The Hanford Nuclear Reservation was responsible for producing plutonium for the Manhattan Project, a production which created large amounts of waste that still remain at the site and contaminate the surrounding environment. In response to these lingering environmental dangers, The Hanford Challenge, a non-profit organization dedicated to building accountability for cleanup at the Hanford Site, hosts the Nuclear Waste Scholar Series. By featuring insights from those working on and studying nuclear issues, this Scholar Series seeks to motivate action for cleanup of Hanford. 

On Friday, October 18th, I attended a lecture by historians Jacob Darwin Hamblin and Linda Marie Richards where they discussed their book, Making the Unseen Visible: Science and the Contested Histories of Radiation Exposure, as a part of the Scholar Series. The book is a culmination of the Oregon State University Downwinders Project, a group that sought to analyze and unveil the environmental and human health effects of nuclear testing at the Hanford Site, and at nuclear-related sites across the world. Hamblin and Richards shared their aspiration for the book: to offer a platform to voices that haven’t been previously heard, along with content such as poetry and reflective essays from activists and individuals representing affected communities.

Hamblin and Richards approached their book from a historian of science perspective, drawing on diverse interdisciplinary research methods to understand how scientific knowledge becomes understood and communicated in a social context. Utilizing this practice, Richards emphasized that truth-seeking was at the crux of the work, highlighting the importance of uncovering how individuals and communities worldwide have been affected by radiation exposure. The effects of radiation exposure are constantly contested; scientific claims are made based on cultural, political, and social beliefs and contexts. Richards noted that people will play up or play down the effects of nuclear radiation. By listening to people’s lived histories, Hamblin and Richards provide a more complete account of the histories of those affected at Hanford and other sites around the globe to move forward with truth—creating a more accurate retelling of the health and social effects of nuclear exposure, and reinforcing the need for honest, comprehensive narratives. 

Making the Unseen Visible includes works that cross time periods, serving to examine history in a modern context. Hamblin stressed how one doesn’t have to be anti-nuclear to appreciate the unequal power dynamics between companies involved in nuclear use and development, anti-nuclear organizations, governments, and communities that have existed. As a historian, he added that one doesn’t have to take a stance on the development and use of nuclear energy or weapons today, but we can’t ignore past harms based on beliefs about future development.

I found the conversation surrounding vocabulary particularly interesting. Both Hamblin and Richards commented on the use of the word “risk” in discourse about nuclear development and testing. “Risk” is often used to describe potential harms of radiation exposure, however “risk” is not an objective marker that encompasses the experience of exposure, and assessments may not include all of the potential consequences. The impact of particular risks also differ depending on the community or individual. As a result, Hamblin remarked that using the word “risk” tends to work in favor of policy aimed at continuing nuclear testing, as it is impossible to have an unbiased risk assessment to inform policy. Richards added that using “risk” when talking about health impacts of radiation exposure can also obscure the multifaceted reality of the experience of being exposed to radiation. Therefore, focusing on risk pivots attention away from past and present harms, and the experiences of those impacted by them.

I was left reflecting on how the way that radiation exposure experiences are framed might influence the future of nuclear weapons. Power lies in storytelling. How a narrative is sculpted determines how we understand an issue, and remember our history. Throughout their discussion, Hamblin and Richards framed nuclear issues as a matter of human stories, emphasizing the importance of placing the humanitarian impact at the center of our conversations about nuclear weapons. It’s a sentiment that reminded me of Hiro Miyazaki’s column on his conversation with Mayor Suzuki of Nagasaki. In the column, Miyazaki writes that the mayor “[insisted] on the importance of continuing to convey the ‘first-hand accounts’ of the destruction the bomb caused at all UN conferences related to nuclear weapons. Without this effort, he said, the suffering of hibakusha would easily be forgotten, and discussions and negotiations on nuclear weapons would become ‘empty talk.’” 

As I reflect on this lecture, I want to conclude with a statement from Richards that resonated with me: “If things are good, [we] fall into complacency; if things are bad, [we] fall into inevitability. Both rob us of our agency.” Building an accurate history of the experiences of radiation exposure is fundamental to a justice-driven development of nuclear energy and weapons policies and practices. Because fundamentally, nuclear weapons are an issue of agency and self-determination.

The next event in the Hanford Challenge’s Nuclear Waste Scholar Series will be held on November 1, 2024 at 12pm PCT. Click here to learn more.