Search

It was reported, that one worker at the industrial park was suffering from eye irritation, following the release of hydrogen chloride. He had to be treated at the outpatient clinic of the industrial parks' Occupational Health Center, and could go home afterwards. There is no further information of long-term effects the worker might have suffered from to be found on the internet, according to my search. However, eye irritation induced by chemical exposure can lead to effects such as increased eye pressure and a following reduction of vision, as well as chronic pain.

I am wondering, how this worker got hurt, as this was not reported in the article. Usually, workers need to wear proper protective equipment in areas in which one risks exosure to airborne chemicals that can cause corrosion, including protective goggles. As can be read in a follow-up article (https://www.fnp.de/frankfurt/frankfurt-gas-trat-aus-weil-ein-rohrleitun…), a pipeline malfunction had been found as the reason for the release, possibly in an area where no protective equipment is required? I can only speculate on this, but the worker seems not have been informed about the incident.

Missing information seems to be a common theme in this case, in the aforementioned article it is also reported that the smartphone application that is supposed to warn residents about such incidents, released a warning only 50 minutes after the sirenes had been going off. Also it is written in the article, that after the incident the citizen telephone line was busy, such that some callers could not get the information they required, and that many residents are not familiar with the meaning of the different signals released by the warning sirene. In case this or similar incidents happen in the future, they therefore pose a grave health risk to the surrounding population.

In this setting, several stakeholders are to be identified:

- Citizens living in Hoechst and surrounding areas and workers at the industrial park: Necessitate information to ensure their safety.

- Infraserv and companies at industrial park: Bad press is bad for image of industrial park, whcih might lead to political or financial consequences; Centralization of information flow on website "ihr-nachbar.de" to create narrative?

- Fire department Frankfurt: Responsibilities as first responders to incidents include information release to public and combat incident.

- Public media/ press: Information of the population as well as economic pressure to release notions that are of interest to public (to gain clicks/sell magazines and newspapers); Need to report correctly to gain/keep trust of potential information consumers.

- Local politicians: Need to take political measures to protect citizens to gain/keep trust of potential voters; Possibly also require good relationship with Infraserv and companies, as many high-profile companies are located at industrail park bringing in tax money.

"Considering that citizen activism evokes a negative image, and that some of the earliest citizen groups measuring radiation, including the Citizen Nuclear Information Center (Tokyo), have strong ties to antinuclear activism, “antinuclear” is a label many organizations initiated in the wake of Fukushima try to avoid. Disasters such as the Fukushima nuclear accident trigger different publics into action (Hasegawa, 2004, Leblanc, 1999). These citizens are not solely—or even necessarily—antinuclear activists, but primarily concerned citizens, whose main driver is to protect (in Japanese “mamoru”) and serve their community, as conventional information sources failed to do so (Morita et al. 2013). By publicly distancing themselves from activism, these organizations may gain credibility within their community. Born out of a sense of necessity (Morita et al. 2013, Kimura, 2016), these groups should therefore not be labeled as activists as such, but rather as active by default. Even if personal convictions lean towards antinuclear feelings, the organizations as such avoid taking a polarizing position, rather focusing on gathering the “right” data." (p.5)

I oppose this techno-optimistic approach and the expectation that data that is "right" will speak for itself. I would argue that data can and must be used for negotiations on social contracts, but the negotiations need be conducted actively. I can very much understand the necessity to not phrase political claims in a radical manner, if situated in a society in which activism evokes a negative image, but am not convinced that change can occur if no claims are being made in the first place?

"Albeit subjected to the same standards of general scientific enquiry (Morris-Suzuki, 2014, Coletti et al. 2017, Brown et al. 2016, Kuchinskaya, 2019), the scientific facts and evidence produced by these citizen groups serve the needs of the community, allowing them to gain control over their lives: "Citizen science connects directly to our lives: is the dose of my meal okay, is the school where my child goes to contaminated?"." (p.5)

I interpret this as the need to take individual action as well as individual responsibility to combat disaster. Is it possible to combat disaster in an individualized rather than a collective manner though?

In the text, the 2015 White paper of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports Science and Technology (MEXT) is quoted as: "When it comes to the creation of innovation that changes society, ‘citizen science’ (shimin kagaku), which embrace ideas from daily life, is important, because the possibility that innovation is created, increases as new venues where experts and citizens collaborate, are developed. Moreover, the knowledge, skills and desires that citizens possess, sometimes surpass that of the expert. If we can bring this knowledge to an efficient use as ‘the wisdom of crowds’ under the banner of open science, then around the year 2030 we can increase the amount and the quality of innovation activities in technology and science, including research activities, even if the number of scholars in our country will decrease.”

The authors state that this notion were to introduces “citizen science” within the globally expanding science and policy fields of open science and open innovation and further that by this MEXT was targeting an increased contribution of citizens to benefit formally institutional science rather than being concerned with the question of how science can contribute to society. I tend to agree with the latter, but am left with the question how the underlying narratives are constructed when talking about creation of innovation, increasing new venues, and bringing knowledge to an efficient use under the banner of open science? These terms seem to be very much informed by neoliberal thought, but social relations do not seem to be an analytical framework the authors are working with.