Research and Investigation

My research question is: how might we use medical technology and healthcare infrastructure to treat patients with mercury poisoning in Grassy Narrows First Nation? As my research progressed, my research question became more specific to my passions and what I believe is the important aspect of the solution to mercury poisoning in Grassy Narrows. My research question began as: how might we treat the patients suffering from mercury poisoning in Grassy Narrows. Through my research, I learned that the government had promised a $170,000 to fund a study for a long-term mercury treatment center in 2017, and $4.5 billion to fund the treatment centre, that should have begun in 2017 (Snyder, 2019). However, nearly 3 years later, these promises have been postponed and not yet fulfilled. I believe that a treatment centre directly solves the problem of mercury poisoned people, rather than preventing it from occurring. Hence, I changed my research question to reflect the focus of healthcare infrastructure and medical technology.

 

The variety of sources and methods used to collect data throughout this report increase the validity of the research. Documentaries, books, online websites, and primary sources such as interviews through these sources contributed to the credibility of the research conducted. The primary sources, such as Chelsea Vowel's "Dirty Water, Dirty Secrets" and Alex Shimo-Barry's "Invisible North" are valuable because the authors have written about their first-hand experiences on First Nations' reserves. These sources include observational information about First Nations' reserves and water quality and scarcity issues, including interviews with Indigenous peoples. These primary sources are beneficial as they offer a new perspective on a situation only some have experienced, allowing others to further understand something beyond their personal experiences. Primary sources can also be limiting, because the accounts may be biased. Secondary sources, such as the Toronto Star and CBC are valuable, as they offer information that is based on fact, rather than opinion. This allows the reader to understand both sides of a controversial issue, such as the Grassy Narrows water crisis. However, secondary sources can be less valuable than primary sources as the author has not always experienced the topic first-hand, so the information conveyed is less personal and possibly incorrect. The quantitative research collected, for example, the percentage of mercury in the blood of a healthy person compared to a mercury poisoned person is extremely valuable. This is because the numerical information is extremely clear and supports the statement that Indigenous peoples who have been poisoned by mercury have higher levels of mercury in their bloodstreams, which is unhealthy. Quantitative data may be limited because numerical values do not demonstrate the full context of the situation. In addition, data may be older and not as relevant compared to new data.​