Search

In Louisiana, governing elites have long found it more profitable to deny the connections between health outcomes and the structural inequities of an anti-Black petrostate. Their denial is made possible by the existence of data divergence–that is, inconsistencies between data sets or between a data set and the realities it purports to represent (Encyclopedia of Social Measurement 2005). These inconsistencies range from missing or “undone” (i.e. incomplete or ignored) data (Frickel et al. 2007) to the production of different measures (and the selection of different priorities) by institutional silos. Recognition of the need for public health capacities that address the systems and structures impacting health–especially children’s health–has motivated health equity advocates in Louisiana to fill the data gaps through collaborative datawork, that is, the work of making data meaningful across social and scientific communities. In 2022, a coalition of community organizations, academic researchers, and public health workers led by the Louisiana Center for Health Equity (LCHE), a community-based organization created by a registered nurse, worked together to examine the links between adolescent mental health and disciplinary practices in schools. Ensuring their agendas were informed by community priorities led them to incorporate the contributions of adolescents advocating for better access to physical and mental healthcare resources and the abolishment of discriminatory and punitive disciplinary actions in schools. Their collaborative datawork revealed how data gaps around adolescent mental health are a structuring component of schools’ discriminatory and punitive climates–much as gaps in environmental health data benefit polluting industries. They found that existing figures around adolescent mental health are inaccurate, as many youth are unable to receive an official diagnosis owing to lack of healthcare access. LCHE advocates at a house committee meeting in January 2023 reported that students who exhibit behavioral issues rooted in trauma or mental health more often receive punitive disciplinary actions rather than rehabilitative and restorative services. This work generated the support needed to pass legislation to expand public health infrastructure and access to mental health resources. In June 2023, House Bill 353 authorized the allotment of "mental health days" as an excused absence for students; introduced procedures for schools to connect students to medical treatment and services; and required the Louisiana Department of Education to develop and administer a pilot program for implementing mental health screening, among other changes. By mobilizing advocates and scholars from across the social and institutional silos, LCHE’s collaborative datawork tentatively expanded children’s public health infrastructures. 

Fisher, Margaux. 2023. "Collaborative Datawork and Reframing Adolescent Mental Health in the Deep South." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11.

The film is primarily the narratives of many first responders, so they play a large roll in the meassage being protrayed. They are seen as heros but also paid the price of their decisions through health issues.

The film is geared towards the general public, all medical terms are explained fairly well. No medical or first response background is necessary, and it is fairly educational for viewers.

The real threats of air quality were covered up due to politics and other reasons, wanting to get america back to work. Instead, the reports were edited and people were sent back into the dirty air to clean up the scene or back to office jobs in the area, with contaminated air surrounding everything. Decontanimation efforts did not start until very late in the process. Bush did not wear a mask and the workers were told they didn't need to, so they didn't. As a result, there were severe health problems afterwards.

The first hand interviews from first responders are compiled in a way that goes through the stories of what heppened, how health information was released and changed. The first repsonder stories are intermixed with testimonies from the EPA workers, showing differences in the science that was found and the press releases disclosing the health concerns. Many tear up upon realizing how their health will hurt their families. The doctors in the area caught onto the trends in poor health and started a monitoring program to make sure everyone got the medical screening and help they needed. The lives of all of the first responders and their families were changed drastically from their public service.

First responders share their experiences, how they responded, how they realized there weren't going to be many survivors. Many of them suffered from health issues afterwards. The air was very toxic and led to cancers. It makes you wonder how other safety information is given to first responders. They weren't even doing a rescue mission at the point that asbestos was being hidden in reports, so their lives should not have been risked like that for simply cleaning up rubble. Was it worth it for them to shovel the debris and pull out parts of bodies at that point, while putting their well being and lives at risk? If they had waited a few months for the dust to settle and be cleaned up, would that have saved many of the first responders? Offices in the area and houses nearby weren't inspected until even later. Schools opened as a sign of American strength led to asthma, bronchitis, etc. Are those lives worth the public image?

The school parent was interesting - explaining that the public image of resiliance was paid for by the lungs of the children being sent back into the uncleaned schools.

The person in charge of sending out the EPA press releases (and heavily editing them) had previously fought against the EPA for large companies.

The doctors eventually noticed the issues and tried to get more of the first responders evaluated and treated.

The first responders that risked their lives saving others now can't get fair treatment or benefits to help recover. They want to work but can't.

They needed to testify that they were on the scene in front of a judge to get benefits.

The government and politicians that released the information do not share their defense of why they cut information out, at the cost of the people and responders.

The government should not edit the EPA's notices and warnings.

There should be far more safety information given to first responders and people living/working in a dangerous area. If they are not actively saving lives, they should not be risking their own lives - like in the rubble cleanup for 9/11.

I looked into the wide varitey of illnesses that stemmed from the cleanup. I also investigated where the hazards came from - the get fuel, the burning chemicals and computer parts and building materials.