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?

The implications this report has for technical professions is the report is an example of what should not occur, more proper prep should have occured. The government distrubted food should have been protected and been on site for the incoming storms. Hospital's should have been evacuated days earlier, the report serves as a warning of what not to do if a storm this stron occurs again. Technical professionals should use this report as advice on what to do in the future. The impact of the healthcare professionals was good, they used their knowledge to the best of their ability-they determined the resources needed to increase.

The main findings presented in the article are the stages of mental  illnesses after a disaster post, pre and per factors as well as the most common health (mental illness disorders) after a disaster has occurred-such as generalized anxiety disorder and PTSD. The article also discusses that despite events happening only a small percentage of the population experiences these illnesses and a small portion still get treatment. The lack of treatment options is also discussed- it is not readily available after a disaster.

The program is regarded postively by the public. If education and training was no longer needed, it would no longer be provided. The systems are also updated as needed- this knowledge provides a positive lookout on continuing education for others who wish to be emergency nuclear response trained

The central argument/narrative of the film is explaining what the Fukishima nuclear meltdown was and what was done to contain the explosions and the subsquent radiation that was leaking into the atmosphere. How to restore power to the plant in order to contain the fuel rods and prevent meltdown. Indirectly the argument was to persuade the public to be more informed about nuclear power and the affects it could have on the world- to learn how to prevent nuclear disasters; make emergency nuclear response teams.

The study was not funded it was on a volunteer basis, where particpiants would be paid for their time and information gathered would be used for the study.