Search

The Weldon Spring Interpretive Center was a discursive jamboree for those of us curious about how anthropocenics are narrated. This particular display at the center stood out to me becuase of its resemblance to other interpretive center or science museum displays representing the "life cycle" of an organism or of cycles of ecosystem conditions (e.g. forest succession). One of the first displays visitors see upon entering the center, the display's format and captions read to me as a clear attempt to control the discourse about nuclear contamination and remediation in the area. The image--or its creator--wants to do the work of suggesting that the clean up process has brought the place "back to how it was," cycling back to a good beginning. The text used in this display is exclusively neutral or positive. The arrows moving from each circle to the next purports to display how "this area has served many purposes over the years." It states "these exhibits are designed to educate you on the history, science, and efforts of many to bring the Weldon Spring site full circle." In this cycle, Weldon Spring is not a hazardouse waste site or contaminated site but rather "a site for remedial action." Thus we are to see the space as a "home to many people," then "a TNT and DNT plant," then "a uranium feed and matierals plant," then "a site for remedial action," "an extensive cleanup effort," "a successful solution," and, finally, "a place to enjoy and learn." In this emphasis on a "return" to good conditions, the displacement of residents, health issues plant workers and others' faced, and the uncertainties or messiness of what adequate clean up is are omitted. In this image, and in much of the interpretive center, the discourse around nuclear materials, its effects and cleanup, is neatened, simplified, into a narrative that de-emphasizes the actual health impacts of these processes and of the political wherewithall that was required to make that remediation happen.

The notion of cycling back to something is a particularly intriguing move

In terms of precaution regarding air pollution, the article talks about making good choices of transportation which means to walk or bike or take public transportation whenever feasible; choosing cars that have better mileage per gallon or electric cars; buying food locally grown rather than food from other places in order to reduce air pollution. 

Air pollution causes many eye and skin irritation in addition with lung problems resulting in asthma and even cancer. These risks would affect people who live in communities that have high pollution, severely. 

For reducing air pollution, the article suggested decreasing gas usage by walking, riding a bike, or taking public transportation. The article also suggested choosing a car with better miles per gallon or using an electric car.

Air pollution caused by industries and use of transportation has many health risks that can affect the community

Air polluion involves the introduction of harmful substance into the air.These harmful substances

involves various harmful gases let out by machines, aircrafts and so on.

These pllutions could lead to serious health injuries which could lead to poverty if

too much money is spent in the hospital as treatment could be expensive.

A sacrifice zone or sacrifice area (often termed a national sacrifice zone or national sacrifice area) is a geographic area that has been permanently impaired by environmental damage or economic disinvestment. These zones are most commonly found in low-income and minority communities. Children that grow up near these areas are more likely to have asthma and other lung issuesd

Although reducing air pollution is very hard nowadays, however people can take precaution especailly in the way in which they use means of transportation in their daily lives. Eliminating air pollution is not possible but their are many ways in which we can reduce it. First off by choosing a better transportation method everyday, instead taking public transport, or driving your car when not needed. Suppose you want to make a quick food run to a place nearby, why not walk there or maybe even ride your bike, saving fuel and the emissions that would be emitted from them when you use those transportations. It is small steps that each person can take in their daily lives that would help reduce pollution overtime. Also getting out there and supporting causes that push for cleaner air, if each person played their part in their own communities instead of leaving it up to others, we would definitley elimiante a lot of waster. 

Yes, filing complaints in one way might help reduce pollution but it won't completely eliminate it. I think by filing complaints, it does give the issue precendence in coming to the top so people become more aware by it, but along wiht complaining people need to take action and come up with plans to resolve the complaints.