Search

“...Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty (Bullard et al., 2007) revealed that communities of colour and poor communities were still being used as dumping grounds for all kinds of toxic contaminants. The authors discovered evidence that the clustering of environmental hazards, in addition to single sources of pollution, presented significant threats to communities of colour. Furthermore, the research showed that polluting industries frequently singled out communities of colour in siting decisions, countering the “minority move-in hypothesis”: the claim that people of colour voluntarily move into contaminated communities rather than being targeted in situ by dirty industries.” (122)

“Bullard (1990) has highlighted the problem of “Black Love Canals” throughout the United States, where issues of environmental injustice are deeply connected with environ- mental racism. For example, Bullard highlights the case of toxic DDT water contamination in the African American community of Triana, Alabama. In 1978, in the midst of the national media attention focused on Love Canal, residents in Triana raised complaints over ill-health effects and contaminated fish and waterfowl. Lawsuits in Triana against the Olin Corporation continued throughout the 1980s. Although the case is noted within environ- mental justice histories (see Taylor, 2014), it is not widely recognized or commemorated.” (126)

“Underpinning the slow, structural violence (see Galtung, 1969; Davies, 2019) of unequal and unjust toxic exposures is the problem of “expendability” … Pellow (2018) proposes that indispensability is a key pillar of critical environmental justice studies (alongside intersectionality, scale, and state power). This idea builds on the work of critical race and ethnic studies scholar John Marquez (2014) on “racial expendability” to argue that, within a white-dominated society, people of colour are typically viewed as expendable.” (127)

“National and international media headlines followed the Flint water crisis story as it unfolded, but, after the initial shock, Flint faded from media attention. It shifted from being a spectacular disaster to a case of slow violence. This paral- lels the dynamics of public memory surrounding many toxic disasters, struggles, and legacies.” (128)

The author’s main argument is two-fold. Acute environmental disasters (e.g., Chernobyl, BP Horizon Spill, Hurricane Katrina) that garnered public attention leave behind legacies of increased support for environmental action and legislation, although the public attention span is often too short for lasting change. At the same time, these disasters have received a disproportionate amount of public attention compared to the many more slow-moving toxicity disasters that affect people in more systematic but often less visible ways. Examples of this disparity include the contrast between the 1984 Bhopal disaster coverage, and the persistent toxicity in the area in the time since then in the form of industrial waste and infrastructure that is not maintained. It is additionally important to note that the cases that don’t receive much attention often affect marginalized groups (by race, socioeconomics) disproportionately.

The report was published by the Select Bipartisan commitee.

The actors that were behind the report was the government. It was a governent ordered report by the second session of the 109th congress,.

The event/series of events that caused the report to be published was the investigation of the preparation for and the reposonse to Hurricane Katrina- how was it a failure.

The components of the report was medical care (how adequate/inadequate overall care was), shelter and housing( or lack there of) logistics and constracting, charitable organizations and an overall conclusion of the report that described the failure of initative.

The data for the rport was collected for the end of 2005 to the beginning of 2006.

The report addresses matters of disaster and health through describing the failures that the government and other organizations had on the people. Hospital's refused to evacuate (executives) leaving people stranded without power (poor planning, generators were located below sea level), and medicines. It tak=lks about the failure to evacuate and help people who have disabilities and/or who have medical problems. This led to people dying for preventable reasons. Health preperations were delayed due to the governent not allowing food and medical supplies to be delievered on time creating a discrepancy and improper treatment of people/ The shealthers that they provided were also inadequate, water systems were nonexistent after the power went out, there was rationing- the people rioted.

The implications this report has for technical professions is the report is an example of what should not occur, more proper prep should have occured. The government distrubted food should have been protected and been on site for the incoming storms. Hospital's should have been evacuated days earlier, the report serves as a warning of what not to do if a storm this stron occurs again. Technical professionals should use this report as advice on what to do in the future. The impact of the healthcare professionals was good, they used their knowledge to the best of their ability-they determined the resources needed to increase.

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.