The Politics of Invisibility
Public Knowledge about Radiation Health Effects after Chernobyl
Publication Year: 2014
Published by: The MIT Press
Title Page, Copyright Page
Download PDF (93.1 KB)
Download PDF (44.9 KB)
Download PDF (74.6 KB)
This research started in 2003, when I discovered online reports and press releases by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) claiming, in essence, that Chernobyl was a myth.1 In its objective scientific voice, UNSCEAR argued that there was no evidence that radioactive fallout from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident had significant effects on the health of the affected populations. Only one...
Download PDF (70.9 KB)
I am deeply grateful to everybody in Belarus who participated in this research by sharing his or her perspective and by helping establish further connections. I especially thank the following individuals, who were particularly generous with their time and information year after year: the late Vassily Nesterenko, Vladimir Babenko, and Mikhail Malko. I also received support from many other individuals who worked or continue to work in Chernobyl-related research institutes, nongovernmental organizations and...
Download PDF (108.6 KB)
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident is one in a list of many: Sellafield (England, 1957), Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania, 1979), and Fukushima Daiichi (Japan, 2011), along with numerous minor accidents. As of this writing, Chernobyl is the largest accident in the list. The fallout from the accident covered vast areas in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in Europe. Belarus, which at the time was a Soviet republic north of Ukraine and its Chernobyl nuclear power plant, received most of the fallout (Ukraine itself...
1 Articulating the Signs of Danger
Download PDF (908.0 KB)
A local member of an international Chernobyl project, a young man who grew up in one of the more contaminated areas, asked me why foreigners were interested in solving the problems of Chernobyl. “It is mostly foreigners who are passionate about Chernobyl problems, and not the local people,” he observed. The attitudes of visitors might change, however, as they witness the actual circumstances in the contaminated areas. Another local resident and member of the same Chernobyl project argued that foreigners “come here and see that everything is normal. Radiation is scary only ...
2 The Work of Living with It
Download PDF (131.4 KB)
More than two decades after the accident, the paradoxical fact about Chernobyl radiation is that individuals are responsible for their own internal contamination doses. The state food infrastructures have entrance and exit radiation monitoring, but people create their internal accumulation of radionuclides by consuming contaminated food from forests and private garden plots. The official media sometimes argue that people in the affected territories “have gotten used to radiation” because one cannot live...
3 Waves of Chernobyl Invisibility
Download PDF (3.1 MB)
In a May 1986 essay entitled “Anthropological Shock,” Ulrich Beck reflected on the aftermath of Chernobyl as a “media event” in Germany. By anthropological shock, Beck was referring to the experience of the inadequacy of our senses when faced with radiation danger—human senses register nothing when exposed to increased levels of radiation. Individuals’ own sovereign judgment is rendered impossible. Without the information provided by the media and other social institutions, laypeople would not even notice...
4 Twice Invisible
Download PDF (114.1 KB)
Because radiation is not directly perceptible to the unaided human senses and we do not encounter it as a tangible phenomenon, formal representations of what should be considered dangerous become doubly important in defining the scope of contamination and its risks. By formal representations I refer to standards, categories, and thresholds used in radiation protection. They help us interpret raw numbers by providing a context of what constitutes radiation risks. I also refer to visual maps that systematize...
5 No Clear Evidence
Download PDF (123.9 KB)
Of all the different perspectives on the scope of Chernobyl’s health effects, the perspective of the UN nuclear experts has been the most unyielding. According to a September 2005 joint news release issued by three UN agencies that were members of the Chernobyl Forum—the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)—“fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost...
6 Setting the Limits of Knowledge
Download PDF (121.9 KB)
Professor Yuri Bandazhevsky relocated from Grodno to Gomel to become, in 1990, the first rector of the Gomel State Medical Institute, a position he held until 1999.1 A pathologist by training, he led a group of researchers studying the effects of the internal accumulation of radionuclides—that is, radionuclides consumed with contaminated food products—on pathogenesis in the cardiovascular, nervous, endocrine, reproductive, and other systems.2...
Download PDF (81.9 KB)
Clear, visible clues about possible actions and their potential consequences help us navigate the use of various objects we encounter; we tend to run into trouble when our environment does not make connections between possible actions and outcomes obvious.1 Radiation is a treacherous hazard because it gives us no clue to its increased levels in the environment, in our food, or even in our bodies; nor do we get any sense of what the consequences ...
Appendix: Data and Methodology
Download PDF (87.3 KB)
Download PDF (139.4 KB)
Download PDF (105.4 KB)
Download PDF (119.7 KB)
Page Count: 264
Publication Year: 2014
Series Title: Infrastructures