174 C Eriksen and J Turnbull
acts of sensing in 2020 were not useful in determining the unequal distribution and effects of the potentially radioactive air pollution. This is despite
the fact that air pollution ‘presses the question of how atmospheric things
disperse and accumulate in unequal concentrations’ (Choy 2020, p. 105).
For Boris, the atmospheric sensing in Kyiv was not strictly a scientific
act, but rather a political one. As noted by Choy (2018, p. 57) ‘numbers and
measures themselves are both visceral and affecting.’ The chances of registering an increased dose rate outside the CEZ was unlikely, as the 2020
wildfires were not energetic enough to pick up and carry radioisotopes long
distances. This is unlike the original disaster during which vast releases of
energy allowed radioisotopes to travel across continents (Higginbotham
2019). This spectacular sensing, therefore, was generative of the affective atmosphere associated with the wildfire, as the readings taken on
Kreshchatyk were posted on social media and circulated widely.
During the wildfires, residents of Kyiv had to close their windows to keep
out the smoke as it engulfed streets and apartments. Living in Kyiv meant
embodying, and sharing with neighbours, ‘the specificity of experiences of
being in and indeed of witnessing things becoming airborne’ (McCormack
2009, p. 27). As Kyiv residents stayed indoors, a sense of ‘being contained’
arose, which was especially troubling for people whose movements were
already restricted due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The lack of fresh air
both inside and outside gave rise to a sense of envelopment by air pollution.
Whilst unpleasant at the best of times, the fact that the smoke was potentially
coming from the CEZ added another layer of fear. Such embodied everyday
responses to the affective atmosphere of the CEZ wildfires are important
to understand in the context of governing nuclear spaces. Nuclear wildfires
reanimate a particular imagination associated with nuclear fallout from
earlier disasters. Be it fallout from the Chornobyl disaster or nuclear weapons testing elsewhere (Masco 2006; Eriksen 2022), the affective atmosphere
created by wildfires involves uncertainty and fear. Because of radiation’s
ambiguous status in public discourse, these atmospheres form regardless of
the actual threat posed.
Much of the maintenance work to contain both the fear and threat is
carried out by firefighters who, while tackling wildfires in the CEZ, simultaneously mollify public concerns about exposure. Yet, each time they do so,
they are individually exposed to contaminants that persist in the landscape
long-term as a result of the original disaster. Firefighters can reach the limit
of what is considered a safe annual radiation dose over a ‘relatively small
number of days’ (Zibtsev et al. 2015). While radiation levels during a wildfire are not as high as they are during a direct encounter with a radioactive
source, the cumulative effect of exposure to low levels of radiation over the
career of a firefighter is unknown. Dose rates are not always the most useful
measure for understanding the possible consequences of such atmospheric
exposures according to some. In areas where radiation spikes are recorded
in proximity to the wildfires, ‘hot particles’ (as discussed above) are made
acts of sensing in 2020 were not useful in determining the unequal distribution and effects of the potentially radioactive air pollution. This is despite
the fact that air pollution ‘presses the question of how atmospheric things
disperse and accumulate in unequal concentrations’ (Choy 2020, p. 105).
For Boris, the atmospheric sensing in Kyiv was not strictly a scientific
act, but rather a political one. As noted by Choy (2018, p. 57) ‘numbers and
measures themselves are both visceral and affecting.’ The chances of registering an increased dose rate outside the CEZ was unlikely, as the 2020
wildfires were not energetic enough to pick up and carry radioisotopes long
distances. This is unlike the original disaster during which vast releases of
energy allowed radioisotopes to travel across continents (Higginbotham
2019). This spectacular sensing, therefore, was generative of the affective atmosphere associated with the wildfire, as the readings taken on
Kreshchatyk were posted on social media and circulated widely.
During the wildfires, residents of Kyiv had to close their windows to keep
out the smoke as it engulfed streets and apartments. Living in Kyiv meant
embodying, and sharing with neighbours, ‘the specificity of experiences of
being in and indeed of witnessing things becoming airborne’ (McCormack
2009, p. 27). As Kyiv residents stayed indoors, a sense of ‘being contained’
arose, which was especially troubling for people whose movements were
already restricted due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The lack of fresh air
both inside and outside gave rise to a sense of envelopment by air pollution.
Whilst unpleasant at the best of times, the fact that the smoke was potentially
coming from the CEZ added another layer of fear. Such embodied everyday
responses to the affective atmosphere of the CEZ wildfires are important
to understand in the context of governing nuclear spaces. Nuclear wildfires
reanimate a particular imagination associated with nuclear fallout from
earlier disasters. Be it fallout from the Chornobyl disaster or nuclear weapons testing elsewhere (Masco 2006; Eriksen 2022), the affective atmosphere
created by wildfires involves uncertainty and fear. Because of radiation’s
ambiguous status in public discourse, these atmospheres form regardless of
the actual threat posed.
Much of the maintenance work to contain both the fear and threat is
carried out by firefighters who, while tackling wildfires in the CEZ, simultaneously mollify public concerns about exposure. Yet, each time they do so,
they are individually exposed to contaminants that persist in the landscape
long-term as a result of the original disaster. Firefighters can reach the limit
of what is considered a safe annual radiation dose over a ‘relatively small
number of days’ (Zibtsev et al. 2015). While radiation levels during a wildfire are not as high as they are during a direct encounter with a radioactive
source, the cumulative effect of exposure to low levels of radiation over the
career of a firefighter is unknown. Dose rates are not always the most useful
measure for understanding the possible consequences of such atmospheric
exposures according to some. In areas where radiation spikes are recorded
in proximity to the wildfires, ‘hot particles’ (as discussed above) are made