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?

The three quotations that more capture the message of the article are: 

"Regardless of the specific national roadmaps, however, nuclear safety has returned to the international stage with a vengence." - I love the use of 'vengence' because it's such a powerful descriptor.

"Numerous case studieshave documented that meaningfully engaging lay communities in decisions... enable greater vigilence and raise confidence about individual emergency preparedness."

"The real challenge of a disaster involving nuclear facilities lies in how to handle the unexpected, unpredictible, utterly novel, and barely intelligible chain of events unfolding in real time."

Sheri Fink conducted an interview with one of the doctors who worked at the Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans. She also interviewed people affected by the disaster. 

The report data covers from April 26th 1986 (the date of the disaster) to 2006 (the year the report was published).

This article has been referenced in 16+ anthropological papers on PMC. Most of the references are for papers that deal with references for HIV in urban communities.

The membership of the IAEA consists of 168 countries as of February 2016. Membership includes all major countries and every nuclear power other than North Korea. To become a member state, a country must submit an application which is then reviewed by the IAEA Board of Governors who determine if the applying country is willing and able to uphold the charter. Then the general conference must approve the application and grant the state membership. It is important to know that a country does not need to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be a member of the IAEA. Currently India, Israel, Pakistan, and the South Sudan have not signed and North Korea is withdrawn. (iaea.org)