88 Sophie Roche
production in northern Tajikistan was submitted to a social hierarchy between
urban citizens and their rural surroundings. Urban-rural environmental relationalities define how progress and pollution are integrated into narratives
and practices of the contemporary population of Khujand. I refer to the rural
environment as everything in the countryside and which relates to the town
of Khujand. This includes people, natural resources, and agricultural products. The urban population of Khujand considers this rural environment
to exist for the sake of urban developments from which social hierarchies
develop. The inclusion of uranium waste into this social hierarchy is possible
because of the politics of treating uranium solely as a valuable natural product
and not as a nuclear threat. This perception resonates with Gabrielle Hecht’s
approach to uranium waste in Africa, which in the mid-twentieth century
was mined for the nuclear programs of the colonial powers. 3
Until now, research on uranium waste in Tajikistan in the social sciences
has been scarce if not completely absent. The primary reason for this lack
of scholarship is the secrecy with which the Communist Party and the military surrounded uranium mining and nuclear development. International
projects of the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) have
changed little regarding this perception, as their programs remain abstract
and bureaucratic, thus lacking a popular dynamic. Radiological assessments
were conducted in 2006 and 2008 4 and on water contamination between
2009 and 2014. 5 All studies confirm a level of contamination within the
recommended limits of the World Health Organization (WHO), with
few regions being at risk like Tabashar/Istiqlol. 6 An increase of uranium
in the main river, Syr Daryo, between 2009 and 2014 has been blamed on
upstream uranium mines in Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. Such statements are
not surprising as they represent more the politics of uranium or nuclearity
than the condition of those working and living in areas of nuclear pollution.
The commonality between the radiological assessments is that they speak
solely about uranium and not about nuclear waste. Unlike nuclear waste, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regards uranium as a natural
product with natural radiation, even after its enrichment as yellowcake. 7
The aforementioned authors of these studies do not discuss the different
effects on health after long-term exposure, nor do they include a discussion
on the processing of uranium ore and the workers’ working conditions 8 or
the role of uranium for Soviet politics.
Olga Kuchinskaya has wonderfully outlined the politics of nuclear pollution in the northern territories of the former Soviet Union. 9 Working on
Belorussia, the territory which was considerably affected by the Chernobyl
accident, she shows that the visibility and invisibility of radiation and health
issues is primarily a political matter. The disaster became a disaster only when
disagreement emerged between scientists of the Soviet school and their vocal
Belarusian opponents. Before this, pollution had been downplayed and made
invisible in public discourses. International organizations such as the IAEA
backed the processes of making radiation invisible. Kuchinskaya’s observation
production in northern Tajikistan was submitted to a social hierarchy between
urban citizens and their rural surroundings. Urban-rural environmental relationalities define how progress and pollution are integrated into narratives
and practices of the contemporary population of Khujand. I refer to the rural
environment as everything in the countryside and which relates to the town
of Khujand. This includes people, natural resources, and agricultural products. The urban population of Khujand considers this rural environment
to exist for the sake of urban developments from which social hierarchies
develop. The inclusion of uranium waste into this social hierarchy is possible
because of the politics of treating uranium solely as a valuable natural product
and not as a nuclear threat. This perception resonates with Gabrielle Hecht’s
approach to uranium waste in Africa, which in the mid-twentieth century
was mined for the nuclear programs of the colonial powers. 3
Until now, research on uranium waste in Tajikistan in the social sciences
has been scarce if not completely absent. The primary reason for this lack
of scholarship is the secrecy with which the Communist Party and the military surrounded uranium mining and nuclear development. International
projects of the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) have
changed little regarding this perception, as their programs remain abstract
and bureaucratic, thus lacking a popular dynamic. Radiological assessments
were conducted in 2006 and 2008 4 and on water contamination between
2009 and 2014. 5 All studies confirm a level of contamination within the
recommended limits of the World Health Organization (WHO), with
few regions being at risk like Tabashar/Istiqlol. 6 An increase of uranium
in the main river, Syr Daryo, between 2009 and 2014 has been blamed on
upstream uranium mines in Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. Such statements are
not surprising as they represent more the politics of uranium or nuclearity
than the condition of those working and living in areas of nuclear pollution.
The commonality between the radiological assessments is that they speak
solely about uranium and not about nuclear waste. Unlike nuclear waste, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regards uranium as a natural
product with natural radiation, even after its enrichment as yellowcake. 7
The aforementioned authors of these studies do not discuss the different
effects on health after long-term exposure, nor do they include a discussion
on the processing of uranium ore and the workers’ working conditions 8 or
the role of uranium for Soviet politics.
Olga Kuchinskaya has wonderfully outlined the politics of nuclear pollution in the northern territories of the former Soviet Union. 9 Working on
Belorussia, the territory which was considerably affected by the Chernobyl
accident, she shows that the visibility and invisibility of radiation and health
issues is primarily a political matter. The disaster became a disaster only when
disagreement emerged between scientists of the Soviet school and their vocal
Belarusian opponents. Before this, pollution had been downplayed and made
invisible in public discourses. International organizations such as the IAEA
backed the processes of making radiation invisible. Kuchinskaya’s observation