Analyze

Renwu is a part of Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, where there are large factories making chemical products. Renwu Elementary School is very close to these factories, just 500 meters away. The school has been actively engaged in discussions about how to improve the environment and promote prosperity for everyone. Approximately 80% of the students at the school have asthma, a respiratory condition. Recognizing the challenges of improving the environment around the school, some students and teachers decided to explore ways to improve the air quality within the school. The students did a few things: first, they used low-cost sensors and single-board computers to make regular air purifiers work better. When levels for air pollution (PM 10 and PM 2.5) are high, these gadgets turn on the air purifiers in many classrooms. This air purifier project is one of three ongoing educational programs aimed at educating students about air pollution and its potential health impacts. In art class, students use paper mache to design their own air purifiers to save money. Using magnifying glasses for tablets and smartphones, they explore which materials work best for air filtration. In parallel, they began collecting air pollution data over time using a digital system developed by the students themselves. They also used hand-held monitors outside to measure pollution levels around a major chemical factory operated by Formosa Plastics, a large petrochemical company. It is worth noting that Formosa Plastics is currently planning to expand its production facilities in Texas and Louisiana, which would also affect air quality in nearby schools. The monitoring and data collection by the Renwu students could inspire others in different places to do something similar about air pollution in their own communities. 

Schütz, Tim, Jia-An Lin & Yu-Hsin Hsu. 2023. "DIY Air Monitoring at Renwu Elementary School in Kaohsiung, Taiwan." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

Climbing this "disposal" cell was the main event of our guided tour of the Weldon Spring's Interpretive Center. It represents the "finished product" of the toxic waste clean up project and Legacy Management site. Engineered and constructed with 8 layers of strategically chosen materials, the cell is expected to "deter the migration of [its] contaminants" for up to 1000 years. Thus, it is really more of a storage cell than a disposal cell...

Some of the questions coming from our group concerned the criteria of assessment used to determine the cell's long term durability and functionality. For instance, the cell was designed to control and treat leachate--water that has become contaminated from seeping through the cell--but this capacity has its limits. Though the cell has been designed to handle well-over the historical record of rainfall in the area, climate change has rendered history an ineffective means of predicting the severity of weather in the future.

Another concern is the transfer of knowledge about the cell and its toxic contents. How do we make sure no one opens it up (or blows it up) over the course of 1000 years? The strategy of the DOE is to monitor the cell by testing the local area for contaminants, maintaining strict military surveillance over the area, and by using the interpretive center to educate tourists and the local community about the cell, i.e. Legacy Management. But the US federal government's (or any institution's) ability to keep this up for 1000 years is obviously questionable, at the very best. What is certain here is that, by managing nuclear waste, with its inhuman time scales and the correlate amplification of complexity, we are venturing into uncharted waters. The DOE wants to create the impression that everything is under control and it may be, for the time being. It is also reasonable to take pains not to incite widespread fear and panic. But it is similarly important to recognize that we, in this moment, simply cannot be in control over 1000 years of possibility.

1) "About 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete were used to build the towers, and when they came crashing down they released dust laden with toxins."

2 "But as early as Sept. 13, Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site"

The article contains quotations attributed directly to the judge, so I would presume she was either present for the ruling or accessed the case brief. This would also be where Ms. Preston could obtain direct quotations from the plantiff's arguments. Additionally, the article includes statements from the EPA, public officials, and Senator Rodham Clinton; these would either be from official public releases or interviews by government personel. 

The article debriefs a ruling by Federal District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts on a class action lawsuit against the EPA. It details the claims made by the plantiffs' surrounding EPA officials' misconduct after 9/11. Specifically cited are Christie Whitman, who chaired the EPA  during the attacks, and several other EPA officials.

Judge Batts: Deborah A Batts, sitting judge of the Manhattan Federal District Court at the time of these proceedings. She handed down the ruling that allowed the pursuit of the class action lawsuit.

Christie Whitman: Former EPA "leader" (chair) at the time of the 9/11 attacks. She and several other officials (unnamed in this article) are accused of misleading the public about air quality surrounding the tower site.

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. Federal agency charged with matters pertaining to the environment, particularly those that concern public health. The EPA often aids in creating standards for environmental safety (including pollution and airborne particles).

The article's primary focus is the failure of a government agency in the wake of the 9/11. The EPA's inadequate response to air pollution and subsequent public misguidance led to a multitude of public health issues. While the article does not explicitly detail the issues stated in this lawsuit, it does mention the EPA's failure to properly formulate and enact a plan to clean up materials released into the air.

1) EPA: what are the exact duties and responsibilities of the EPA after a disaster? While we mostly consider it to focus on pollutants and environmental conservation, both this article and FEMA training seem to indicate it holds a much larger role in emergency situations.

2) Christie Whitman: a former governor of New Jersey and Administrator of the EPA from 2001-2003, Whitman served during the 9/11 attacks. Despite pointed personal criticism about her time in the EPA (including legal action), Whitman historical demonstrated a pattern of moderatism, often putting her at odds with the administration she served. It would be interesting to see where in the 9/11 lapse emerged-- whether it be from judgement, misinformation, or disinterest.

3) 9/11 Health Effects: The release of millions of asbestos and concrete particles into the air certainly increases the odds of chronic respiratory issues for NYC populations. I would be interested in whether any other chronic issues or epidemics have been noted as a result of pollution from the Towers' collapse

Preston's article mentions the EPA still had not formulated and enacted a plan for cleanup-- it should be noted the year of publication was 2006. She claims "After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning". Moreover, in the 10 years since publication, several studies have indicated increased public health risks and chronic illness prevalence in populations near the disaster zone. It seems the approach of sit-and-wait did nothing but exacerbate the issue, leading me to believe this will serve as a symbol in any future pollutant-laden disasters.

“Mrs. Whitman and the agency put out press releases saying that the air near ground zero was relatively safe and that there were "no significant levels" of asbestos dust in the air. They gave a green light for residents to return to their homes near the trade center site”

“By these actions," Judge Batts wrote, Mrs. Whitman "increased, and may have in fact created, the danger" to people living and working near the trade center.”