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.

The majority of citations are attributed to MSF and other humanitarian organizations. This incite frames the viewpoint from which this article was made.

                The majority of the data supporting their argument came from examples from outbreaks (such as AIDS), the United States Government (like the anthrax and smallpox threats in early 2000s), and the WHO (such as disease outbreak control in developing countries).

The aftermaths of Sandy had created many vulnerabilites to the communities around the shores. There were about 840 million gallons of raw sewage scattered into the Passaic River; and since the sewerage system had struggled to get back to full operating hours and service, there were 4.4 billion gallons of partially treated sewage were released into New York Harbor. In addition, many infrastructure was severely damaged after the storm: houses, power substations, police headquarters, etc.

The film takes more of an observer stance than an active role. The corrective action I imagine being effective is better preparedness on the local national and international level to be able to better respond not only to the direct impact of the disease but also the secondary social impacts to the community such as food, water, enforcing emergency orders, and travel restrictions. 

1) I followed up on the old safety features of the World Trade Center. Sprinklers were the only feature that stood out from a fire safety video by the New York and New Jersey Port Authority for the World Trade Center (made 1996). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBM9-y8gfHo. However the fire was much too large for them to put out, and may have even made it worse because water, when in contact with molten aluminum explodes.

2) Next I looked into why and how the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse happened. The WTC did not have concrete core or outer. Most high-rise buildings have one or the other as concrete is not subject to fire. The WTC steel trusses and columns were fireproofed with spray foam which fell off the building on impact with the airplane. The crash through the building resulted in flammable debris getting pushed to the far walls and corners, the most vulnerable location, and fatally weakening the WTC’s steel core. NIST report never stated that the fire melted the steel beams, steel melts at 2750 degrees F, but looses half its strength at 1100 F. Parts of the WTC fires reached 1800 F on that day. With the weakening, the trusses began to sag, bowing inward causing all of the weight to rest on the perimeter columns which could not bear the load and eventually snapped. After the first floor fell, the “pan-caking” effect resulted in each floor collapsing the one beneath it.

3) Lastly I looked at the new disaster prevention features of One World Trade Center. The key features which the Twin Towers were lacking are: a concrete core with stairwells located in center, larger than required staircases, and a separate first responder stairwell. Many experts believe if the WTC had a concrete core, they would not have fallen. 

The goal of the Disaster Resilience Leadership Academy is to:

“…achieve increased resilience in communities and individuals impacted by natural and manmade disasters. Such leadership is guided by the ethics of the Triple Bottom Line: Equity, Environment, and Economy.”

1) I looked into how other countries that faced significant disaster dealt with their displaced populations. (http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/situation-of-the-evacuees)

2) Next, I researched the American Psychological Association’s views on mental health and disasters. (http://www.apa.org/topics/disasters/)

3) Lastly, I looked into “price gouging” during and after natural disasters and both sides of the argument. Pros: (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-mccaffrey/5-reasons-price-gouging-is-okay_b_3487621.html) and cons: (https://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/pricegou.html)