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.

Figure 1 was built to serve members of the medical community. It was developed to share unique medical conditions and discuss diseases amongst doctors, nurses, and students.

Healthcare professionals, from all levels, doctors to even students, are invited to share and discuss conditions and diseases. 

The Figure 1 website does not specify how the development of the system was funded. 

Verified members can post pictures of patient's, tests, equipment, or images as long as there is not patient identifying information. All members of figure one are encouraged to comment and discuss the condition or test in the picture. 

Users can access the site from a computer or there is an app available for smart phones. 

This system would be difficult to work with because it publicises patient's  conditions even if it does not directly identify who they are. Some of the diseases or conditions these patients are faced with can be considered humiliating and while the intent of the app is to be educational, a healthcare professionals are faced with the ethical decision as to whether or not post the picture of their patient. A guideline Figure 1 outlines is that before taking and posting a picture the provider should have consent from the patient. Hospitals, clinics, agency, ect. are also faced with whether to allow their members to engage in these activities as patient confidentiality could be called into question. 

Figure 1 was developed as a platform to serve medical professionals and students by providing widespread access to information on medical cases and enable discussion among medical professionals.