The paper effectively links environmental illness and social inequities to the concept of “settler maintenance,” supported by powerful qualitative narratives. However, the reliance on oral histories and qualitative data limits the generalizability of the findings. For example, while the health risks of exposure to toxic chemicals are detailed through individual testimonies, there is no incorporation of quantitative data (e.g., rates of chemical exposure, prevalence of related illnesses among domestic workers). Without such evidence, it is difficult to assess the broader public health impact or support policy recommendations with empirical weight. Could the authors discuss how integrating quantitative measures, such as exposure thresholds, chemical toxicity levels, or occupational health statistics, might complement their qualitative findings and strengthen the argument?
