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 data acquired in this study can be used not only for improvement in policies and training for healthcare workers, but also to examine the risk factors for the disease. One example is the age and gender disparities in those nfected. These could be explained by the typical age and gender of healthcare workers, but could also show a trend in risk when coupled with patient data. The data on the districts and their infection rates can be used to help pinpoint the origin of infection. 

The policy was created in response to adverse health effects of the 9/11/2001 attacks in NYC. The act is an ammendment ot the Public Health Service Act.

As far as persuasive goes, the entire film was very convincing of the fact that the doctors were under-resourced and over-worked. The part where the doctors were trying to perform a surgery and didn't have the right kind of drill to relieve the pressure in the brain was pretty compelling. Here we would never consider drilling into someone's brain without the proper sterilization, apparatus, or drill, but in such a low resource clinic, its the only option. That just shows how desperate the doctors were to perform their craft andbest serve their patients. Another part that was convincing was the portion where the doctors argued about reusing gloves. It was a bit hard to understand the argument, as the concept is just baffling to me as a hcp, but the fact that they had to disagree over washing and reusing gloves is proof of their desperation.

The article explains how a team of medical staff treated (and consequently killed) a number of patients following the flooding of a hospital in New Orleans. The staff in question overdosed the patients to put them out of their pain as they saved other patients who were more likely to survive. The article calls into question the process of triage and how we go about it. Who has the authority to make these decisions, and what lines do we draw between ethics and compassion. The article provides a play-by-play of the events leading up to the flooding, and relevant policies that existed and have been created related to this incident. 

The author seems to rely strongly on personal experience and belief to make broad statements about the situation following chernobyl. Most of the article is about the author and their experience with the issue, rather than the objective data and observations of others. This makes the arguments seem rather close-minded and almost biased.