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?

In this article emergency response in addressed in the sense that if preemptive measures are not taken and the socioeconomic factors preventing care are not taken into consideration the United States and the world is at risk of a pandemic. If this occurs, there is uncertainty in what the appropriate response would be as the scale and complexities of the biological agent will be unknown. 

Scott Knowles is a professor and the head of the Department of History Center for Science, Technology, and Society at Drexel University. His work specifically focuses on risk and disaster, with particular interests in modern cities, technology, and public policy. Knowles has recently released a book addressing the risks and disasters in modern America. 

This article primarily discusses the mental illnesses associated with disasters whether they be natural or instigated by humans. The article looks at mental illnesses themselves, such as PTSD, MDD, and substance abuse, and also the groups at risk for these mental illnesses. The article also breaks down the factors pre, peri, and post the disaster that can contribute to mental illness of victims, and what emergency response providers can do/provide in order to reduce these risks of mental illness. 

The argument/narrative is made and sustained by the use of Sgt. Ensminger's back story and the stories of other Marine's and their families. The film includes interviews with chemist who tested the base's water supply in the 1980's, Senate and House committee meetings, testimony from USMC Colonel, and current chemical investigations at military bases.