Insure the volume? 175
airborne and can be inhaled. There is concern that radiation risk models
derived only from external exposure, do not account for the risks associated
with internally ingested hot particles. Background (or ambient) radiation
levels only represent an average exposure. As such, ‘[t]he true evaluation of
nuclear risk is tied to specific exposures rather than the background radiation count’ (Masco 2006, p. 299). The effects of hot particles are difficult to
measure, though, as they operate at extremely small scales. They complicate
the notion of how we experience the environment in such miniscule quantities (cf. Creager 2018), pointing to how the environment is not just outside
us, but also within us (Alaimo 2010).
Furthermore, radiation readings and sensors alone cannot account for
the effects of exposure to radiation during wildfires. Rather, sensing radioactivity is an embodied experience for firefighters who lack adequate monitoring and safety equipment and instead feel a tingling sensation on their
skin when fighting a fire in a radioactively contaminated area (Evans 2011;
Eriksen & Ballard 2020; Eriksen 2022). As Shapiro (2015, p. 375) notes,
‘[b]odies are sensors that indicate the presence of toxicants and, in some
cases, specify their atmospheric concentration with uncanny precision.’
Creager (2018, p. 70) similarly suggests, ‘human bodies come to serve as
unconscious sensors of their environments.’ A range of animals are also
enrolled as sentinels for determining the effects of the Chornobyl disaster
on ‘nature’ more broadly (Petryna 2013; Masco 2006). These vernacular
accounts of radioactive landscapes contribute to the sensing of ‘nuclear
weather-worlds’ (Alexis-Martin 2020). Human and nonhuman bodies,
through microscopic atmospheric encounters, ‘are often embroiled in sensing the world well before cognition catches wind of protracted chemical
encounters’ (Shapiro 2015, p. 375).
Atmospheres, then, are something we are immersed in. They are embodied, but they are also sensed and represented. These representations contribute to the overall affective atmosphere of atmospheric things, such as
potentially radioactive smoke. Thinking atmospherically draws attention
to the ways in which wildfires are atmospheric from the outset. Wind and
oxygen fanned the spread of the 2020 wildfires in the CEZ, while muchneeded rain ultimately extinguished them. In attending to the affective
and material atmospheres of these wildfires, we come to understand their
representation and sensed embodiment as issues of suspension: material
and affective. First, wildfires resuspended the radioisotopes originally
deposited during the disaster in 1986, causing problems for the firefighters
exposed to them. Second, the clouds of smoke that spread from the CEZ
and enveloped surrounding areas may or may not have been radioactive,
suspending exposed populations in a liminal state of uncertainty. This
state of uncertainty is compounded by the stochastic nature of radioactivity’s effects – especially hot particles – which are difficult to account for
and measure. The atmospheric effects of the wildfires, therefore, are both
material and affective.
airborne and can be inhaled. There is concern that radiation risk models
derived only from external exposure, do not account for the risks associated
with internally ingested hot particles. Background (or ambient) radiation
levels only represent an average exposure. As such, ‘[t]he true evaluation of
nuclear risk is tied to specific exposures rather than the background radiation count’ (Masco 2006, p. 299). The effects of hot particles are difficult to
measure, though, as they operate at extremely small scales. They complicate
the notion of how we experience the environment in such miniscule quantities (cf. Creager 2018), pointing to how the environment is not just outside
us, but also within us (Alaimo 2010).
Furthermore, radiation readings and sensors alone cannot account for
the effects of exposure to radiation during wildfires. Rather, sensing radioactivity is an embodied experience for firefighters who lack adequate monitoring and safety equipment and instead feel a tingling sensation on their
skin when fighting a fire in a radioactively contaminated area (Evans 2011;
Eriksen & Ballard 2020; Eriksen 2022). As Shapiro (2015, p. 375) notes,
‘[b]odies are sensors that indicate the presence of toxicants and, in some
cases, specify their atmospheric concentration with uncanny precision.’
Creager (2018, p. 70) similarly suggests, ‘human bodies come to serve as
unconscious sensors of their environments.’ A range of animals are also
enrolled as sentinels for determining the effects of the Chornobyl disaster
on ‘nature’ more broadly (Petryna 2013; Masco 2006). These vernacular
accounts of radioactive landscapes contribute to the sensing of ‘nuclear
weather-worlds’ (Alexis-Martin 2020). Human and nonhuman bodies,
through microscopic atmospheric encounters, ‘are often embroiled in sensing the world well before cognition catches wind of protracted chemical
encounters’ (Shapiro 2015, p. 375).
Atmospheres, then, are something we are immersed in. They are embodied, but they are also sensed and represented. These representations contribute to the overall affective atmosphere of atmospheric things, such as
potentially radioactive smoke. Thinking atmospherically draws attention
to the ways in which wildfires are atmospheric from the outset. Wind and
oxygen fanned the spread of the 2020 wildfires in the CEZ, while muchneeded rain ultimately extinguished them. In attending to the affective
and material atmospheres of these wildfires, we come to understand their
representation and sensed embodiment as issues of suspension: material
and affective. First, wildfires resuspended the radioisotopes originally
deposited during the disaster in 1986, causing problems for the firefighters
exposed to them. Second, the clouds of smoke that spread from the CEZ
and enveloped surrounding areas may or may not have been radioactive,
suspending exposed populations in a liminal state of uncertainty. This
state of uncertainty is compounded by the stochastic nature of radioactivity’s effects – especially hot particles – which are difficult to account for
and measure. The atmospheric effects of the wildfires, therefore, are both
material and affective.