Search

Environmental harm and the safety are often the key categories and concepts used when citizens and activists have advocated for changes to US military infrastructure in South Korea. By Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek South Korea, the environmental costs of US military infrastructures often call on the citizens who live near the bases. In this below a new concrete wall built by the US military had blocked the natural water flow, leading to flooding just outside the base during heavy rainfall. Formally all environmental concerns are mediated through a clause called Known Imminent Substantial Endangerment Clause which asks that citizens must prove bodily harm has been inflicted due to environmental harms caused by the US military in order to receive redress. The US military often chooses to ignore claims of US military infrastructure effecting the daily lives of citizens who live near the occupation as the local governments and lawyers are often hesitant to approach the US military about grievances due to the financial support the city receives for hosting US military infrastructure. While environmental protections exist, when they are used and how they are used are often dictated by the US military who are not lawfully accountable for the citizen's livelihoods or concerns with US military infrastructure. In the case of this flooding incident, an activist organization was able to pressure the local government to make a complaint. It resulted in the construction of a drainage system which sits outside of the US military base and inside the property of a local citizen's land. Because all US military infrastructure technically maintains control over the land 3 past it's actual construction it remains up for debate whether the construction of the drainage system should be seen as a base expansion or not.

Cho, Tony. 2023. "Drainage system for Osan Air Base in reaction to flooding outside its borders." 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, Hawaii, Nov 8-11.

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. 

This was published by the International Atomic Energy Agency and is published as a part of the Radiological Assessment Reports Series.

Since the report was published by the IAEA, which is an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical cooperation of nuclear technology worldwide, it can be considered a government report. 

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion in 1986 led to a ten day reactor fire that resulted in a large and unknown amount of radiation spilling into the surrounding areas in Ukraine. This caused the contamination of the environments and those around the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people had to evacuate and to this day it remains to be an issue. Due to this controversy that still surrounds this disaster, the IAEA, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, OCHA, UNSCEAR and WHO created the Chernobyl Forum. They generate "authoritative consensual statements" on the environmental consequences due to the radiation exposure. Ultimately they and this event in Chernobyl are what called for this report. 

This is a 180 page document that has hundreds of components in terms of what information, as well as measures and advice that the report includes and recommends. The report contains information on the radioactive release amounts and deposition in the urban, environmental, agricultural and aquatic areas surrounding the plant. Recommendations for future monitoring and research are also provided. Countermeasures are also widely discussed and ways in which people can combat and help reverse effects of the radiation and evacuations. The effects the disaster had on plants and animals is also analyzed and supported by facts and figures. The amount of human exposure and recommendations are also discussed. Future trends are analyzed as well as very detailed reports of the weather during the time of the incident, how that effected things, how specific types of animals were effected, the differences between external and internal doses.  A break down of the impact on air, shelter, surface water, groundwater etc. is also provided. Needless to say, pretty much any single detail that could possibly be known about the condition during the event and after the event were researched and documented in this report. 

Data for this report was collected from other sources and forms of documentation as early as the day of the event. Information and details such as population sizes, weather conditions that day, human population distribution and more were all information collected from that day of the event. Other forms of data collected, ranging over the time of the event occurring to the publication time, include factors such as the quality of the air, water, animals and living conditions surrounding the plant. Human radiation levels and infection were also gathered, radiation levels of crops and much, much more were all statistics and data collected over roughly twenty year timespan that this report covers. This is actually one of the main driving points of the report, listed in the title "twenty years of experience." It compiles 20 years of research and findings into one large report.

The report heavily discuss the effect that the radiation had on the people and environment around the plant. Not only is there a deep scientific analysis of the effects that the radiation had on local areas surrounding the plant, but conclusions as well as recommendations for future research as well as recommendations for countermeasures are also suggested and discussed. Health concerns of those exposed to radiation as well as amounts they were exposed to is discussed and measures those can take to counteract and protect themselves in the future.

The report shows that there are obvious measures of fallout and exposure due to the disaster. The numbers show a clear effect of the disaster on the environment, animals and humans surrounding the area. Due to this, this puts technical professionals in a position in where they must take obvious precautions, and proceed with this data ethically and attempt to combat it and increase the preservation of the environment as well as areas and people surrounding the area of disaster. Professionals now must with this data and these findings apply their degrees and background to help improve the conditions ad fallout. They now have a duty in their respective fields to work with these findings and use them to better the situation to the best of their abilities.