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 first portion of the article focuses on the shift of sexual violence from a woman's rights issue to the larger title of "gender-violence". From there, Dr. Ticktin argues the nuances of this transition necessitated medicalizing sexual violence, and turned it into a condition to be treated by tools within the humanitarian kit. Just as how we now attempt to treat polio by handing out vaccines and flyers, rape is covered by blanket protocols and procedures. In attempts to make this issue more respected, we sacrificed the nuances of care necessary for adequate treatment.

This is further exemplified in Dr. Ticktin's description of humanitarian aid-- the preservation of life itself, with disregard to the kind of life being lived. She goes on to contend that sexual violence is by its very definition a "kind" of life, thus creating an inherent conflict in the overarching goal of treating sexual violence and humanitarian interventions.

Dr. Ticktin also pays respect to the inherent difficulty in maintaining the typical principles used during humanitarian aid efforts, especially when attempting to treat gender violence. One of her primary examples is the work of MSF in the Congo Republic. During the conflict, roadblocks would be set by armed men, and thus MSF were forced to accept military escorts-- destroying the key humanitarian tenant of neutrality. Moreover, many of these militia men were perpetrators of the sexual violence, something MSF was seeking to treat. 

Emergency response is literally the main focus of the entire article. While it seems to be only a short chapter in a much larger collection of similar essays, the report fully analyzes past and present responses to nuclear emergencies. Moreover, Dr. Schmid builds a case for how future emergencies should be handled by an international team built on expertise. This includes expertise of nuclear energy, disaster response, and nuclear policy/regulation. While she refrains from commenting fully on whether the response mounted for Fukushima can be classified as "good" or "bad", her assertions indicates a need to shift focus from preventing emergencies to how nations respond to nuclear emergencies.

As an ambulatory agency, BSVAC obviously utilizes the typical EMS technologies, such as oxygen, BVM, ambulance, pulse oximetry, ect. However, it should be noted at the time of publication (2014), an article by the New York Times describing BSVAC's economic struggles, only 1 of the 6 functional rigs could be used due to lack of funding. At the time of the article, this rig had broken down-- and only through the volunteer maintenance by an EMT student's father had it been returned to commission. This leads me to believe that well BSVAC has all the available technologies, these may be dated or somewhat worn in nature.

The majority of the information obtained for this report comes from the work of the four authors. As members of Partners in Health or clinicians, these individuals have seen first hand the effects of social violence in patient care. Moreover, they have witnessed the effectiveness of addressing these ills to better patient outcomes. Some information was also gathered from past studies, including a report by Moore et al. detailing Baltimore's racial discrepancies in care and patient outcomes.

1) The article begins by articulating the four domains that "biosecurity" supposedly encompasses. Yet, even just by looking at these four domains with a basic knowledge of current events, one can understand these are all far from having any sense of stability. Just recently, more reports emerged of use of chlorine gas and other agents against citizens in Syria. Reluctance to vaccination has led to a re-emergence of measles and pertussis across the US. 

2) Increase awareness and attention does not always result in cooperative and cohesive actions. While there may be movement to address certain issues, this does not always encompass details of how to attack certain public concerns. One of the main examples cited in the article was a small pox scenario termed "Dark Winter". Here, officials struggled to gauge the possibility of a small pox bioterrorism attack with the cost and effect of the small pox vaccine-- which can result in death. The conflicting results of the scenario between healthcare personnel "on the ground", government officials, and the CDC's difficulty in gauging a credible threat level led to a dismissal of the program.

3) Many of the approaches by global agencies touted as medical agencies primarily center on emergency response protocols. This modality prepares them for quick, short responses to emergency problems, while neglecting long-term intervention. The article argues this approach is preferred because of the galvanizing, global responses emergencies have-- they garner attention and resources quickly, while long-term problems do not. Additionally, short-term presence is far easier to prepare for than implementing long-term solutions to medical scenarios.