These images strikingly demonstrate how there is no one way to "know" toxicity - it is experienced from a wide variety of perspectives and scales. It also can rarely be contained... it leaks, no matter our efforts to stop it.
Image 1's black and white composition is notable, seemingly rendering the landfill timeless and/or a relic of past events and consumption. There is little sense of what happens underneath it's elaborate system of pipes and covers. Compared to Image 2, it's scale seems smaller or more intimate, as it is hard to tell how large the landfill is, even on the surface. Unclear if Image 1 is found or created.
Image 2 provides an interesting contrast, both in scale and tone. It is in full color and gives a birds-eye view of the areas surrounding West Lake. In the future, I'd be interesting in seeing other visual perspectives, such as from the hill of the winery. What insights emerge from all of these different POVs on the same "place?"
I feel like image 1 might benefit from some contextualization (unless you find it purposeful to reveal it to the reader at a later moment). Where is it? Why are you interested in it? What does the technical wording on the sign mean? What do we gain from considering the landfill as an "anti-landscape?" Thinking of Joshua Reno's work, how does the liveliness of decomposition and the transformation of matter that happens underground/in a landfill complicate our understandings of them?
I'm very interested in how your choice of images and captions demonstrate the ways "place" becomes a slippery term when thinking through toxicity. Is the West Lake landfill just a landfill? No, far from it. It is both a physical and conceptual place, where memories, relations of proximity, and histories of labor, capital, and property are interwoven. I particularly appreciated your breakdown of the landfill's Google page, especially its reviews and titular image. What is the affective role of sarcasm, irony, and humor happening here?