Search

Linking messages of community pride with political opposition to intrusion by petrochemical companies has interesting implications for collaborations across communities. Does this message enable partnerships in other regions and nations, and what is its relationship to the not-in-my-backyard/NIMBY mentality? How may it be interpreted in differing cultural and language contexts? 

Before our tour at the Weldon Springs Interpretative Center, we were asked not to take any pictures of our tour guide nor of other employees. To be recorded publically, they would have had to obtain an official media clearance. The photo points to these limits, with the metal arch obscuring the group as it listens to the guide. In consequence, there are at least two aspects that should be retained in our written record. First were the upbeat style and delivery of our male guide, that shaped our experience of the exhibition. Our group asked him about his educational background and he briefly explained the process to become a certified interpreter. Second is the fact that we were being accompanied and followed around by a group of about six representatives of the Department of Energy. Our group came to agree that this number and associated costs are significant, pointing towards the attention that our (probably usual?) international group of scholars drew. It might have been curiosity or slight hostility, it's hard to tell, also because we didn't ask them directly. The image certainly captures some lessons and dynamics what it means to visit an educational fieldsite with a larger group in contrast to the 'lone fieldworker.'

The Tribute to the Mallinckrodt Uranium Workers is perhaps the most reflexive display in the Interpretive Center at Weldon Springs. By listing the names of the Mallinckrodt employees and acknowledging their sacrifices, the tribute at least intimates how the toxic process of uranium refinement, including the secrecy and deceit that surrounded it, impacted the lives of the local community. And yet, given the juxtaposition of the exhibit next to the "Timeline of the Nuclear Age" and an encompassing display on "The Process" of refinement, the critical nuance of this quotidian, human level is muddled by both the macro events of history and the micro details of scientific practice. It is also worth noting that in the online tour of the exhibit, the purpose and the meaning of the tribute bears no mention all. An image of the arch is provided, but not a single bit of context as to what it signifies. Instead, what we are given access to is only the timeline, the process description, and a romanticized version of the Mallinckrodt story taken from a tour guide that was written in 1959. 

This was published by the International Atomic Energy Agency and is published as a part of the Radiological Assessment Reports Series.

Since the report was published by the IAEA, which is an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical cooperation of nuclear technology worldwide, it can be considered a government report. 

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion in 1986 led to a ten day reactor fire that resulted in a large and unknown amount of radiation spilling into the surrounding areas in Ukraine. This caused the contamination of the environments and those around the reactor. Hundreds of thousands of people had to evacuate and to this day it remains to be an issue. Due to this controversy that still surrounds this disaster, the IAEA, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, OCHA, UNSCEAR and WHO created the Chernobyl Forum. They generate "authoritative consensual statements" on the environmental consequences due to the radiation exposure. Ultimately they and this event in Chernobyl are what called for this report. 

This is a 180 page document that has hundreds of components in terms of what information, as well as measures and advice that the report includes and recommends. The report contains information on the radioactive release amounts and deposition in the urban, environmental, agricultural and aquatic areas surrounding the plant. Recommendations for future monitoring and research are also provided. Countermeasures are also widely discussed and ways in which people can combat and help reverse effects of the radiation and evacuations. The effects the disaster had on plants and animals is also analyzed and supported by facts and figures. The amount of human exposure and recommendations are also discussed. Future trends are analyzed as well as very detailed reports of the weather during the time of the incident, how that effected things, how specific types of animals were effected, the differences between external and internal doses.  A break down of the impact on air, shelter, surface water, groundwater etc. is also provided. Needless to say, pretty much any single detail that could possibly be known about the condition during the event and after the event were researched and documented in this report. 

Data for this report was collected from other sources and forms of documentation as early as the day of the event. Information and details such as population sizes, weather conditions that day, human population distribution and more were all information collected from that day of the event. Other forms of data collected, ranging over the time of the event occurring to the publication time, include factors such as the quality of the air, water, animals and living conditions surrounding the plant. Human radiation levels and infection were also gathered, radiation levels of crops and much, much more were all statistics and data collected over roughly twenty year timespan that this report covers. This is actually one of the main driving points of the report, listed in the title "twenty years of experience." It compiles 20 years of research and findings into one large report.

The report heavily discuss the effect that the radiation had on the people and environment around the plant. Not only is there a deep scientific analysis of the effects that the radiation had on local areas surrounding the plant, but conclusions as well as recommendations for future research as well as recommendations for countermeasures are also suggested and discussed. Health concerns of those exposed to radiation as well as amounts they were exposed to is discussed and measures those can take to counteract and protect themselves in the future.

The report shows that there are obvious measures of fallout and exposure due to the disaster. The numbers show a clear effect of the disaster on the environment, animals and humans surrounding the area. Due to this, this puts technical professionals in a position in where they must take obvious precautions, and proceed with this data ethically and attempt to combat it and increase the preservation of the environment as well as areas and people surrounding the area of disaster. Professionals now must with this data and these findings apply their degrees and background to help improve the conditions ad fallout. They now have a duty in their respective fields to work with these findings and use them to better the situation to the best of their abilities.