Analyze

Environmental harm and the safety are often the key categories and concepts used when citizens and activists have advocated for changes to US military infrastructure in South Korea. By Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek South Korea, the environmental costs of US military infrastructures often call on the citizens who live near the bases. In this below a new concrete wall built by the US military had blocked the natural water flow, leading to flooding just outside the base during heavy rainfall. Formally all environmental concerns are mediated through a clause called Known Imminent Substantial Endangerment Clause which asks that citizens must prove bodily harm has been inflicted due to environmental harms caused by the US military in order to receive redress. The US military often chooses to ignore claims of US military infrastructure effecting the daily lives of citizens who live near the occupation as the local governments and lawyers are often hesitant to approach the US military about grievances due to the financial support the city receives for hosting US military infrastructure. While environmental protections exist, when they are used and how they are used are often dictated by the US military who are not lawfully accountable for the citizen's livelihoods or concerns with US military infrastructure. In the case of this flooding incident, an activist organization was able to pressure the local government to make a complaint. It resulted in the construction of a drainage system which sits outside of the US military base and inside the property of a local citizen's land. Because all US military infrastructure technically maintains control over the land 3 past it's actual construction it remains up for debate whether the construction of the drainage system should be seen as a base expansion or not.

Cho, Tony. 2023. "Drainage system for Osan Air Base in reaction to flooding outside its borders." 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, Hawaii, Nov 8-11.

Biomass energy plants: see themselves as a cost-effective solution for farmers who need to get rid of dead trees and other woody waste that pose wildfire risks without openly burning them; they also produce energy

Utilities companies: looking for the "least-cost, best-fit" source of energy, don't care where it comes from just that it's reasonably priced

Farmers: need cheap ways to dispose of waste

Technology to dispose of woody waste from almond trees in ways other than open burning or biomass facilities doesn't exist yet, at least at the scale needed for massive almond orchards

Closures of biomass energy plants have forced SJVAPCD to allow more open burning of agricultural waste, which produces particulate matter and contributes to already severe air quality in the Central Valley

This was published by the International Atomic Energy Agency and is published as a part of the Radiological Assessment Reports Series.

Since the report was published by the IAEA, which is an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical cooperation of nuclear technology worldwide, it can be considered a government report. 

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion in 1986 led to a ten day reactor fire that resulted in a large and unknown amount of radiation spilling into the surrounding areas in Ukraine. This caused the contamination of the environments and those around the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people had to evacuate and to this day it remains to be an issue. Due to this controversy that still surrounds this disaster, the IAEA, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, OCHA, UNSCEAR and WHO created the Chernobyl Forum. They generate "authoritative consensual statements" on the environmental consequences due to the radiation exposure. Ultimately they and this event in Chernobyl are what called for this report. 

This is a 180 page document that has hundreds of components in terms of what information, as well as measures and advice that the report includes and recommends. The report contains information on the radioactive release amounts and deposition in the urban, environmental, agricultural and aquatic areas surrounding the plant. Recommendations for future monitoring and research are also provided. Countermeasures are also widely discussed and ways in which people can combat and help reverse effects of the radiation and evacuations. The effects the disaster had on plants and animals is also analyzed and supported by facts and figures. The amount of human exposure and recommendations are also discussed. Future trends are analyzed as well as very detailed reports of the weather during the time of the incident, how that effected things, how specific types of animals were effected, the differences between external and internal doses.  A break down of the impact on air, shelter, surface water, groundwater etc. is also provided. Needless to say, pretty much any single detail that could possibly be known about the condition during the event and after the event were researched and documented in this report. 

Data for this report was collected from other sources and forms of documentation as early as the day of the event. Information and details such as population sizes, weather conditions that day, human population distribution and more were all information collected from that day of the event. Other forms of data collected, ranging over the time of the event occurring to the publication time, include factors such as the quality of the air, water, animals and living conditions surrounding the plant. Human radiation levels and infection were also gathered, radiation levels of crops and much, much more were all statistics and data collected over roughly twenty year timespan that this report covers. This is actually one of the main driving points of the report, listed in the title "twenty years of experience." It compiles 20 years of research and findings into one large report.

The report heavily discuss the effect that the radiation had on the people and environment around the plant. Not only is there a deep scientific analysis of the effects that the radiation had on local areas surrounding the plant, but conclusions as well as recommendations for future research as well as recommendations for countermeasures are also suggested and discussed. Health concerns of those exposed to radiation as well as amounts they were exposed to is discussed and measures those can take to counteract and protect themselves in the future.