Analyze

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

Hazards/risks are distributed among different groups through geography. for example, areas near the Eastern shoreline like places in New Jersey are in a group because their zone damage is much more than those further away from the Eastern shorline like places in Nevada.

During the super storm Hurricane Sandy, NJPAC decided to set aside 2000 tickets for several different performances. Each ticket was priced at $25, and 100% of those profits would go straight to the support relief for those affected by the super storm.

Newark helped to set up the JFK Center as a shelter with the help of the American Red Cross. further more, "Booker also urged residents to check on their neighbors, particularly the elderly, to be sure they have adequate supplies and protection during the hurricane"

many recommendations are also being made by the city of Newark to advize their citizens

Several public officials were named in this article: Robert McDonnell, governor of Virginia, Jack Markell, governor of Delaware, Patty McQuillan, a member of North Carolina's emergency management agency, Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, Tom Corbett, governor of Pennsylvania, Michael Nutter, mayor of Philadelphia, Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary, and President Obama.

In this article, It talks mainly about New Jerseys CSO communities and how the CSO's are and have been making steps towards reducing overflow and even though the current solutions being used right now is a way to help reduce the overflow, these systems are also major sources of water pollution. however, CSO's plan to help reduce overflow and help prevent extensive damage from hurricanes will, be beneficial to the public even though it may take a few years for it to be completed and be of use to the public. 

There were several professional design teams a part of reaching a solution to make Newark more resilient to hurricanes. Among these groups, there was a group of students that had helped in planning. One of the teacher's in charge of a design group from NJIT had been teaching a master’s class in infrastructure planning. There were 15 students in the class that had helped her in her design strategies. After being into seven different teams, the students went out and did research in towns that were deeply affected by Hurricane Sandy. There were a range of majors among the students, from architecture to design or planning. Each student used his or her own knowledge and separate disciplines to come up with ideas to aid areas that were affected by Sandy.

The EPA has a large impact to help minimize the hazard. one of the few things that they are doing is provinding the "critical science to develop and implement outdoor air regulations under the Clean Air Act and puts new tools and information in the hands of air quality managers and regulators to protect the air we breathe." also, the EPa designated areas that meet and dont meet the the standards for the PM standards and ozone standards.