Analyze

Before our tour at the Weldon Springs Interpretative Center, we were asked not to take any pictures of our tour guide nor of other employees. To be recorded publically, they would have had to obtain an official media clearance. The photo points to these limits, with the metal arch obscuring the group as it listens to the guide. In consequence, there are at least two aspects that should be retained in our written record. First were the upbeat style and delivery of our male guide, that shaped our experience of the exhibition. Our group asked him about his educational background and he briefly explained the process to become a certified interpreter. Second is the fact that we were being accompanied and followed around by a group of about six representatives of the Department of Energy. Our group came to agree that this number and associated costs are significant, pointing towards the attention that our (probably usual?) international group of scholars drew. It might have been curiosity or slight hostility, it's hard to tell, also because we didn't ask them directly. The image certainly captures some lessons and dynamics what it means to visit an educational fieldsite with a larger group in contrast to the 'lone fieldworker.'

The Tribute to the Mallinckrodt Uranium Workers is perhaps the most reflexive display in the Interpretive Center at Weldon Springs. By listing the names of the Mallinckrodt employees and acknowledging their sacrifices, the tribute at least intimates how the toxic process of uranium refinement, including the secrecy and deceit that surrounded it, impacted the lives of the local community. And yet, given the juxtaposition of the exhibit next to the "Timeline of the Nuclear Age" and an encompassing display on "The Process" of refinement, the critical nuance of this quotidian, human level is muddled by both the macro events of history and the micro details of scientific practice. It is also worth noting that in the online tour of the exhibit, the purpose and the meaning of the tribute bears no mention all. An image of the arch is provided, but not a single bit of context as to what it signifies. Instead, what we are given access to is only the timeline, the process description, and a romanticized version of the Mallinckrodt story taken from a tour guide that was written in 1959. 

This film is meant to show the struggles of an ER waiting room from all sides. It shows the frustrations of patients waiting to be seen for hours, financial workers, social workers, and doctors struggling to see everyone in a timely manner. It also shows organizers tryign to sort everyone and move the patients around in ways that benefit all parties. Essentially, this documentary is highlighting the issues that exist in the ER because of lack of staff, beds, and overall means to take care of the large influx of patients. 

This film shows live footage of interactions in the hospital as well as voice over narrations that highlight the mood and stress of the situation. They give some statistics, but the main point of this film is to show the stories of some patients and the doctors and staff to highlight their message. It has an emotional appeal in the sense that viewers can sympathize with and feel frustrated for all parties involved - not just the patients.

There are many people portrayed and mentioned in the film. They discuss issues within governments and insurance companies. They show patients without insurance struggling to get medication and care. As a result, they express issues with access to care and paying for hte care that they receive. They show doctors and the struggles they have with handling patients and those that come in with the ambulance. Nurses and other ER staff are shown as well. They show narratives of several patients in the waiting room and their experience once they do finally make it to a bed. All of these players have a lot of decisions to make, starting with the decision of the patient ot come to this public hospital (possibly because being turned away from others), and ending with a doctor's care and decision whether or not to release patients. 

They are shown for a moment in which they bring in trauma patients, but are not a main player in this documentary.

I found the most compelling part of the film a portion where an elderly man needing dialysis swears and screams at one of the doctors that he's sick and tired of having to wait for dialysis. He says how annoying it is to come to this hospital and expresses frustrations with having to get dialysis at this particular hospital. He is frustrated to such an extent that he even asks the doctor to remove the catheter and let him die, stating that eveyrone dies so he doesn't care anymore if it's sooner rather than later. He's tired of waiting.

I thought every aspect of the film served a purpose and helped shape the documentary.

Policy makers, mostly. People who are privileged and can go to private doctors or hospitals don't often see the issues that public hospitals face. Policy makers who don't see this as a problem would benefit from seeing this documentary. But I think that everyone can learn smething from this documentary. For future doctors it can show patient care and bed-side manners. For a regular person it can show the need for insurance so that they can push local policy makers to make a change.