Search

The photo does not actually convey a feeling of overriding pollution - in fact there are gaps in the traffic, indicating that it is not incessant.  But with the caption this makes the reader/viewer realise how much of an every-day scene this is potentially and that this could be replicated in cities all over the world.  It shows how local residents who are economically vulnerable and live precarious lives are more or less forced to submit themselves bodily to pollution in order to maintain their crafts lives.  

The last sentence does not make sense - it is a bit jumbled although I think I understand what you mean here. Would it be possible to give some examples of the numbers for what counts as unhealthy levels of noise and air pollution?  You mention that there was an air pollution survey, but state that both air AND noise pollution levels were at unhealthy levels.

I love the composition of this photo - the juxtaposition of the two halves - on the left the cars at the root of the problem and also a hint at cleaner air beyond in the mountains, on the right the ungentrified urban buildings inhabited by residents unable to avoid the insidious pollution outside.   At the centre of the photo is a sign highlighting the two main problems - noise and air pollution.  

That in many cases vulnerable groups have no choice but to inhabit them, knowing that they (the toxics) are causing actual bodily harm.

The visual contrasts in this image are particularly fascinating due to the manner in which the caption points out a part of the image that otherwise would not have really stood out as being significant. The little noise/air pollution sign holds a great deal of social and health significance, yet is so small and hardly visible, particularly in comparison to other more noteworthy sights (mountains, cars, trees, buildings, etc.). But with the accompanying caption, this space attains a sense of danger and rather than appearing serene, a site of slow violence.

The caption could provide a bit more detail regarding the context, including the stakeholders in the site. Who was engaging in air pollution monitoring and what did they do with this data? Is this data being used by people in the area to fight for safer environmental conditions? Which authorities are ignoring the environmental dangers present in this site? What specific kinds of data are they looking for? What are the predominant narratives they propogate regarding changes in the city as well as environmental toxicity?

It is unclear how the ethnographer obtained the image (would be good to provide this information in the caption). The image is a photograph, and the composition is notable due to the contrast between the scenery and the hazard sign indicating the risk of noise and air pollution in the area. The sign seems small and not very noticable initially, but once noted it conveys a more toxic and dangerous sense to the rest of the photograph.

It may help as an aside to have a close-up of the sign so as to fully be able to see it easily (including the toxicity logos) and read the words at the bottom. In addition, a translation of the sign included in the caption would be helpful for non-Spanish speakers. I think including the google map images was helpful for situating the site and seeing how it's connected to the rest of the city. 

The visualization shows that even with the knowledge of toxicity in certain sites, people are often forced to make difficult decisions based on factors aside from the environment, such as dealing with gentrification. Toxicity is thus interconnected with other social phenomena, indicating that it is indeed human-made in many different ways and in a sense weaponized against those who seek out the space due to its spatial advantages (would help to know why this is a prime location).