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?

"Considering that citizen activism evokes a negative image, and that some of the earliest citizen groups measuring radiation, including the Citizen Nuclear Information Center (Tokyo), have strong ties to antinuclear activism, “antinuclear” is a label many organizations initiated in the wake of Fukushima try to avoid. Disasters such as the Fukushima nuclear accident trigger different publics into action (Hasegawa, 2004, Leblanc, 1999). These citizens are not solely—or even necessarily—antinuclear activists, but primarily concerned citizens, whose main driver is to protect (in Japanese “mamoru”) and serve their community, as conventional information sources failed to do so (Morita et al. 2013). By publicly distancing themselves from activism, these organizations may gain credibility within their community. Born out of a sense of necessity (Morita et al. 2013, Kimura, 2016), these groups should therefore not be labeled as activists as such, but rather as active by default. Even if personal convictions lean towards antinuclear feelings, the organizations as such avoid taking a polarizing position, rather focusing on gathering the “right” data." (p.5)

I oppose this techno-optimistic approach and the expectation that data that is "right" will speak for itself. I would argue that data can and must be used for negotiations on social contracts, but the negotiations need be conducted actively. I can very much understand the necessity to not phrase political claims in a radical manner, if situated in a society in which activism evokes a negative image, but am not convinced that change can occur if no claims are being made in the first place?

"Albeit subjected to the same standards of general scientific enquiry (Morris-Suzuki, 2014, Coletti et al. 2017, Brown et al. 2016, Kuchinskaya, 2019), the scientific facts and evidence produced by these citizen groups serve the needs of the community, allowing them to gain control over their lives: "Citizen science connects directly to our lives: is the dose of my meal okay, is the school where my child goes to contaminated?"." (p.5)

I interpret this as the need to take individual action as well as individual responsibility to combat disaster. Is it possible to combat disaster in an individualized rather than a collective manner though?

In the text, the 2015 White paper of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports Science and Technology (MEXT) is quoted as: "When it comes to the creation of innovation that changes society, ‘citizen science’ (shimin kagaku), which embrace ideas from daily life, is important, because the possibility that innovation is created, increases as new venues where experts and citizens collaborate, are developed. Moreover, the knowledge, skills and desires that citizens possess, sometimes surpass that of the expert. If we can bring this knowledge to an efficient use as ‘the wisdom of crowds’ under the banner of open science, then around the year 2030 we can increase the amount and the quality of innovation activities in technology and science, including research activities, even if the number of scholars in our country will decrease.”

The authors state that this notion were to introduces “citizen science” within the globally expanding science and policy fields of open science and open innovation and further that by this MEXT was targeting an increased contribution of citizens to benefit formally institutional science rather than being concerned with the question of how science can contribute to society. I tend to agree with the latter, but am left with the question how the underlying narratives are constructed when talking about creation of innovation, increasing new venues, and bringing knowledge to an efficient use under the banner of open science? These terms seem to be very much informed by neoliberal thought, but social relations do not seem to be an analytical framework the authors are working with.

Towards the end of the film, the ongoing situation of workers at Honeywell/Metropolis is introduced. One workers union, the USW (United Steels Workers), is protesting working conditions and exposure to toxic materials at the plant. They report that workers were locked out after protesting working conditions. They organize protests on the streets in proximity to the plant and march together at the parade on labor day. USW representatives report difficulties of processing complaints of residual contamination because documents were missing, of the processed claims mentioned in the film only 124 were approved while 205 were denied. One health physisist reports about the entrenched bureaucratic culture and that doctors were trained to testify against workers who made health claims, he seems to be very concerned about this as it exposes workers to dangerous working conditions. I think that unionizing as collborative action is a very powerful and effective approach, and think it would be important for health physicists and plant workers to organize together rather than fighting on their own (as it seems to be the case currently).

Denise DeGarmo, associate professor of political science at University of Illenois, took camera team on tour through Weldon Springs. She explained that instead of undergoing remediation, the site at Weldon was turned into a natural reserve after the initial cleanup (at which workers received scarce information about dangers of the materials they were working with). Deniese reports that this way one did not have to do another cleanup, but she further reports that material has migrated into ground water of surrounding areas. Another stakeholder reports that people go there for recreational purposes and children are playing in the area. I find it difficult to distinguish emergency responders in this situation (except for the initial cleanup laborers), as toxic waste sweeps out slowly, and thus body burden only shows up over time. I was very surprised about the possibility to circumvent action and removal of toxic wastes by turning a site into a natural reserve and would have liked more information about this policy in the documentary.

Multiple stakeholders are introduced in this film, such that either directly worked at the plant or had family who worked there, such that were academically interested in the matter, or such that were concerned about their community.

Paul Mitchell was a former electrician at Mallinckrodt, he was not informed about potential dangers and states that "no one there knew what uranium was". Further, he talks about noticing how colleagues got cancer, at beginning he did not find this unusual but then became weary after one colleague who had been very young and fit also was diagnosed with cancer.

Further, Brooks Davis tells her family story, she is the daughter of former plant workers (I think the father worked there for about 15 years, while the mother worked there for 1 year). Her father had been working in "hot areas" and was shifted to other areas in the plant whenever his exposure to radioactivity had been exceeding permitted levels for some time, and then was moved back after a short period of "cooling down". He got lung cancer at age 40, and was struggling with the disease for years, which caused him much bodily and emotional pain, finally he died in 1978. Her mother, who lived in poverty as a result of losing her husband so early and having to provide for her children, tried to claim to be entitled for compensation but was denied this repeatedly for bureucratic reasons until she wrote a letter explaining her situation.

Clearance Schneider was a health and safety inspector at Weldon Spring, he explains that one had to wear a badge and a white uniform when working at the plant, and if something was not right with the badge (that recorded nuclear exposure), it was taken off. He reports an incidence with a hydrochloric acid cloud that was released into the air and hovered over the neighborhood. He had skin cancer, but you could not confide this to anyone as he was afraid to lose his job, and when the company closed he reports that one was not allowed to leave the country for 3 years.

Obie Young was a chemical operator and reports that when his job was eliminated, he got several months of pay such that he would not need another job for a while, because if he had started a new job they would ask for tissue samples and find out that radioactivity was much too high in his body.

Another stakeholder is the organization "St. Charles County against hazardous waste" with his president Dr. Michael Garvey. They were concerned about contamination at Weldon Spring site, and demanded that the voice of concerns were heard at citizen meeting.

Gary Ferguson, a laborer who was involved in the cleanup of the site, reports that Geiger counters went through the roof but "they told us it was not dangerous". Further, he reports that containers with stored chemicals were disintegrating. Every day he worked at the cleanup, he had a bloody nose, but when he told his supervisor this person respondet that he should not talk to anybody about it, because otherwise he would get fired. He therefore decided not to confide in anybody, because he "had to pay his bills".

Gerald Kleba, a priest in the community, who noticed that many children in his precinct were sick and died, went on a Weldon Spring "tour". He was surprised that people on the other side of the fence concerned with the cleanup had moon clothes on, but people on the tour on the other side of the meshed fence were wearing everyday clothes and not informed about potential dangers. This shocked him, and encouraged him to engage in communal activities to raise attention to the danger of chemical and nuclear waste in the neighborhood.