Search

This image shows how toxic sites can often seem inviting and are often inhabited as places of recreation and fun. The coast, for instance, is a very popular place to both relax and play energetic games like Frisbee. But this particular beach has apparent signs of pollution and toxicity. We also see young children naively frolicking about in close proximity to these toxins. So the combination of risk and vulnerability creates a sense of anxiety and, as the author suggests, of absurdity...

The author lets us know that this sea foam is toxic, but do we know what it is? Where it comes from? Is this a common occurrence? Or is this foam more of a commonplace at this beach?I would also like to read more about how local residents understand the coast and if, when, and how it is or isn't considered to be a safe place. How is it that kids (like those depicted in the image) are allowed to play here? Is this a widely accepted practice? Or would other residents find this equally appalling?

This is a found image taken by a professional photographer. It is aesthetically appealing. The photo appears to have been taken at dusk, which makes the colors and shadows interesting to look at. The children playing gives the photo a sense of levity, but this is quickly offset by the sight of the pollution. This dissonance between the toxic foam at the bottom of the image and the beuaty of the beach at sunset along with the lightheartedness of children at play makes the image interesting and compelling.

This image is a screenshot of the interactive map created by Climate Control, which shows the flood risk in the coastline of Chennai. The way the ethnographer presents this interactive map provides us information about the map producer, the form of data, and areas under the flood risk. 

This visualization does not directly talk about "toxics" but about "risk", namely flood risk due to climate change. We also learn that environmental activists use similar images to mobilize residents around the knowledge about the risk they face.

To draw attention to the "interactive" process, "mapping" can be used. Nevertheless, it depends on the ethnographer would like to approach to the map, as a process or as a thing. 

The very basic message/argument of this visualization is that maps render real climate change as an "abstract" process. The author also notes that she is developing this visualization through looking into the methods/methodologies of interactive map making so as to learn more about the forms of risk that are rendered visible while other forms are rendered invisible.

The author notes that " I want to look more closely at these images as well as the methodologies that go into their construction to ask what forms of risk are made visible and what are made invisible." That would be really great, for example, if she can give a couple of more information about the methodology used for this interactive map, namely, digital elevation modelling. How does she interpret this methodology as an ethnographer? 

Southern Louisiana has the highest concentration of petrochemical companies in the US. According to the 2003 article, the state accounts for at least one-fourth of production, known to be "cheap, accessible, and welcoming" to companies (227). Due to alarming health consequences, the region is fairly well known as "Cancer Alley", a term invented by environmental justice activists. These are straightforward symptoms of toxicity.The author analyzes "toxic tours", organized excursions by environmental justice groups that take outsides to sites of environmental harm.

In this context, the imagined collaborators include: “communities of scientists, sometimes Native American scientists, science educators, science policy folks, and Native American community members (1).” The collaboration is first and foremost interdisciplinary. New knowledge is produced, especially challenging disciplinary norms.