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.

Formosa Plastics publishes a quarterly newspaper called 親親報報 Qin Qin bao (engl. kiss kiss hug). A group of citizen journalists by the Taiwan Environmental Information Center and the initative FPCC Go Away have criticized the newspaper for different attempts of greenwashing (Wu 2015). The newspaper issues include arguments guaranteeing the safety of the 6th Napthha cracker's emissions, interrogrations of research about high PM 2.5 levels in the county and statements about supposed local population growth.

A 2012 blog entry by FPCC Go Away analysis the distribution and publication practices of the newspaper. Notably, the authors point out that an issue of the newspaper addressing PM 2.5 levels was re-published and distributed in the days leading up to a public speech by Prof. Zhan Chang-quan (Department of Public Health at National Taiwan University) who had studied air pollution in the county. 

This film is meant to show the struggles of an ER waiting room from all sides. It shows the frustrations of patients waiting to be seen for hours, financial workers, social workers, and doctors struggling to see everyone in a timely manner. It also shows organizers tryign to sort everyone and move the patients around in ways that benefit all parties. Essentially, this documentary is highlighting the issues that exist in the ER because of lack of staff, beds, and overall means to take care of the large influx of patients. 

This film shows live footage of interactions in the hospital as well as voice over narrations that highlight the mood and stress of the situation. They give some statistics, but the main point of this film is to show the stories of some patients and the doctors and staff to highlight their message. It has an emotional appeal in the sense that viewers can sympathize with and feel frustrated for all parties involved - not just the patients.

There are many people portrayed and mentioned in the film. They discuss issues within governments and insurance companies. They show patients without insurance struggling to get medication and care. As a result, they express issues with access to care and paying for hte care that they receive. They show doctors and the struggles they have with handling patients and those that come in with the ambulance. Nurses and other ER staff are shown as well. They show narratives of several patients in the waiting room and their experience once they do finally make it to a bed. All of these players have a lot of decisions to make, starting with the decision of the patient ot come to this public hospital (possibly because being turned away from others), and ending with a doctor's care and decision whether or not to release patients. 

They are shown for a moment in which they bring in trauma patients, but are not a main player in this documentary.

I found the most compelling part of the film a portion where an elderly man needing dialysis swears and screams at one of the doctors that he's sick and tired of having to wait for dialysis. He says how annoying it is to come to this hospital and expresses frustrations with having to get dialysis at this particular hospital. He is frustrated to such an extent that he even asks the doctor to remove the catheter and let him die, stating that eveyrone dies so he doesn't care anymore if it's sooner rather than later. He's tired of waiting.

I thought every aspect of the film served a purpose and helped shape the documentary.

Policy makers, mostly. People who are privileged and can go to private doctors or hospitals don't often see the issues that public hospitals face. Policy makers who don't see this as a problem would benefit from seeing this documentary. But I think that everyone can learn smething from this documentary. For future doctors it can show patient care and bed-side manners. For a regular person it can show the need for insurance so that they can push local policy makers to make a change.