Search

"Within this latter understanding of citizen social science, listening to the field becomes an important tool to accumulate not only concerns and issues expressed by citizens (Morris-Suzuki, 2014), but also to adopt and borrow terminologies used by citizens to generate a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003)." (p. 6)

Concept of citizen science (top-down/ bottom-up), and also dealing with the question of the politicalness of data, I think that's quite interesting. As one of the members says: "We agreed that if we just measure accurately, the truth will shine through. If we start saying that we are against [the government], people will label us as against [the government]. So it becomes more difficult for everyone to join us. [...]" (p. 4) - so data is configured as something apolitical, neutral here, and so the citizen science groups also can be like this. I think this is interesting, that they have this concept of data.

I think the concept of citizen science and participation is interesting when we look at the participatory project of the Höchst Industriepark for the residents: They are invited to discuss about impacts of the Industriepark on the districts around. But in this context, the citizens they don't acquire data, but are invited to get informed about what Höchst Industriepark wants to do, what their plans are. I think the aspect of participation is a little hypocritical here: For me it seems to be a measure of making residents feel like they can participate, but there is no decision-making power with them.

Could we see the acquirement of data by citizen as unpaid work? Who gets the credit for this work? (In the context of top-down citizen sciences)

What about participation as a technology of governing?

I think the text is not very critical in terms of top-down citizen sciences.

At Madison Site, the residents of Calpin streets compiled data of residents living nearby the plant that got cancer. So this was a kind of data collection/ archiving of the residents. They had a list of the illnesses of residents near the plant and they found over 70 cases of cancer on the Calpin streets and 114 Cases of Cancer in the surrounding blocks (around 1h24min). Through this data collection, it was possible for residents to become active and gain the knowledge about what is going on: they became informed and political in this way.

That the body of the workers acts as an indicator for safety conditions at their workplace can also be seen in this film. Particularly impressive I found the passage (approx. at min 30), where it is said that the employees who were too strongly exposed to the radiation and therefore were dismissed, after their dismissal still received their wage – but, as the person interviewed stresses, not due to charity, but to prevent that this worker does urine and blood tests in order to get a new job. Cause in these urine and blood tests the too high levels of exposure in the former plant could become visible – and the company wanted to impede that this happens. So I think what is very interesting here, is the fact, that the exposure is inscribed in the body – and that this is not something, that leads into an action of protecting this body or to a fundamental change of how this work is done – but lead the companies to hide this inscription when it is in their interest.

What kind of monitoring was used to monitor the amount of exposition to radiation (or, “occupational gamma doses”)? In the film they talk about badges, so I did a little research about what these badges are. I found out, that usually, these badges were TLD (Thermoluminescent dosimeter) badges. Murphy and Goel write on Radiopedia: TLD “is a passive radiation detection device that is used for personal dose monitoring or to measure patient dose”. They work as the following: When radiation falls on TLD, electrons are excited and store energy. After a defined period, for example a few months to a year, the badges are evaluated: The reader is a heater, on getting heated, the excited elevtrons come back to the ground state and emit light in doing so, this light is read by a photomultiplier. Light output is proportional to the radiation exposure (Murphy & Goel).  As Clarence R. Schneider (Health and Safety Representative for Electricians) explains (around min 24), the badges they used went to lab every night, if they weren’t “normal”, the workers were not allowed to work at the process areas the next day, they had to use a blue uniform this day and work in another area. So, this monitoring for me has some similarities with a diagnosis: a sample is sent to a laboratory and the next day you know if you are “normal” and can proceed as every day or not. And if not, then the consequence is that you can't work as usual the next day - that you then also got too much radiation, and were more exposed to the risk of illness, that didn't matter to the workers, Schneider says here. After all, it was their job. Later in the film, around 1h19min, Bill Hoppe, a plant worker, also talks about the badges: he stresses that they were supposed to have badges and other security material, but in fact, they did not have it.

Murphy, A. & Goel, A.: Thermoluminescent dosimeter. Available at https://radiopaedia.org/articles/thermoluminescent-dosimeter, last accessed on 18.05.2021.