Analyze

The ASTROMOVES project captures the career decision-making of astrophysicists and those in adjacent sciences, with particular attention to ‘intersectional’ identities, sex/gender diversity and visible/invisible disabilities. Qualitative interviews were recorded online (due to the Pandemic) and each scientist was assigned an Indigenous Hawaiian pseudonym. This was a subversive move to remind astrophysicists of the enormous debt they owe to the Hawaiian people for the use of their sacred mountain tops. All of the scientists consented to having a Hawaiian name. Seven scientists chose their own pseudonyms, most were Hawaiian place names: Maui, Waikiki, Waiheke, and Holualoa. Two Brazilians likewise chose Indigenous place names: Caramuru and Paraguaçu. The last name chosen was Kū'oko'a. Kū'oko'a is the Hawaiian concept of freedom, of which I was unaware. When questioned by editors, I had to evoke my Oahu birth as my right to use Hawaiian pseudonyms. For my visualizations, I chose to not use the Mercator projection which artificially enlarges Europe, instead I use the Peters projection or equal area map. Thus, Europe is de-emphasized by showing its area relative to the rest of the world. 

Holbrook, Jarita. 2023. "Visualizing Astrophysicists’ Careers." 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

BIOETHNOGRAPHY: “Thus, instead of combining objects of inquiry (biology and culture), I conceived of bioethnography as combining two different methods for knowing the world (Mol 2002, 153)—ethnographic observation and biochemical sampling—in order to ask and answer research questions that could not be addressed through either method alone. This methodological focus involves exploring how our data collection and analysis might be shaped if we suspended the nature/culture binary” (Roberts, 2021, p. 2)

“bioethnography asks, what if we created numbers otherwise, upending the cooked data that reinforces inequality? In fact, bioethnography can enable us to identify structural forces, such as NAFTA and the global health apparatus itself, that are part of the bodily processes that make ill health. In other words, while we know that all data is cooked, it matters how it’s cooked.” (Roberts, 2021, p. 5)

Roberts describes their ongoing bioethnographic collaboration with a team of exposure scientists who are working in environmental engineering and health. Though ethnography is not easily enumerated, Roberts emphasizes that integrating it with quantitative data is worthwhile and makes for “better numbers”. As an example, Roberts describes 3 bioethnographic projects on neighborhoods, water distribution, and employment and chemical exposures. These projects were part of a longitudinal birth-cohort study in Mexico City called Early Life Exposures in Mexico to ENvironmental Toxicants (ELEMENT), created to understand the effects of early-life nutrition and exposure to toxicants (such as lead and phenols). Overtime, this project was expanded to include the study of new toxins (e.g. BPAS, mercury, and fluoride) and new health concerns (e.g. obesity, meopause, sleep).

Roberts’ focus on neighborhoods was produced from the ethnographic observation that neighborhood characteristics might influence exposure levels. Following this observation, Roberts’ and ELEMENT researchers sorted participants by neighborhood and identified significant differences in blood-lead levels. Additionally, Roberts applied previous ethnographic observation and scholarship to argue that high levels of toxicants like lead correlate with the capacity of neighborhoods to withstand other dangers, such as police violence. These findings prompted the development of two new bioethnographic project centered on water and the effect of neighborhood dynamics on health.

Most recent news (As of September 2022) focuses on the EPAs naming of 23 EtO sterilization plants as high risk. This announcement enables local leadership, environmental organizations and legal partners to assess human health risks while focusing on reducing EtO emissions, as outlined by the EPA. Most recent news (As of September 2022) focuses on the EPAs naming of 23 EtO sterilization plants as high risk. This announcement has enabled local leadership, environmental organizations and legal partners to assess human health risks while focusing on reducing EtO emissions, as outlined by the EPA. This release by the EPA has prompted activism in the communities affected by EtO sterilization facilities. As noted by EarthJustice on the news, “Raul Garcia, legislative director for Healthy Communities at Earthjustice: ‘This is an important and welcome step to increasing transparency on the toxic air pollution and health threats that sterilizer facilities pose to the health of millions of Americans. Now that EPA has new information on precisely where the worst health threats are, the agency must use its full authority to ensure public health so no one gets cancer from this pollution and require fenceline monitoring at these facilities. Now, EPA must issue a strong new rule that phases out the use of ethylene oxide at commercial sterilizers. No one should get cancer from facilities that are used to sterilize equipment in the treatment of cancer.’ “. In addition, one major article edited and published by ProPublica sparked both outrage but in addition, change. The article The Most Detailed Map of Cancer-Causing Industrial Air Pollution in the U.S. details 

Activism has prompted more indepth research, increased acquisition and availability of EtO industry data, and increased focus on EtO as a carcinogen and toxin. This hazard was recognized fully by the EPA between 2016-2018 which led to increased assessment and acknowledgement of EtO as a toxin.

The main concern with EtO exposure includes inhalation. Laws that regulate air emissions have invariably affected and regulated this hazard. But specifically, below is a rough outline of  laws that directly impacted the air emissions of facilities processing EtO: 

• Clean Air Act Section 112, Hazardous Air Pollutants. The CAA regulates Ethylene Oxide under section 112 of the CAA. The CAA labels EtO as a hazardous air pollutant. Under the CAA, EtO emissions can be regulated in conjunction with promoting the best emission controls.

• Regulations on Sterilization Facilities (From Federal Register : National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations) 

Note, fugitive emissions have not been standardized by the EPA, including back vents, emergency ventilation etc.

Mainly stark contrast can be found between the EPA and various state and chemical manufacturing companies in terms of data divergence. The main concern surrounding EtO is the elevated cancer risk that occurs with long exposure both direct and indirect. The ways in which the EPA and other companies and agencies assess risk have been different in terms of unit quantity. The EPA utilized in 2016 the Integrated Risk Information System to model cancer risk. According to the American Chemical Council the, “ACC believes the value is significantly flawed.” Also, the Texas Commision on Environmental Quality has stated, “ ‘the US EPA unit risk factor (URF) for ethylene oxide is not scientifically justified.’ ”. This has led the TCEQ to raise its exposure limit from 1 ppb to 2.4 ppb.

• Results of the Risk Assessment of Ethylene Oxide Emitting Facilities in Texas and Louisiana

Provides a list of 8 high risk EtO facilities both in LA and TX. Provides a breakdown of race in terms of proximity to facility and risk level. *One point to mention, is that data from the 2018 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), which was used, is provided to the EPA by the LDEQ and TCEQ.*

• Ethylene Oxide Risk Map - Air Alliance Houston

Mapped by the Environmental Advocacy group Air Alliance Houston are EtO facilities across America. The top 25 EtO emitting facilities are labeled and census tracts with a cancer risk greater than 100 in 1 million are also highlighted.

The major organization involved in assessment of EtO is the EPA. The EPA and its branch leaders have spearheaded the response guidelines, have outlined cancer risks, and have conducted research in partnership with other national partners such as the NIH, federal departments of health, and state departments of health.

In the period between 1982 to 1984 multiple studies on lab rats concluded that inhalation concentrations of ethylene oxide could be correlated to cancer development. An analysis of the results found that increased exposure showed higher incidences of tumor development in both male and female lab rats. According to the EPA EtO is carcinogenic and, “Scientific evidence in humans indicates that exposure to EtO for many years increases the risk of cancers of the white blood cells, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia. Studies also show that long-term exposure to EtO increases the risk of breast cancer in women.”