The procedural upholding of the Statute of Limitations is an obstruction of justice for victims of environmental contaminants because it reframes the suffering of people as a question of technical timeliness instead of a matter of morality and scientific evidence.Neighbors of the site have been affected by the toxins emanating from the Santa Susana Field Lab, and they deserve the legal justice they were barred from receiving. Jessica Gesell, a longtime resident of Simi Valley, California, shares her personal testimony of her health struggles on the Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab website. Gesell was diagnosed with thyroid cancer at age four. “One of the first questions my doctor, Dr. Barbara Lippe, asked my mother when we met at UCLA was, ‘When was your child exposed to high levels of radiation?’” (Gesell). In 1997, Gesell joined other neighbors of the Field Lab in launching a class-action lawsuit against Boeing, the owner of the site. Gesell expresses her confidence in their case and her hope for justice, but “on June 29, 1999, our case was barred by the statute of limitations. The court held that, based on the facts as alleged in the complaint along with newspaper articles submitted by the defendants about the Rocketdyne facilities dating back to the early 80’s, our claim should have been brought forward before 1997” (Gesell). Her health issues continue to affect her life, and she communicates her anger and devastation at the absence of justice for her and other victims, even now. The origin and purpose of the source must be considered in its analysis. This anecdote comes from Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab, a grassroots nonprofit organization dedicated to “protect[ing] nearby communities from exposure to the site’s toxic and carcinogenic contamination” through holding responsible parties accountable, according to their mission statement (PASSFL). The organization was founded by the parents of children who have suffered from unusual forms of cancer. This is valuable because the members of this organization, including Gesell, have a deeply personal connection to the cause. Gesell in particular was the child diagnosed with a rare cancer, so she has experienced this firsthand and can therefore provide a direct account of her experience. However, the origin is also a limitation, because Gesell and the founders of PASSFL are not scientists, lawyers, or environmentalists, so information presented in these sources may not be complex or nuanced enough to provide a full, well-rounded statement backed by scientific evidence. The purpose of this source is to prompt a moral outrage in the readers. She does this through employing the rhetorical strategy of pathos, utilizing emotional language to emphasize her personal trauma and her frustration with Boeing. The narrative begins with quotes from an innocent conversation between four-year-old Jessica and her father. Immediately afterward, it is revealed that this exchange was the last one that took place before a surgery for Gesell’s childhood thyroid cancer. The juxtaposition of the lighthearted conversation and the grim context that instantly follows it draws attention to Gesell’s age at the time of her diagnosis and subsequent battle with cancer. Readers empathize with her situation, especially when her innocence is the first thing expressed. The rest of the article is now affected by the previous knowledge of Gesell’s cancer that the reader now has. In addition to this, Gesell uses emotionally charged language throughout the story. Gesell claims that Boeing and related entities made an effort to cover up the partial nuclear meltdown and its release of contaminants including radioactive material. She writes that Boeing employees were “forced to comply” to Boeing’s mandate of secrecy concerning the nuclear meltdown, which connotes Boeing as the aggressor and its employees as victims of the corporation; therefore Gesell, as someone fighting against Boeing, is a righteous seeker of justice in this narrative. Overall, Gesell does not focus on the legal ruling for the class action lawsuit; rather, she stresses that the radiation from the site has caused her to battle cancer throughout her life. She also employs logos through quoting an interaction with a medical professional at UCLA, who immediately assumed radiation exposure (cited above). This is significant because it provides a trustworthy affirmation that Gesell’s cancer was indeed caused by the Santa Susana Field Lab. The article ends with a call to action: “How can we expect to leave a world behind that is safe for future generations if we don’t take the right steps to ensure their safety today?” She takes the specific topic of the Santa Susana Field Lab and ties it into the wider goal of making life better for the children, which appeals to many.