Following the article, the author J. Kenens has published another paper "Changing perspectives: tracing the evolution of citizen radiation measuring organizations after Fukushima (2020)" DOI: 10.1051/radiopro/2020041 (link) that draws on the research on citizen science in Japan with a new focus on the comparison of their practices directly after the nuclear accident and today.
It is interesting to see how citizen science in Japan is enacted and how the concept of citizen science is dependent to the social and cultural context. Also looking at it not only from a top-down perspective, where universities or organizations are involved, but also the bottom-up perspective that includes only those practices that are done by citizens alone opens up a new space. As I am currently engaging with research on air pollution in different sites, I could build from this text in considering the link between "citizen-driven approaches and institutional imparatives in the governance" (p. 7) of issues with air pollution.
The text is an article about citizen science in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The first noteworthy detail about this text that struck me is the inclusion of Japanese words and even their original spelling. This creates a kind of closeness to the field that the authors did their research in.
The authors engaged in multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork that took place in and around Fukushima but also in other geografical sites like Tochigi, Miyagi, Aichi, Tokyo and Kyoto. There, they conduct semi-structured interviews with various organisations that are all somehow involved with citizen science or radiation measurement. To learn about the citizens that measure radioactivity and create their own data on radiation because of a lack of provided data by the government, a literature review of policy documents and workshops with those citizen scientists is performed.
At present time, PubMed only has 1 entry for reports/articles citing this research. It is put forth by another group discussing documentation of health care worker attacks during armed conflicts.
As described by Governor Cuomo, Dallas was the first major US city to see an Ebola case. This, in turn, allowed New York leadership to have some semblance of what methods did or did not work when trying to contain the disease. Moreover, the policy was implemented in response to the major Ebola outbreaks occurring at this time. This included those within Africa, Europe, and cases seen in Dallas. Moreover, the policy follows the city's "Safe-than-sorry" methodology discussed by Governor Cuomo; he, along with other state and city leaders, believed assuming an Ebola outbreak would occur within the state would give them the best chance of mitigating its effects and minimizing disease spread.
Judge Batts: Deborah A Batts, sitting judge of the Manhattan Federal District Court at the time of these proceedings. She handed down the ruling that allowed the pursuit of the class action lawsuit.
Christie Whitman: Former EPA "leader" (chair) at the time of the 9/11 attacks. She and several other officials (unnamed in this article) are accused of misleading the public about air quality surrounding the tower site.
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. Federal agency charged with matters pertaining to the environment, particularly those that concern public health. The EPA often aids in creating standards for environmental safety (including pollution and airborne particles).
The foundation originally began through a five-year federal grant. Primarily, the foundation receives continued funding from federal grants. The majority of these appear to come from the National Institute of Health and are considered research grants; the prison populations serve as a fantastic resource for observing long-term treatments and disease progression, including methadone usage. Funding also comes from the state level, as RI sees the benefit of continually treating offenders, as their health problems become public health problems upon release. Additionally, there appears to be some private donation and funding as well.
The platform itself allows for discussion and viewing of multiple segments. The associated organization allows for request of public viewing of the overall film; moreover, the overarching organization (and its web platform) allow for discussion on the page itself, with input from users and contact directly to the film makers and organizers