Search

The documentary is missing because the documentary is as safe as the fence it mocks in its title.
In the beginning we are asked to bear witness to the construction and use of the most devastation weapon of indiscriminate death the world has ever seen, and all the harm the construction of such a tool, yet its construction and its use is justified near instantaneously by repeating the same old propaganda.
In continuation, we are asked to bear witness to the continuous production of similar weapons and the devastation caused by the mishandling of the waste that accumulated in their production, yet why such a production took place is not only left unquestioned, but simple hints of cold war propaganda is left in their places for safekeeping.
In the end, we are asked to bear witness to a sombre victory, same spectres of patriotism and nation-of-God watching over our shoulder, yet how the pitiful situation of being forced to celebrate even such a small victory is never explored.
To sum up, we are shown people, good people, who struggle against the symptoms of a disease, yet this disease itself never named, nor challenged. It could not have been challenged, as it would force a complete change in their discourse.

If we sincerely would like to critique how the bodies of these workers were made disposable; used, harmed, dislocated and discharged as deemed necessary; if we wish to explore this topic as the necropolitical issue it is, we cannot stop halfway through. This inability to stop chasing connections, relationalities wherever it fits our ideology, is not a call for “objectivism”, it’s a call to respect the term of Anthropocene with all its rhizomatic connections.

An investigation of nuclear waste, that does not factor the use of its product, the socio-political effects of said product, and the historical conditions that even led to the possibility of producing it in such ways and such quantities, are of no use for us.  It cannot penetrate the barrier of capitalist realism. If it could, at least a single mention of workers unions would have existed. Instead, it has confessionals by atomic weapons lawyers whose heart goes out to these workers.
An America that refuse to face up to the fact that it is what it is by the great necropolitical project it led for hundreds of years, I struggle to accumulate sympathy for, what I can easily accumulate is rage however, which this documentary is missing..
Wish the documentary would have at least attempted to say something radical, instead of praising these disposable bodies for being patriotic about it. There are lives who never had false fences built as idols for safety, the collective idols of old America, the patriotic nation under God were built upon their broken bodies, what would you ask of them?

1) Case studies.

2) The laws of France with regard to healthcare and non-citizens.

3)  Personal experience of medical professionals.

The main argument of the article is “Chronic disaster syndrome” stems from three problems: first the long-term effects of personal trauma, second the disruption of the smooth functioning of their way of life, and third the permanent displacement of depressed populations from the social landscape.

Cloud9 relies on its funders: IBM, Capital Factory, Telemental Health Institute, and Health Wildcatters. Telemental Health Institute especially lends to the service.

The main finding of the research article is that the aftermath and effects of the Chernoblyl incident are still wreaking havoc today on those that were exposed as well as on the healthcare systems which they rely on.

1) Fukushima proved current standard ineffective. Fukushima was the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl incident over 25 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of people had to be relocated due to the radiation leaks—many to this day. The effects of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of radiation contaminated water released into the ocean are still not fully known.

                2) International groups called for agency to enforce as no current candidate is feasible. IAEA is large enough but not fully trusted to be the host as it promotes nuclear use and appeared to praise TEPCO and the handling of the Fukushima incident. The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) is a better candidate but still faces the problem of appearing as a secretive organization keeping its member companies confidential. WANO also currently lacks the size and resources to build an international nuclear disaster strike team.

                3) The author stresses that good communication and cooperation are required for success of such an organization. For a response team to work at the international level, sharing of different countries’ reactor designs and other various trade secrets would be crucial. The expertise from operators, responders, and other professionals who have had hands-on experience from Fukushima and other nuclear disasters. It would take a sizable amount of funding for such an organization and maintain the capabilities as the author described.