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?

1. Schmid discusses the aftermath of Fukushima and how the workers at the plant lacked expertise in handling this type of disaster, and as a result, retreated. This is an example of the lack of knowledge among workers and lack of an action plan in case a disaster such as the one that occured happens.

2. Schmid points out how world leaders are recognizing the need for a unified and consice nuclear emergency response plan. One of the leaders include Russian nuclear operator, who suggested that international law should force countries operating nuclear plants to abide by international safety standards. 

3. She also points out how executives in the nuclear industry create many rules in order to control the workers. They don't necessarily analyze when, why, and by whom rules are broken, but instead implement more rules. When rule-beinding or judgement calls are made, executives try to conceal them instead of learn from them, which is part of the issue at hand. Improvisation is very important. Especially when it emphasizes the expertise of the executives. During an emergency, improvisation would show what experts have experienced and how well they can lead and cooperate. 

The main point of this article is that medicine needs human experience through stories and vignettes in order to provide better diagnoses and outcomes for patients. This author highlights the importance for doctors to consider stories and personal anecdotes when deciding what would be best for their patient. 

Not that I could find. 

1. "Part of the great appeal of humanitarianism is that it exemplifies moral certainty: it purports to save lives and alleviate suffering. How can one argue with this kind of moral imperative?"
2. "But more significantly, in addition to revealing the reproduction of inequality, the fissures rendered visible by the entry of gender-based violence into humanitarian missions force an engagement with new forms of the political. Humanitarianism’s mission has expanded so that it now occupies a dominant place in the global political arena – whether humanitarians asked for this or not."
3. "My argument is that while humanitarianism, in conjunction with certain feminist movements, may work to medicalise and depoliticise gender-based violence, the politics of gender actually creep back in undercover, revealing problems at the heart of the humanitarian mission – problems that undermine the very idea of a ‘humanitarian space’ critical to humanitarian action, that is, a space that tries to temporarily hold the political at bay."
4. "That is, if one errs on the side of the duty to bear witness, this is considered ‘political’ and threatens the neutrality which gives access to crisis zones. It is a fine line to tread."