, governmental agencies, etc.
Paragraph 3. Explain the background science: What are the technical issues of the case? Technical issues are things like the chemistry of a toxin and it’s toxicity, the lifecycle of a vector and the parasite it carries, the persistence and breakdown chemistry of a pollutant, etc. Whatever is needed to understand why it is a problem.
Paragraph 4. What is the regulatory framework? These are regulations that relate to the issue (eg Safe Drinking Water standards, disposal permits, etc.), that may or may not have been violated. The regulations could be local, state, national or international.
Paragraph 5. Is this a problem normally monitored for? Who does the monitoring? How was the problem found? By whom and when was it determined to be a problem? Government? Public? Scientist? Doctor? Who first exposed the problem? If not monitored, should it be? How and by who?
Paragraph 6. When was the public notified, if at all? How were they notified? By whom?
Paragraph 7. What was the response to the problem? Who made the response? When did they respond, and what was the timeline of the response (what were the immediate actions, the long-term actions, ongoing actions, etc).
Paragraph 8. What was the resolution to the problem? How did the problem get fixed, if at all? Is it still a problem? For how long is it projected to continue?
Paragraph 9. Was the response adequate? What else could have been done? What else should have been done?
Paragraph 10. What measures are being taken to prevent a re-occurrence? What else can be done or should be done to prevent it happening again?
Note that some of these questions may not be answerable directly from the materials provided. You may have to do some additional research to find the answers.
Include a reference list of the case and any other resources you used to answer the questions. Use APA format for citations and references.
this is the website that you need to do the case study for:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.116-a382
