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?

“There is no such thing as being “too secure.” Living with risk, by contrast, acknowledges a more complex calculus. It requires new forms of political and ethical reasoning that take into account questions that are often only implicit in discussions of biosecurity interventions.” (Lakoff 28)

“On the one hand, they examine the different political and normative frameworks through which the problem of biosecurity is approached: national defense, public health, and humanitarianism, for example. On the other hand, they examine the styles of reasoning through which uncertain threats to health are transformed into risks that can be known and acted upon” (Lakoff 12)

“These initiatives build on a growing perception among diverse actors—life scientists and public health officials, policymakers and security analysts—that new biological threats challenge existing ways of understanding and managing collective health and security. From the vantage point of such actors, the global scale of these threats crosses and confounds the boundaries of existing regulatory jurisdictions. Moreover, their pathogenicity and mutability pushes the limits of current technical capacities to detect and treat disease” (Lakoff 8)

As many of these systems are relatively new, and not particularly effective, there appears not to be other apps modeled off of these systems. The only similarities are within the apps themselves, suggesting that the company We-Consent developing many of these apps is using a similar format for each of them.

I followed up on the history of PTSD, Mental illness in the Fire, Police, and EMS services both in disasters and in normal functions, and i looked at existing policies designed to minimize the trauma associated with disaster put in place by organizations such as FEMA and ARC.

The family followed during most of the film was able to get several members out of Liberia during the Ebola crisis, I was under the impression that travel across the border of affected nations was prohibited. The CDC webpage was able to confirm that travel bans were imposed to and from Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone during the Ebola crisis. Travel to and from these places was only permitted for health officials and aid worked, and required a 21 day quarantine upon returning to the US. However, several cases in surrounding countries were reported and it is known that people would first travel to a different country before attempting to fly to the United States.

I was also interested in how health care workers and emergency responders kept themselves safe while working with such a dangerous virus, the CDC webpage was also able to clarify the PPE used when dealing with suspected or confirmed cases of Ebola, including gloves, gowns, respiratory protection and boots. Protocols also exist for training responders in the proper methods of donning and doffing PPE to protect themselves.

As a portion of the film focused on the public outrage concerning the quarantine, I read an article “Encouraging Compliance with Quarantine: A Proposal to Provide Job Security an Income Replacement” by Mark A. Rothstein which explains in greater detail the effectiveness but also challenges posed by a quarantine, and how this directly effects the infected and uninfected individuals inside.

This policy was created in response to attacks against non-police first responders, the effort to enable the responders to carry firearms was in part motivated by a 911 call where the caller faked a medical emergency and then took the firefighters hostage when they arrived. He later stated that he had chosen a medical emergency because he knew they wouldn’t be armed. This, and other incidents, began to affect patient care as paramedics no longer felt safe entering buildings without police.