Environmental Relationalities 89
can safely be applied to Tajikistan with one crucial difference being that
Tajikistan had no adequate scientific researchers who dared to raise a critical
voice. In other words, visibility and invisibility of radiation in Tajikistan
remained dependent on whether Tajikistan wanted international financial
help to cover tailing dumps (which leads to a scientific increase of danger) or
to build a new reactor (in this case, pollution appears in line with the IAEA
requirements).
Consequently, the results of the research mentioned above conducted
between 2006 and 2014 have neither been made accessible to the general
population nor have they had an impact on local discussions. It is the nature
of Tajik politics to withhold expert knowledge from the population when
it does not serve the national narrative. Under these circumstances, I argue
that it is not so much the lack of knowledge that is the main problem, but the
way “nuclearity,” to use Hecht’s term, 10 is integrated into social relationships.
Therefore, I am not interested in compiling a catalogue of the negative effects
of nuclear waste or identifying problems of the latter, but rather I will focus
on how the population subjected the nuclear program to a narrative of progress and uranium waste within a hierarchy of society and the environment.
Within the latter relationship (between urban peoples and the rural environment), uranium is a part of the rural environment that serves the urban
population to develop and modernize. The rural environment is subordinate
to urban technology. This relationship is not abstract but internalized, as
the interviewees explained: “our bodies have become used to uranium.” 11
Bodies, my interlocutors anticipated, transform along with the rural environment and as the city’s modernizing path.
Researching the Social Dimensions of Uranium
in Northern Tajikistan
Tajikistan is perhaps one of the least well-known regions globally for the
production of uranium, including scientists of the IAEA. Gordon Lindsey, an
expert with the IAEA, told Radio Free Europe (RFE/RL) that radioactive
sources in Tajikistan have not yet been fully evaluated by the agency:
If the sources are big enough, that means in terms of their activity, in
terms of the number of curies [units of radioactivity] and Becquerel
[gamma rays given off by radioactive substances] they contain, and
depending upon the radionuclide, yes, they could be used for that purpose. But in the case of Tajikistan, I don’t think we have a very good
understanding at the present time. 12
The aim of this contribution is to reflect on the relationship between people and their natural environment in one of the regions in Central Asia in
which uranium was mined and enriched. I have lived with the people of
Khujand each summer from 2013 to 2015 and paid attention to the social
can safely be applied to Tajikistan with one crucial difference being that
Tajikistan had no adequate scientific researchers who dared to raise a critical
voice. In other words, visibility and invisibility of radiation in Tajikistan
remained dependent on whether Tajikistan wanted international financial
help to cover tailing dumps (which leads to a scientific increase of danger) or
to build a new reactor (in this case, pollution appears in line with the IAEA
requirements).
Consequently, the results of the research mentioned above conducted
between 2006 and 2014 have neither been made accessible to the general
population nor have they had an impact on local discussions. It is the nature
of Tajik politics to withhold expert knowledge from the population when
it does not serve the national narrative. Under these circumstances, I argue
that it is not so much the lack of knowledge that is the main problem, but the
way “nuclearity,” to use Hecht’s term, 10 is integrated into social relationships.
Therefore, I am not interested in compiling a catalogue of the negative effects
of nuclear waste or identifying problems of the latter, but rather I will focus
on how the population subjected the nuclear program to a narrative of progress and uranium waste within a hierarchy of society and the environment.
Within the latter relationship (between urban peoples and the rural environment), uranium is a part of the rural environment that serves the urban
population to develop and modernize. The rural environment is subordinate
to urban technology. This relationship is not abstract but internalized, as
the interviewees explained: “our bodies have become used to uranium.” 11
Bodies, my interlocutors anticipated, transform along with the rural environment and as the city’s modernizing path.
Researching the Social Dimensions of Uranium
in Northern Tajikistan
Tajikistan is perhaps one of the least well-known regions globally for the
production of uranium, including scientists of the IAEA. Gordon Lindsey, an
expert with the IAEA, told Radio Free Europe (RFE/RL) that radioactive
sources in Tajikistan have not yet been fully evaluated by the agency:
If the sources are big enough, that means in terms of their activity, in
terms of the number of curies [units of radioactivity] and Becquerel
[gamma rays given off by radioactive substances] they contain, and
depending upon the radionuclide, yes, they could be used for that purpose. But in the case of Tajikistan, I don’t think we have a very good
understanding at the present time. 12
The aim of this contribution is to reflect on the relationship between people and their natural environment in one of the regions in Central Asia in
which uranium was mined and enriched. I have lived with the people of
Khujand each summer from 2013 to 2015 and paid attention to the social