Thousands of Nuclear Arms Workers See Cancer Claims Denied or Delayed
By Michael Alison Chandler and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 12, 2007; Page A01

The issue at this point is not analyzing the historical-context, however a brief review is provided on the roles of the US government, plant workers, the political issue, the scientific issue and the role of the "public."

The criteria used to select a controversy for this class is fairly broad. However, certain elements have to be present. The controversy has to be (presently) on-going; it has to have (to some extent) a "scientific" representation and a "political" implication. The etiology has to be established, as Latour may argue that without the origin, the representation may not have existed. Furthermore, what effects and affects does this controversy have on the "actors" associated with the claims, politics, science, the general public, and any other person/animal or thing influenced by the controversy.

When analyzing arguments, the cited sources need to be further examined. This exhaustive approach reveals the workings of the "collective," where the controversy develops, conceptualizes, and is then operationalized. Once this controversy has been established, it is compared to Latour's "slider" that has "In the Making" on the left side and "Made" on the other. To better help you understand this, imagine a rope tied between to mountains, with a pulley on it--the pulley can slide back and forth. On one side is the controversy “in the making,” and “made” or a black-box on the other side. This black-box is the “end” sought by scientists and other actors in an effort to close a controversy.

The slider can be moved around depending on the argument being made. A conventional approach usually accepts the data provided by science as the Truth, leading to a black-box on a certain issue. Whereas, the respondent to the controversy, using a non-conventional approach moves the slider back to the left or “in the making.” Usually in this approach, one can argue that the Truth is one of the many truths, not just one, concrete explanation. An example of Latourian analysis can be seen in my paper of the 2002 Biscuit Wildfire controversy—this paper was also written for Dr. Michael Flower’s; Power-Knowledge Class (Spring 2007).

Forces

In a criminal investigation, often the forensic evidence strengthens the case. Similarly (though not leading the reader to believe that any criminal intentions exist), when investigating an issue or controversy, the "latent prints," the interpretations of all the actors involved and their stance need to be analyzed. In the mass media, the one-sided message-frequency establishes a unilateral understanding of the issue. Thus presenting a view that only portrays a photograph of a given context—not a movie of all the elements at play during the processing of the issue.

Latour, simply wants to encourage the questioning of “black boxes.” I look at it as the democratization of an issue, where every facet of an issue gets highlighted, equally. No one aspect gets favorable view from a Latourian investigator. In this investigations, the linkage between sources, resources, actors, texts and other “influencers” need to be studied and exposed in the sense that their roles need to be analyzed and de-constructed in relevance to the issue. Several questions need to be asked as to why they are part of the debate, and what do they gain/loose from certain outcomes.

The issue that I have decided to study is: the effects on nuclear plant workers from years of radioactive exposure and their unsuccessful efforts at receiving proper health care and financial assistance by the United States Government.