Maternal responsibility and blame in technological disaster: Radiation risk management as gendered labor after Fukushima.

State governance after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident created a culture of silence and tolerance surrounding radiation risk, and deliberately fueled the popular understanding that acting upon radiation-related concern was antithetical to national and regional economic recovery. Outright denial of danger by Japanese leaders, paired with loosened safety standards and limited state support for affected residents by way of guidance and compensation, led to a privatization of radiation risk management that placed responsibility for exposure reduction onto families while also constraining their action. Drawing on in-depth interviews and participant observation, this article explores how such dynamics fell most heavily on concerned mothers, who were far more likely to take on this additional realm of domestic labor and care work due to deeply ingrained norms of gendered labor and citizenship. Yet such maternal labor was not lauded as a valuable social contribution. Rather, concerned mothers found themselves in a double bind in which to care for their families through vigilant avoidance of potential risk was to betray the state. Risk mitigation came to require a significant amount of emotion work associated with not appearing overly anxious or paranoid, constantly assessing the risk perception of others, and at times suppressing concern and compromising on risk tolerance. The results of this study suggest that neoliberal models of environmental risk management, particularly in moments of high uncertainty surrounding the risk in question, can not only create internal, interpersonal, and community conflict but also exacerbate existing gender inequalities.

Slow activism in third places: De-normalizing radiation and rebuilding ethical relations after Fukushima.

What are the possibilities for action and agency in a world of chronic, invisible environmental harm? How can environmental social movements address crises wherein affected communities have ambivalent or conflicting perceptions of the environmental harm in question? Through extensive participant observation and in-depth interviews, this study explores these questions in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident of March 2011. One way in which concerned citizens and advocates across the country responded to this accident was to organize recuperation retreats, meant to provide temporary relief from the physical threat of radiation exposure for children and families still living in Fukushima prefecture. Such retreats are primarily sites of relaxation, play, and immersion in nature. In providing "third places" for conversation about shared experiences, ongoing concerns, and practical information about radiation risk, retreats also function to de-normalize radiation contamination and cultivate ethical relations based on transparency, trust, and mutual support. I argue that recuperation retreat organizing, as well as the act of participation, represents a form of slow activism that falls outside of the binary of resistance and quiescence. Recuperation retreats present a potential model for a public health response to environmental health crises, particularly in cases of environmental uncertainty and contestation.

Mobilizing motherhood: The gendered burden of environmental protection.

Maternalist framing has been a consistent part of a long history of powerful, often successful organizing for environmental protection and justice. Yet today's calls on individuals to simultaneously engage in proenvironmental behavior and to protect themselves from environmental threats through consumption have mobilized maternal discourse in a way that is likely demobilizing in the long run. Indeed, the increasing individualization of the environmental movement is intersecting with persistent, unequal gendered structures of labor in a way that places the burden of environmentalism and environmental risk management on women and mothers. I argue that precautionary consumption and other forms of individualized environmental risk management add to the "third shift," on top of the disproportionate burden of household labor and care work that women already face. This phenomenon is concerning because it has the potential to (1) limit women's engagement in other forms of environmental advocacy and leadership, and to (2) reproduce existing gender inequalities not only between men and women but also among women of different levels of race and class privilege. Thus, the increasing individualization of the environmental movement also potentially exacerbates environmental injustice at the household level. Despite such emerging concerns, the domestic scale remains an often overlooked site of environmental harm and gendered burden.

Reporting to parents on children's exposures to asthma triggers in low-income and public housing, an interview-based case study of ethics, environmental literacy, individual action, and public health benefits.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence about the effects of endocrine disruptors on asthma symptoms suggests new opportunities to reduce asthma by changing personal environments. Right-to-know ethics supports returning personal results for these chemicals to participants, so they can make decisions to reduce exposures. Yet researchers and institutional review boards have been reluctant to approve results reports in low-income communities, which are disproportionately affected by asthma. Concerns include limited literacy, lack of resources to reduce exposures, co-occurring stressors, and lack of models for effective reporting. To better understand the ethical and public health implications of returning personal results in low-income communities, we investigated parents' experiences of learning their children's environmental chemical and biomonitoring results in the Green Housing Study of asthma. METHODS: The Green Housing Study measured indoor chemical exposures, allergens, and children's asthma symptoms in "green"-renovated public housing and control sites in metro-Boston and Cincinnati in 2011-2013. We developed reports for parents of children in the study, including results for their child and community. We observed community meetings where results were reported, and metro-Boston residents participated in semi-structured interviews in 2015 about their report-back experience. Interviews were systematically coded and analyzed. RESULTS: Report-back was positively received, contributed to greater understanding, built trust between researchers and participants, and facilitated action to improve health. Sampling visits and community meetings also contributed to creating a positive study experience for participants. Participants were able to make changes in their homes, such as altering product use and habits that may reduce asthma symptoms, though some faced roadblocks from family members. Participants also gained access to medical resources, though some felt that clinicians were not responsive. Participants wanted larger scale change from government or industry and wanted researchers to leverage study results to achieve change. CONCLUSIONS: Report-back on environmental chemical exposures in low-income communities can enhance research benefits by engaging residents with personally relevant information that informs and motivates actions to reduce exposure to asthma triggers. Ethical practices in research should support deliberative report-back in vulnerable communities.

Researcher and institutional review board perspectives on the benefits and challenges of reporting back biomonitoring and environmental exposure results.

As the number of personal exposure studies expands and trends favor greater openness and transparency in the health sciences, ethical issues arise around reporting back individual results for contaminants without clear health guidelines. Past research demonstrates that research participants want their results even when the health implications are not known. The experiences of researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) in studies that have reported personal chemical exposures can provide insights about ethical and practical approaches while also revealing areas of continued uncertainty. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and nine IRB members from seven personal exposure studies across the United States to investigate their experiences and attitudes about the report-back process. Researchers reported multiple benefits of report-back, including increasing retention and recruitment, advancing environmental health literacy, empowering study participants to take actions to reduce exposures, encouraging shifts in government and industry practices, and helping researchers discover sources of exposure through participant consultation. Researchers also reported challenges, including maintaining ongoing contact with participants, adopting protocols for notification of high exposures to chemicals without health guidelines, developing meaningful report-back materials, and resource limitations. IRB members reported concern for potential harm to participants, such as anxiety about personal results and counterproductive behavior changes. In contrast, researchers who have conducted personal report-back in their studies said that participants did not appear overly alarmed and noted that worry can be a positive outcome to motivate action to reduce harmful exposures. While key concerns raised during the early days of report-back have been substantially resolved for scientists with report-back experience, areas of uncertainty remain. These include ethical tensions surrounding the responsibility of researchers to leverage study results and resources to assist participants in policy or community-level actions to reduce chemical exposures, and how to navigate report-back to vulnerable populations.