178 C Eriksen and J Turnbull
calculability implied by ‘metric’ (Elden 2013) easily becomes abstract and
dematerialised (a point also emphasised by Steinberg and Peters (2015) in
relation to oceanic materiality). Such abstract and dematerialised forms of
reimagined and reanimated disasters, which originally occurred decades
ago, are incompatible with standard geographical approaches to territorial
boundaries and the legalities of insurable matter. Yet, the consequences of
these voluminous, leaky materialities are unequivocal (a point also demonstrated by Nading (2017) in the context of chemicals). In the CEZ, where
first the graphite fire and then wildfires burned, and in the surrounding
areas where radioactive smoke continues to drift, radiation has continuously reshaped local ecologies, biologies, and ecosystems in acute and subtle ways since 1986.
Thinking with atmospheres, sensing assemblages, and volume, we suggest,
offers fruitful avenues for critical disaster and insurance studies to engage with
events that refuse containment, and that invoke affective responses at scales
unbound by geopolitical territories, sovereign states, and insurance technologies. In this chapter, we introduced such literatures to both enliven and materialise scholarly discussions of insurance, and to understand the long-term
lived experiences and continuing consequences of the Chornobyl disaster.
Engaging with work on atmospheres as both material and affective, we outlined how atmospheric sensing became a politicised and spectacular event in
the wake of the 2020 wildfires in the CEZ. Attending to sensing assemblages,
we showed how the bodies of firefighters are emblematic of the embodied and
uncontainable effects of radioactive pollution. Turning to work on volumetric
sovereignty, we highlighted how 2D conceptualisation of space are inadequate
for mapping the leaky materiality of the CEZ, especially as the 2020 wildfires re- suspended radioisotopes atmospherically. Conceiving of space in 3D
allowed us to challenge notions of insurability and sovereign space. As Elden
(2009, xxii) suggests, ‘[r]ecognizing the vertical dimension of territory shows
that territory is a volume rather than an area.’ We hope that these lessons will
aid how conceptual and physical borders are managed, applied, or rethought,
as disasters unfold in techno-natural ecosystems in the future.
Notes
1 In Ukraine, the name Chornobyl is used, transliterated from the Ukrainian
Чорнобиль, instead of Chernobyl, which is transliterated from the Russian
Чернобыль.
2 ‘Effective dose’ is a technical term used in radiological protection. It calculates the dose for whole bodies, as opposed to individual organs (the ‘equivalent dose’), which receive exposure differently.
3 This is a pseudonym used for confidentiality reasons.
References
Adey, P 2015, ‘Air’s affinities: Geopolitics, chemical affect and the force of the
elemental’, Dialogues in Human Geography, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 54–75.
calculability implied by ‘metric’ (Elden 2013) easily becomes abstract and
dematerialised (a point also emphasised by Steinberg and Peters (2015) in
relation to oceanic materiality). Such abstract and dematerialised forms of
reimagined and reanimated disasters, which originally occurred decades
ago, are incompatible with standard geographical approaches to territorial
boundaries and the legalities of insurable matter. Yet, the consequences of
these voluminous, leaky materialities are unequivocal (a point also demonstrated by Nading (2017) in the context of chemicals). In the CEZ, where
first the graphite fire and then wildfires burned, and in the surrounding
areas where radioactive smoke continues to drift, radiation has continuously reshaped local ecologies, biologies, and ecosystems in acute and subtle ways since 1986.
Thinking with atmospheres, sensing assemblages, and volume, we suggest,
offers fruitful avenues for critical disaster and insurance studies to engage with
events that refuse containment, and that invoke affective responses at scales
unbound by geopolitical territories, sovereign states, and insurance technologies. In this chapter, we introduced such literatures to both enliven and materialise scholarly discussions of insurance, and to understand the long-term
lived experiences and continuing consequences of the Chornobyl disaster.
Engaging with work on atmospheres as both material and affective, we outlined how atmospheric sensing became a politicised and spectacular event in
the wake of the 2020 wildfires in the CEZ. Attending to sensing assemblages,
we showed how the bodies of firefighters are emblematic of the embodied and
uncontainable effects of radioactive pollution. Turning to work on volumetric
sovereignty, we highlighted how 2D conceptualisation of space are inadequate
for mapping the leaky materiality of the CEZ, especially as the 2020 wildfires re- suspended radioisotopes atmospherically. Conceiving of space in 3D
allowed us to challenge notions of insurability and sovereign space. As Elden
(2009, xxii) suggests, ‘[r]ecognizing the vertical dimension of territory shows
that territory is a volume rather than an area.’ We hope that these lessons will
aid how conceptual and physical borders are managed, applied, or rethought,
as disasters unfold in techno-natural ecosystems in the future.
Notes
1 In Ukraine, the name Chornobyl is used, transliterated from the Ukrainian
Чорнобиль, instead of Chernobyl, which is transliterated from the Russian
Чернобыль.
2 ‘Effective dose’ is a technical term used in radiological protection. It calculates the dose for whole bodies, as opposed to individual organs (the ‘equivalent dose’), which receive exposure differently.
3 This is a pseudonym used for confidentiality reasons.
References
Adey, P 2015, ‘Air’s affinities: Geopolitics, chemical affect and the force of the
elemental’, Dialogues in Human Geography, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 54–75.