Search

As a researcher, I’m interested in the political, ecological, and cultural debates around mosquito-borne diseases and the solutions proposed to mitigate them.

When we received the task, my first impulse was to investigate about the contemporary effects of anthropogenic climate change in mosquito-borne diseases in New Orleans. But I was afraid to make the same mistake that I did in my PhD research. I wrote my PhD proposal while based in the US, more specifically in New England, during the Zika epidemic, and proposed to understand how scientists were studying ecological climate change and mosquitoes in Brazil. However, once I arrived in the country the political climate was a much more pressing issue, with the dismantling of health and scientific institutions.

Thus, after our meeting yesterday, and Jason Ludwig’s reminder that the theme of our Field Campus is the plantation, I decided to focus on how it related to mosquitoes in New Orleans.

The Aedes aegypti mosquito and the yellow fever virus it can transmit are imbricated in the violent histories of settler-colonialism and slavery that define the plantation economy. The mosquito and the virus arrived in the Americas in the same ships that brought enslaved peoples from Africa. The city of New Orleans had its first yellow fever epidemic in 1796, with frequent epidemics happening between 1817 and 1905. What caused New Orleans to be the “City of the Dead,” as Kristin Gupta has indicated, was yellow fever. However, as historian Urmi Engineer Willoughby points out, the slave trade cannot explain alone the spread and persistance of the disease in the region: "Alterations to the landscape, combined with demographic changes resulting from the rise of sugar production, slavery, and urban growth all contributed to the region’s development as a yellow fever zone." For example, sugar cultivation created ideal conditions for mosquito proliferation because of the extensive landscape alteration and ecological instabilities, including heavy deforestation and the construction of drainage ditches and canals.

Historian Kathryn Olivarius examines how for whites "acclimatization" to the disease played a role in hierarchies with “acclimated” (immune) people at the top and a great mass of “unacclimated” (non-immune) people and how for black enslaved people "who were embodied capital, immunity enhanced the value and safety of that capital for their white owners, strengthening the set of racialized assumptions about the black body bolstering racial slavery."

As I continue to think through these topics, I wonder how both the historical materialities of the plantation and the contemporary anthropogenic changes might be influencing mosquito-borne diseases in New Orleans nowadays? And more, how the regions’ histories of race and class might still be shaping the effects of these diseases and how debates about them are framed?

Emergency responders were not the main focus of the film but were portrayed as having to deal with difficult situations that they had little real control over, mostly because the state was portrayed as trying to do the right thing but making things worse. The consequences of the government fell on the emergency workers. The doctors and responders had to risk personal safety and had to deal with people not trusting them and ignoring their requests.

The purpose of the article is to underscore the difficulties and importance of post-disaster research investigation into why exactly the structural collapse of the towers happened. Dr. Knowles does this by looking into the cause, investigation, and aftermath of several historical building catastrophes in the US.   These cases have reveal how politics, public, and private entities contributed to the disasters and what tends to happen in the aftermath. In the case of the World Trade Center, Dr. Knowles identifies the main reasons for the structures failing and how other sky scrapers are susceptible to the same attack. 

1) Case studies.

2) The laws of France with regard to healthcare and non-citizens.

3)  Personal experience of medical professionals.

The main argument of the article is “Chronic disaster syndrome” stems from three problems: first the long-term effects of personal trauma, second the disruption of the smooth functioning of their way of life, and third the permanent displacement of depressed populations from the social landscape.

Cloud9 relies on its funders: IBM, Capital Factory, Telemental Health Institute, and Health Wildcatters. Telemental Health Institute especially lends to the service.

The main finding of the research article is that the aftermath and effects of the Chernoblyl incident are still wreaking havoc today on those that were exposed as well as on the healthcare systems which they rely on.

1) Fukushima proved current standard ineffective. Fukushima was the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl incident over 25 years ago. Hundreds of thousands of people had to be relocated due to the radiation leaks—many to this day. The effects of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of radiation contaminated water released into the ocean are still not fully known.

                2) International groups called for agency to enforce as no current candidate is feasible. IAEA is large enough but not fully trusted to be the host as it promotes nuclear use and appeared to praise TEPCO and the handling of the Fukushima incident. The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) is a better candidate but still faces the problem of appearing as a secretive organization keeping its member companies confidential. WANO also currently lacks the size and resources to build an international nuclear disaster strike team.

                3) The author stresses that good communication and cooperation are required for success of such an organization. For a response team to work at the international level, sharing of different countries’ reactor designs and other various trade secrets would be crucial. The expertise from operators, responders, and other professionals who have had hands-on experience from Fukushima and other nuclear disasters. It would take a sizable amount of funding for such an organization and maintain the capabilities as the author described. 

1) “Repeatedly, I have been surprised by the impact that even lightly sketched case histories can have on readers.”

2) “But even the manifesto conceded that less formal expertise would remain important in the areas of practice that had not been subject to high-level testing. THAT confession covers much of the territory.”

The IAEA is based in Vienna, Austria. It is comprised of six main departments: Department of Nuclear Energy, Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications, Department of Technical Cooperation, Department of Safeguards, Department of Management, and Department of Safety and Security. The IAEA employs over 2200 staff throughout the world. It has offices in Toronto and Tokyo and also holds research facilities in Monaco, Austria, and Seibersdorf. The main resource the IAEA provides to its member is nuclear knowledge and expertise in its various departments though countless publications.