EiJ Hazard: PFAS
FOR ECOGOVLAB/CCEJP CURRICULUM: Use this as a research resource during 11th and 12th Grade Lesson 2 on Hazards.
FOR ECOGOVLAB/CCEJP CURRICULUM: Use this as a research resource during 11th and 12th Grade Lesson 2 on Hazards.
I hope to be involved in projects that aim to gather scientific evidence to inform environmental decision making and advocate for greater equity and justice in environmental governance. Through this work, I hope to learn the skills needed to engage in community based research and leverage community knowledge as expert knowledge. In my department, things are often siloed and issues are only seen through one perspective. I really want to gain more experience in collaborating with a wide array of stakeholders to come up with approaches to mitigate the environmental injustices experienced in under-resourced communities.
Three quotes that support this are
“Numerous case studies have document that meaningfully engaging lay communities in decisions traditionally made by scientific and technical elites can enable greater vigilance and raise confidence about individual emergency prepardeness.” (Schmid 196)
“So far, the nuclear industry has almost exclusively focused on accident prevention.” … “nuclear emergency preparedness and response has hardly gained traction.” (Schmid 200)
“They created an organization, Spetsatom” … “and with defining generalizable strategies about how to respond to a possible future nuclear emergency” (Schmid 200)
One of the main arguments in this publication is that the spread of illness is often determined by social forces. For example, impoverished individuals may be more susceptible to illness because they cannot afford the proper treatment, not because they are more likely to contract the illness. This is described as structural violence: socio-structural factors that prevent people from achieving their full potential, e.g. receiving medical care.
The report has been cited by many other articles and reports including ones published by the NIH
The main point of this article is to argue how the EPA falsely stated that the air quality around the site of the tower collapses in the day following 9/11 was safe. They argue this by stating that the building was constructed of 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete which generated millions of tons of dust around the site of the collapse, per EPA estimates. They also argue that the EPA is at fault for making false statements of security and should be mandated to fund the cleanup process.
I further examined more details about the Fukushima disaster not mentioned in the article as I don't remember much from when this disaster occured. I also examined more about the first responders at Fukushima and the efforts that were made to attempt to minimize the effects of the disaster on an individual scale. I then looked into other similar disasters, like the Chernobyl disaster, that have occurred that I was not very familiar with and compared them to the Fukushima disaster.
A GoogleDoc link to a bibliogrpahy about PFAS in Santa Ana and community-led responses