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 major stakeholders are those exposed to the contaminated water (and subsequently suffer from cancer and other major illnesses) and the Marine Corps. Unfortunately, the Marine Corps and other government agencies show fairly limited attempts to aid those fighting for information about Camp Lejeune. Moreover, several meetings within Washington DC reveal the nature of policy making; how special interest groups often overshadow the common welfare of the public. Jerry Ensingmer and his counterparts often deal with the harsh realities of fighting giants with slingshots, and often have to choose between family and trying to help those also effected by the contaminated water. There are many questions raised about how much governing bodies actually care about soldiers, and how deep the "semper fi" motto actually goes. 

Byron Good, Ph.D., is a professor of Medical Anthropology at Harvard Medical School. His primary area of research is mental illness and how social perceptions evolves around these issues, in terms of both treatment and social acceptance. Dr. Good has several works on these issues, including several that explore the perspective of bio-medicine in non-western medical knowledge, the cultural meaning of mental illness, and patient narrative during illness. His publications including several papers, books, and edited volumes; he is regarded as a major contributor to the field of psychological anthropology. 

This article primarily argues the increased attention on gender-based violence, and subsequent attempts to alter humanitarian guidelines, hinders efforts to address sexual violence and politicizes the issues. This, in turn, creates exclusionary methodologies to address sexual assault from a humanitarian stand point, manifesting as secondary victimization, labeling of the issues as gender-specific, and preventing universal solutions. 

Much of the data gathered by Dr. Schmid comes from reports occuring in the aftermath of Fukushima. Additionally, Dr. Schmid appears to use multiple reviews of past nuclear emergencies and protocols. She uses these articles, international statements, policies, and current treaties to build her argument.

At this time, the group does not appear to have drawn any significant research nor produced any. I would be intrigued to see if medical personnel (such as emergency medicine residents doing their research fellowships) would have any interest in the group, their call volume, and patient outcomes.