Analyze

The documentary is missing because the documentary is as safe as the fence it mocks in its title.
In the beginning we are asked to bear witness to the construction and use of the most devastation weapon of indiscriminate death the world has ever seen, and all the harm the construction of such a tool, yet its construction and its use is justified near instantaneously by repeating the same old propaganda.
In continuation, we are asked to bear witness to the continuous production of similar weapons and the devastation caused by the mishandling of the waste that accumulated in their production, yet why such a production took place is not only left unquestioned, but simple hints of cold war propaganda is left in their places for safekeeping.
In the end, we are asked to bear witness to a sombre victory, same spectres of patriotism and nation-of-God watching over our shoulder, yet how the pitiful situation of being forced to celebrate even such a small victory is never explored.
To sum up, we are shown people, good people, who struggle against the symptoms of a disease, yet this disease itself never named, nor challenged. It could not have been challenged, as it would force a complete change in their discourse.

If we sincerely would like to critique how the bodies of these workers were made disposable; used, harmed, dislocated and discharged as deemed necessary; if we wish to explore this topic as the necropolitical issue it is, we cannot stop halfway through. This inability to stop chasing connections, relationalities wherever it fits our ideology, is not a call for “objectivism”, it’s a call to respect the term of Anthropocene with all its rhizomatic connections.

An investigation of nuclear waste, that does not factor the use of its product, the socio-political effects of said product, and the historical conditions that even led to the possibility of producing it in such ways and such quantities, are of no use for us.  It cannot penetrate the barrier of capitalist realism. If it could, at least a single mention of workers unions would have existed. Instead, it has confessionals by atomic weapons lawyers whose heart goes out to these workers.
An America that refuse to face up to the fact that it is what it is by the great necropolitical project it led for hundreds of years, I struggle to accumulate sympathy for, what I can easily accumulate is rage however, which this documentary is missing..
Wish the documentary would have at least attempted to say something radical, instead of praising these disposable bodies for being patriotic about it. There are lives who never had false fences built as idols for safety, the collective idols of old America, the patriotic nation under God were built upon their broken bodies, what would you ask of them?

A point that I looked up to further my knowledge of the article was the stoning of the Ebola workers, if it was reported anywhere else (a hot topic) or if there was any new information available; only one other news source reported on this topic and that source does not appear to be reliable. I also looked up the possibility of Ebola workers actually transporting Ebola to others. I found that the protocals in place to prevent this is extensive and infection (the possibility of) is extremely low. I finally looked up Guiena village leaders to understand why they do not trust western medicine, to understand if it is generally like that; if they do not like outsiders invading their village or if it is a general fear of infection. In truth it is the latter.

Following up with patients months or weeks later would enhance its educational value by reaffirming that the process will happen over and over again ( of waiting to get into the ER only to be told it would take months for treatment).

The policy addresses vulnerable populations because it does not discriminate. It offers to help anyone in the NYC area that was at the attacks or surrounding them. It does not see ethnicity or economic backround, only to help those in need; both citizens and helping at the twin towers.

The events that motivated their ways of thinking about disaster and health was in 1981 a physician in Boston was called to go to Chilie to investigate the 'disapperance' of three physicians. Johnathan Fine entered the country and met the doctors who were psychologically terrorized. He heard their testimonies and recorded the,. It inspired him to go to Guatemala, Philipines and South Korea to educate about human rights globally. Dr Fine's visit caused the doctors to be released; he decided he wanted to help these people in situations about this full time. In 1986 Robert Laurence, Jean Mayer and Fine created Physicians for Human Rights.

1. The authors are Vincanne Adams, Taslim Van Hattem and Diana English. Diana English is an assistant professor of gynecologic oncology of Stanford. She is a dedicated researcher and has a passion for international service and mission trips- she is a voice for the poor. Taslim is a director the Louisiana public health institute, she cares about her state’s well being. Adams is a professor of medical anthropology and does extensive research in disaster recover, social theory and sexuality and gender.

This report has travelled because it has been referenced on many government websites, it is used on other websites that talk about Katrina and its effect of healthcare during disasters as well as future preperations. Health officals are mentioned in the article, so I presume that it is cited by other health professionsals somewhere, but no direct reference could be found.

Three ways the argument is supported is through descriptions of types of mental illness some may experience after a disaster: MDD,PTSD and substance abuse. Through the description of resilience and how most who experience a disaster tend to bounce back like a rubber band. Finally risk factors are discussed for those who can experience mental illness such as females and children- who are typically more compassionate and worrisome in comparison to other populations.

The main findings of this article include the discrepancy of actual health issues and its surfacing in the government. The article explores post-Soviet Union Ukraine and discovers the backbone of its economy consists of disability healthcare for those affected by radiation. The struggle to survive without an illness on a  bare economy where government funds help those who may be damamged by radiation and ignore the rest of the population.

The central argument/narrative of the film is explaining what the Fukishima nuclear meltdown was and what was done to contain the explosions and the subsquent radiation that was leaking into the atmosphere. How to restore power to the plant in order to contain the fuel rods and prevent meltdown. Indirectly the argument was to persuade the public to be more informed about nuclear power and the affects it could have on the world- to learn how to prevent nuclear disasters; make emergency nuclear response teams.