The 1993 Hoechst AG accident, surveys on exposure and mortality risk and what this has to do with data injustice.

Stakeholder residents:
Activism and citizens' initiatives: were very active after the incident, many groups formed; "neighbours" here still self-description (in contrast to "ihr-nachbar.de" appropriated later by infraserv). Initiatives also involved in the process of deciding which institute should carry out the study and which study should be carried out (much knowledge accumulated, advocating for data justice).

Stakeholder external institutions:
External institute (BIPS) wants to critically investigate the incident and the possibly increased cancer risk in a follow-up study (data is to be critically processed and analysed externally). BIPS even wants to investigate with its own financial contribution, but it is not allowed to do so (does not get the tender by the municipality). Perspective of Höchster Schnüffler un' Maagucker here: Argument of data protection as a pretext, health department wants a less critical one for the follow-up study (and one that submits to the municipality's "rules" concerning publication rights).

Data injustice and executing a study:
Data not usable in an ideal way, ultimately not reconciled with the cancer registry, which now exists.

Data injustice and social inequalities:
Note in the expert report that the social structure of the affected areas should have been taken into account, e.g. whether marginalised groups were more exposed than non-marginalised groups (link to environmental justice). However, this was not done in the report.