Nov 9, 2010
Classification of land
When reading the Kuletz article, I noticed once how important classifying something within a certain category is to its perceived use or value. Kuletz talks a great deal in how the value of the land of the nuclear test sites changed without changing the perception of the land itself. The land that the US government chose to "allocate" for the Native American population was chosen on the basis of its nonproductive nature, since it was not valuable, it was desired to shove natives onto this land. Ironically, only a century later, the land was still not valuable and nonproductive, but it is exactly these characteristics that make it valuable now.Through nuclear testing, the non-valuable became valuable through its non-value. Interesting transformation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Also, despite the changes in ideology, it is the same people that suffer and the same people who profit from these changes. In this case, the value-less land and its later re-interpreted value still hurts the same group of people. Again, the displaced people put unproductive lands have to suffer twofold.
The reinterpreted value of the land is only of value to geopolitics and those who deploy more testing and waste. It is so short sighted as it is making the land of no value as it is completely and utterly destroying it. There is an end to the land and environment and to the people it harms. It amazes me that even a dollar is being spent on continuing nuclear programs or that it is spoken about as a form of development. Not only is it directly harmful for the surrounding communities but the long term consequences for the whole population as it destroys the land. It seems this is another area of giant military spend. It would be interesting to see if the trend has been increasing on spend in the face of nuclear test bans. Why does it seem everything goes unquestioned under the guise of security and secrecy.
I think it is important to recognize the role that discourse and narrative are playing in this situation; the land spoken of as "empty" and "unproductive" by the government, and therefore converting it into an area for nuclear testing and research was portrayed as a way to increase its value. Contrastingly, the land was already seen as being valuable by the Native Americans living there, who had historical and economic ties to the area. Yet these ties were conveniently ignored by the government in order to justify its appropriation for the "common good." The value of the land didn't change- the language that the government uses to suggest that is how they justify the way in which they appropriated it unilaterally.
I myself am from Nevada, and I thought the land I lived on was just fine!
When I was growing up however, I heard people complain about Yucca Mountain and nuclear projects in our state but come to the conclusion that we were the last option for the government and so it made sense that they would classify the land as "barren" enough to exploit.
I remember thinking, as a child, that it was unjust to have to live in a place thought of as a nuclear dumping ground, yet thought "where else are they going to put it? I suppose we don't have too many cities and people in Nevada anyway..."
Just to throw it out there: What are the other options to the SW deserts? Or is the only solution to stop nuclear experiments/energy completely?
According to the Kuletz article, to avoid this type of land pollution it would be better to stop it completely since "Transuranic elements do not exist naturally" and they remain on the landscape for many years.
I found this article from Los Angeles Times
A Nuclear Waste Solution
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/15/opinion/oe-vonhippel15
It talks about how it would be a good idea to consider "spent" fuel reprocessing and how it would reduce the amount of material needed by 20%. However, this process is much more expensive than using fresh materials.
I also found this other page about Sea-based Nuclear Waste Solutions
http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/sea-based.htm
and it has a section on "Sub-Seabed Disposal in Stable Clay Formations". It seems to be a good alternative for storing the nuclear waste for a long-term period. However, I am not aware of any negative effects that this idea could have, which I would really like to know more about.
I also think it is interesting how Kuletz explains that sometimes cases of dumping sites are unheard of because "Radionuclides are hard to detect because they are already invisible and are harder to detect when associated with people whose bodies and habits are invisible to Euro-American policy makers and scientists". So the attention given to the situation depends on the value of the group of people being affected by the nuclear dumping.
Stephanie I can relate to your comment about living in a desert area, I visited New Mexico and Arizona for multiple summers and I feel a strong pull to go back and visit the southwest. By no means does it feel like this part of the country is devoid of life or empty, quite the opposite in fact.
I think your question about possible alternatives is important. As various avenues for alternative energy are investigated, nuclear energy seems to be pushed as a viable solution to our dependence on oil, with France's extensive nuclear energy power grid touted as a shining example for energy independence. But even France has had its share of problems. The following article discusses the more expensive option of reprocessing fuel rods and the issue that eventually you come to a point where one cannot recycle them anymore and then one has highly radioactive waste that has to be handled:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
Although I knew that some controversy existed about nuclear energy and waste it is amazing to me how little a discussion of places like Yucca Mountain has reached the national discourse. The fact that this really does not appear on the radar screen of the general public has huge implications for any possible change in policy.
Post a Comment