Analyze

WHAT (& WHAT FOR): Lead is a metal often found in pipes, and in old paint (before it was banned in paint in the late 1970s). Before 1996, lead also found in vehicle fuel resulting in  soil contamination in many communities from both paint dust and vehicle pollution. 

HEALTH IMPACT: Lead is a neurotoxin and is known to have no safe blood lead level in children. 

Has been linked to:

1. Brain swelling, anemia, seizures, renal failure, reduced IQ, and ADHD

2. Damages brain development in children

3. Connected to behavioral problems like aggression and bullying, and internalizing problems such as depression and anxiety 

LOCAL IMPACT: Recent research in Santa Ana has shown that there is a disproportionately impact of solid lead contamination crisis on lower income, people of color communities. 

POSSIBLE RESPONSES: There are many ways to respond to lead contamination:

1. Providing special health care for children with high blood lead levels, and investigating possible sources of lead exposure in homes, daycares and school, playground, etc.

2. Implement strict housing policies where landlord and city housing officials are required to have lead inspections of homes for lead paint hazards (especially in low income, people of color communities)

3. Requiring a minimum reduction standard for lead paint in older homes 

4. Requiring blood lead level test as part of the routine check up for children (extremely important for children in low-income housing)

WHAT (& WHAT FOR): PFOAS are a group of large manufactured chemicals that are widely used in various everyday items. Often used in waterproof items and nonstick pans among other products.  They are used in a number of industrial processes. Improper disposal of the chemicals from industrial manufacturing has resulted in PFAS seeping down into the ground and into the water supply.  These chemicals are known to be forever chemicals that  do not degrade in the environment. 

HEALTH IMPACT: PFAS are known to be forever chemicals that cause weakened immune systems, increased cholesterol level, increased risk of testicular and kidney cancers, and decreased vaccine response in children. EPA has concluded that exposure to PFOA and PFOS over certain levels may result in developmental effects to fetuses during pregnancy (low birth weight) or breastfed infants (accelerated puberty, skeletal variations). 

LOCAL IMPACT: Both the State Water Board and the Santa Ana Water Board have initiated investigations. The PFAS investigation done by State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board reveals results that show PFAS concentrations above the current Notification Levels for drinking water. Santa Ana Water Board staff is currently working to identify potential sources of the contamination in the groundwater. 

POSSIBLE RESPONSES: 

1. Conduct wellhead treatment to treat PFAS impacted drinking water to levels below state-established PFOA/PFOS notification levels.

2.  Obtain a more comprehensive monitoring information on potential sources of PFAS

3. Set Effluent guidelines, develop analytical methods and issue water quality criteria for PFAS

WHAT (& WHAT FOR): Lead is a metal often found in pipes, and in old paint (before it was banned in paint in the late 1970s). Before 1996, lead also found in vehicle fuel resulting in  soil contamination in many communities from both paint dust and vehicle pollution. 

HEALTH IMPACT: Lead is a neurotoxin and is known to have no safe blood lead level in children. 

Has been linked to:

1. Brain swelling, anemia, seizures, renal failure, reduced IQ, and ADHD

2. Damages brain development in children

3. Connected to behavioral problems like aggression and bullying, and internalizing problems such as depression and anxiety 

LOCAL IMPACT: Recent research in Santa Ana has shown that there is a disproportionately impact of solid lead contamination crisis on lower income, people of color communities. 

POSSIBLE RESPONSES: There are many ways to respond to lead contamination:

1. Providing special health care for children with high blood lead levels, and investigating possible sources of lead exposure in homes, daycares and school, playground, etc.

2. Implement strict housing policies where landlord and city housing officials are required to have lead inspections of homes for lead paint hazards (especially in low income, people of color communities)

3. Requiring a minimum reduction standard for lead paint in older homes 

4. Requiring blood lead level test as part of the routine check up for children (extremely important for children in low-income housing)

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.