Analyze

test 

“...Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty (Bullard et al., 2007) revealed that communities of colour and poor communities were still being used as dumping grounds for all kinds of toxic contaminants. The authors discovered evidence that the clustering of environmental hazards, in addition to single sources of pollution, presented significant threats to communities of colour. Furthermore, the research showed that polluting industries frequently singled out communities of colour in siting decisions, countering the “minority move-in hypothesis”: the claim that people of colour voluntarily move into contaminated communities rather than being targeted in situ by dirty industries.” (122)

“Bullard (1990) has highlighted the problem of “Black Love Canals” throughout the United States, where issues of environmental injustice are deeply connected with environ- mental racism. For example, Bullard highlights the case of toxic DDT water contamination in the African American community of Triana, Alabama. In 1978, in the midst of the national media attention focused on Love Canal, residents in Triana raised complaints over ill-health effects and contaminated fish and waterfowl. Lawsuits in Triana against the Olin Corporation continued throughout the 1980s. Although the case is noted within environ- mental justice histories (see Taylor, 2014), it is not widely recognized or commemorated.” (126)

“Underpinning the slow, structural violence (see Galtung, 1969; Davies, 2019) of unequal and unjust toxic exposures is the problem of “expendability” … Pellow (2018) proposes that indispensability is a key pillar of critical environmental justice studies (alongside intersectionality, scale, and state power). This idea builds on the work of critical race and ethnic studies scholar John Marquez (2014) on “racial expendability” to argue that, within a white-dominated society, people of colour are typically viewed as expendable.” (127)

“National and international media headlines followed the Flint water crisis story as it unfolded, but, after the initial shock, Flint faded from media attention. It shifted from being a spectacular disaster to a case of slow violence. This paral- lels the dynamics of public memory surrounding many toxic disasters, struggles, and legacies.” (128)

The author’s main argument is two-fold. Acute environmental disasters (e.g., Chernobyl, BP Horizon Spill, Hurricane Katrina) that garnered public attention leave behind legacies of increased support for environmental action and legislation, although the public attention span is often too short for lasting change. At the same time, these disasters have received a disproportionate amount of public attention compared to the many more slow-moving toxicity disasters that affect people in more systematic but often less visible ways. Examples of this disparity include the contrast between the 1984 Bhopal disaster coverage, and the persistent toxicity in the area in the time since then in the form of industrial waste and infrastructure that is not maintained. It is additionally important to note that the cases that don’t receive much attention often affect marginalized groups (by race, socioeconomics) disproportionately.

The report encompasses reports on the proceedings of the UN Scientific Comittee during its 60th session, May 2013. The UN report presents an unbiased plethora of data surmising Fukushima radiation exposure to both human an biological life. It primarily focuses on 2 reports detailing aspects of radiation exposure during the 2011 nuclear accident. The first report gives estimated levels of radiation experienced by individuals and non-human biota. Human individuals estimates are based on age and ongoing proximity to the accident. Evacuated adult citizens had an estimated exposure <10 mSv, while workers experienced doses >10mSv, with the highest exposure  an estimated 100 mSv. It places these values within the context of lifelong anticipated exposure and international expected exposures. This first report also briefly discusses effects beyond radiation, including the adverse outcomes thousands faced by evacuating. The second report concentrates on radiation exposure of children during the accident. While it concludes longer epidemological studies are needed to accurately assess the prevailing biolgogical effects, several important facts are highlighted. At a given radiation dose, children are more at risk of tumor induction than adults. In addition to this increased radiosensitivity (partially due to physical factors such as size), children also demonstrate increased prevalence of several cancers. These include leaukemia, brain, and thyroid cancers, all of which show radiosensitivity. The report also suggests narrowing the scope of inquiry, as radiation-induced cancers can be influenced by factors such as age and gender.

The report was published by United Nations Publication in 2014.

The report was written on the behalf of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation as a summary of their sixtieth session. The summary was written to be read to the United Nations General Assembly. The scientific data reported was collected by independent teams working on behalf of the Committee.

The 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown following an earthquake and tsunami led to the study of radiation levels and effects discussed at the sixtieth session of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, whose opinions and decisions are recorded in this report.

This report is comprised of several parts, beginning with an introduction. The report describes radiation exposure and effects that have been linked to the Fukushima disaster. Then it outlines future goals of increased awareness of the risks of nuclear disasters and the effects of radiation exposure as well as the need for a network of experts capable of sharing knowledge and expertise when needed. Finally the report mentions further studies being completed concerning the effect of radiation on children.

The data collected in the scientific studies included in the report began in March 2011 shortly after the nuclear disaster at Fukushima and continued for periods spanning months and years depending on the tests being done.

This report addresses the long term effects of a nuclear disaster and the potential health risks of radiation. The findings presented in this report are important when considering the long term effects of a disaster and the clean-up aspects of responding to a disaster that may continue for months or even years following the initial event. The Committee’s plan for the 2014-2019 period includes consideration of a network of experts to share information amongst the scientific community as a method of increasing awareness of and preparation for potential nuclear industry disasters.