|
| Synopsis |
| As revealed in protest archives, local, national and international anti-nuclear groups have challenged narrow bureaucratic definitions of radioactive waste (RW) imposed by industry and government. They brought into public attention previously disregarded health and environmental impact of vast quantities of toxic, long-lived residues produced in uranium mining, weapons tests, reactor operation and accidents and insisted on proper disposition. |
|
| Overview |
| Nuclear technologies feature in contemporary debates at once as a source of clean (“green”) energy and as a dangerous source of long-lasting global pollution from nuclear waste. To make sense of these contradictory visions we need to look at what lies at the center of the debates: radioactive waste (RW). The waste comes from nuclear fuel fabrication, weapons tests, accidents and nuclear arms proliferation, can be liquid, solid, or gaseous, and it is dangerous. The nuclear industry and government bureaucracies have regularly underestimated the extent, complexity and environmental risks of RW. This is reflected in narrow bureaucratic definitions of what constitutes RW and what requires specific measures of isolation and disposal. These definitions typically excluded toxic and long-lived residues produced in uranium mining, weapons tests, and accidents, made them invisible in public debates, and postponed their proper disposition. Since the 1970s, a variety of local, national and transnational protest movements have worked to oppose nuclear power or weapons for a variety of reasons. They have also fought to insist on a more inclusive definition of RWs to ensure their proper handling and public safety. In this project I examined how such movements brought to public light the disregarded toxic residues of nuclear technologies. I used the Laka Foundation Documentation and Research Center in Amsterdam, a unique and rich archive of Dutch and international anti-nuclear movements, founded in 1988. Laka document collection, pamphlets, posters, and other materials bring to light nuclear environmental problems that might otherwise go unnoticed. One of the examples of publicly “invisible” RW documented in Laka archives concerns residues from uranium mining and enrichment. Uranium mining and milling produces vast amounts of waste rock, leachates, and other “tailings.” These wastes contain low-level radioactivity, but they are toxic, long-lived, and spread in air and water. They have been very poorly regulated, with mines often situated on remote indigenous lands and abandoned without remediation. Laka archives reveal the struggles of anti-nuclear movements and local communities from around the world to force state authorities and corporations to manage these wastes in a more responsible manner, for example, First Nations protest over uranium mining in Northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Another type of “invisible” nuclear waste is depleted uranium (DU), a by-product of the process of uranium enrichment. Most nuclear countries and international organizations consider volatile and dangerous DU a resource, even if in reality it is mostly stored at the expense of safety. Some DU is used in ammunition, as armour plate in the military and as counterbalance weight in aircraft. Laka archives provide fascinating testimony of protests against these uses that led to greater human exposure, illness and contamination of the environment. International protest was mobilized against DU weapons in the Gulf Wars and also after the 1992 Amsterdam El Al cargo plane crash when roughly 152 kg of DU was lost. |
|
| Trace/Tracing |
| This entry engages traces on two different levels. First, it apprehends traces in connection with the problem of public visibility of contemporary environmental risks. Many of these risks (particulates, food additives, toxins and ionizing radiation) are imperceptible in daily life. Citizens rely on scientific, medical and legal interventions to trace and remediate the harms these substances cause. However, many factors and actors work to prevent this visibility. Second, we look at traces, such as archives, of the social mobilization that aims precisely to remediate the invisibility of contemporary environmental harms, stimulating production of counter-expertise and new institutions. |
|
| Challenge |
- Nuclear technology has recently become, once again, the center of worldwide attention, both as a panacea for climate and energy problems and as a crucial, if unstable element of the international order. In December 2023, twenty-two UN Climate Change Conference countries pledged to triple nuclear energy by 2050. At the same time as one nuclear weapons state, Russia, has threatened to use nuclear arms during its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. It is important to understand the traces that this technology has left on people and the planet to be able to adopt informed decisions about its future.
- We need better to understand what mechanisms and actors may help our societies to achieve a more just distribution of the harms and benefits of contemporary technologies. Environmental and anti-nuclear movements made crucial contributions in the regard. Many of these movements are in decline around the world, and archives are disappearing. We need urgently to study and preserve these valuable traces of social mobilization to learn from them and pursue global goals of safe, clean and accessible energy sources.
|
|
| Actions |
- Instead of focusing on the radioactive waste management as described and documented by nuclear and state bureaucracies, my work foregrounds several case studies of toxic residues that are usually excluded from official handling of waste or rendered otherwise invisible in public space. The cases cover the stages of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining to the bomb, and from reactors to spent nuclear fuel handling. They include wastes related to the pressing need for clean-up resulting from past disposal of radioactive materials in violation of current norms.
- My work draws primarily on unique archival materials connected directly with protest actors and social movements. These individuals and groups challenged industry and government by questioning their approaches to define and to handle radioactive wastes, and they sought to reveal and to address the full extent of social, public health and environmental risks of nuclear technologies.
|
|
| Learning/Discoveries |
In understand the full scale of the radioactive waste problems we need to overcome the distinctions and boundaries through which industry and governments have determined what is radioactive waste and what is not.This requires seeing the temporal and material connections between different types of wastes, residues and technologies beyond such artificial boundaries as:
- Civilian (peaceful) vs military nuclear technologies. These technologies are inextricably interconnected. They use the same natural resources, knowledge and material infrastructure, and their impacts on the environment are similar. Many of the technologies developed in the one (military) are employed in the other (civilian).
- Waste vs resource. Some radioactive materials and residues have been excluded from the definition of RW because industry claims that they are in fact useful resources. Protesters have shown that the re-use of these materials leads to additional pollution and environmental harm. Moreover, in many cases these “resources” are not effectively reused, but instead stored indefinitely.
- Natural vs technological. Visibility of the radioactive waste problem often depends on how “natural” particular residues appear to be. In comparison to the “technological,” a “natural” quality of residues often presupposes less harm to people and environment and less need for specific methods of disposal and isolation. The waste rock from uranium extraction is an example of such “natural” residues whose toxicity is often underestimated and poorly contained. Yet, the boundaries between natural and technological elements are porous, and their interaction produces non-anticipated impacts
|
