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?

Yes and no. Communities should be able to do something about their air quality in their area but within the state's command. For example, states should have a state regulation on air quality and be able to enforce that regulation. However, individual communities should be able to do what they want to meet that state regulation on air quality. With this, communities still have the freedom to do something about their air quality while the state maintains its power

EPA is collecting data about the air quality in the ironbound communities. This data is used to find what causes the air pollution and EPA is working to fix the problem and improve the overall health of the communities

Officials are looking to change something like the trucks within the port industry in Newark to counteract air pollution while keeping in mind the jobs of many who can be affected by the changes. The port of New York and New Jersey supplies 270,000 jobs and $36 billion in economic activity for shipping. If the possible changes were implemented, they must make sure that this industry is not impacted negatively because that can hurt the communities connected to the industry.

In the future, I do believe that industrial development and sustainable development are compatible because there is a possibililty of a new source of green energy that is not fossil fuel that can aid both developments. However, currently I do not believe that it is possible to have industrial and sustainable development together with the current resources that we have. Fossil fuels are too harmful for the environment while implementation of green energy in industry is too costly and will not yield the same amount of productivity. Once there is a source that is as powerful and easy to implement, such as fossil fuel, becomes apparent, or companies/officials find an efficient way to implement green energy into industry, then industrial and sustainable development will become compatible.