Search

In the interview with Emily Roehl, artist Steve Rowell describes his style in contrast to the more "didactic" approach of land use and documentary photography. Instead, he has come to combine his visual works with sound installations that are meant to unsettle. These sounds are often generated based on air pollution data that he has collected (Roehl and Rowell, 2022, p. 137). Rowell further describes how changes in the development of aerial video and photography technology have shaped his work. In the past, Rowell would rent expensive camera equipment and attach them to a helicopter to generate fly-over images (Roehl and Rowell, 2022, p. 140). Though commercial drones have become available, Rowell says that he soon got dissatisfied with the "slick" images they produce. When using drones, Rowell relies on an angle that faces down or is close-up, creating feelings of uncanniness. These unusual perspectives are combined with split imagery and mirroring to achieve a specific effect: “There’s a value in giving the viewer/listener a chance to distrust the work in the same way there’s value in giving them room to question the work. The landscapes I feature are all altered. What landscape isn’t now? That’s the point.” (Roehl and Rowell, 2022, p. 140).

Steve Rowell is an educator and research artist, currently working on “long-term projects that use image, sound, and archival practice to interrogate the relationship between humans, industry, and the environment” (Roehl and Rowell, 2022, p. 136). Rowell has worked extensively with the Center for Land Use Interpretation (CLUI) in Los Angeles, including a comissioned project for which he photographed every petrochemical plant in Texas (ibid, p. 137). In subsequent projects, he has focused on tracing pipelines going from the Alberta Tar Sands to petrochemical communities in Long Beach, California and Port Arthur, Texas. Another recent project focuses on the industrial ecology of Houston's Buffalo Bayou. 

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.