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 film stands very well on its own. As a biology major with particular interest in human physiology, I would have liked to see more information on what defects/cancers/diseases are most prevalent with the listed contaminants. Moreover, chronic illness from contaminated water could also demonstrate harsh effects on renal and circulatory systems; these were not discussed during the film nor were we provided with any links to studies demonstrating coincidence between VOM's and specific illnesses. 

1) early on the article, Dr. Good discuses how individuals would use the word "fainting" to described their tonic-clonic seizure episodes. This was quite divergent from the word "epilepsy" in Turkish, thus allowing the patient to distance themselves from the well-stigmatized diagnosis of epilepsy. It also served as a point of reference for what linguistic nuances could be expected during the course of the interview, as these can play a great deal into the narrative.

2) Dr. Good also discusses the work of Dr. Evelyn Early, who interviewed members of the Turkish female population. His description of Dr. Early's work states these narratives “allow the women she studied to develop an interpretation of the illness in relation to a local explanatory logic and the biographic context of the illness, to negotiate right action in the face of uncertainty, and to justify actions taken, thus embedding the illness and therapeutic efforts within local moral norms".

3) Dr. Good includes the story of Zeki Bey, an individual with generalized seizures for 15 years at the time of interaction. Dr. Good describes his narrative of his illness as being "[told with] immediacy, drama, and poignancy... His illness had a powerful and meaningful beginning, which gave shape and coherence to the larger narrative."

Emergency response itself is not particularly addressed; the article, instead, focuses on the humanitarian efforts that typically spawn from multi-week and month long conflicts. These are not necessarily the first-line individuals, but rather the workers (such as MSF) which come in to provide aid in the middle, late, or final stages of a conflict. The report delves into the responsibilities and hurdles of dealing with sexual violence in humanitarian efforts, which includes both emergent and non-emergent care.