This essay examines lay experiences of radiation—the hazard imperceptible with unaided senses—and how these experiences are shaped. Analysis is conducted on the basis of participant observation and interviews in Belarusian rural areas affected after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. I argue that radiation risks and health effects are not always obvious or immediately observable for those experiencing them, and they should be articulated. The paper compares various opportunities for articulation, including the context of radiological testing and administrative contexts, and describes the kinds of articulations they make possible. I conclude that limited opportunities for articulation result in limited lay recognition of radioactive contamination and their own health effects. The analysis implies that affected lay populations cannot always be assumed to be the most risk-conscious and hold special knowledge about radiation effects independently of scientific and administrative definitions of it.
AlexievichS. (1999) Voices from Chernobyl: Chronicle of the Future. London: Aurum Press.
2.
BeckU. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
3.
BrownP. (1992) “Popular Epidemiology and Toxic Waste Contamination: Lay and Professional Ways of Knowing,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior33: 267–81.
4.
BrownP. (2000) “Popular Epidemiology and Toxic Waste Contamination: Lay and Professional Ways of Knowing,” in Kroll-smithP.BrownP.GunterV. J. (eds) Illness and the Environment: A Reader in Contested Medicine, pp. 364–83. New York and London: New York University Press.
5.
CollinsH. M.EvansR. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–96.
6.
DurantD. (2008) “Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public Actor,” Public Understanding of Science17: 5–20.
7.
EinsiedelE. (2007) “Editorial: Of Publics and Science,” Public Understanding of Science16: 5–6.
8.
FowlkesM. R.MillerP. Y. (1987) “Chemicals and Community at Love Canal,” in JohnsonB. B.CovelloV. T. (eds) Social and Cultural Construction of Risk: Essays on Risk Selection and Perception, pp. 55–78. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing.
9.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
10.
GoodwinC. (1994) “Professional Vision,” American Anthropologist96(3): 606–33.
11.
GouldK. A. (1993) “Pollution and Perception: Social Visibility and Local Environmental Mobilization,” Qualitative Sociology16(2): 157–78.
12.
KuchinskayaO. (2007) “‘We Will Die and Become Science’: The Production of Invisibility and Public Knowledge about Chernobyl Radiation Effects in Belarus,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
13.
LatourB. (2004) “How to Talk about the Body? The Normative Dimension of Science Studies,” Body and Society10(2–3): 205–29.
14.
MillarR. (1994) “School Students’ Understanding of Key Ideas about Radioactivity and Ionizing Radiation,” Public Understanding of Science3: 53–70.
15.
PaineR. (1992) “‘Chernobyl’ Reaches Norway: The Accident, Science, and the Threat to Cultural Knowledge,” Public Understanding of Science1: 261–80.
16.
PaineR. (2002) “Danger and the No-Risk Thesis,” in HoffmanS. M.Oliver-smithA. (eds) Catastrophe and Culture: The Anthropology of Disaster, pp. 67–90. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
17.
PetrynaA. (2002) Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
18.
ScottJ. W. ([1984] 1992) “Experience,” in ButlerJ.ScottJ. W. (eds) Feminists Theorize the Political, pp. 22–40. New York and London: Routledge.
19.
ShevchoukV. E.GourachevskyV. L., eds (2003) Chernobyl Consequences in Belarus, National Report. Minsk: Propilei.
20.
SlovicP. (1987) “Perception of Risk,” Science236: 280–5.
21.
SonerydL. (2007) “Deliberations on the Unknown, the Unsensed, and the Unsayable? Public Protests and the Development of Third-Generation Mobile Phones in Sweden,” Science, Technology, & Human Values32(3): 287–314.
22.
StraussA. L. (1970) “Discovering New Theory from Previous Theory,” in ShibutaniT. (ed.) Human Nature and Collective Behavior: Papers in Honor of Herbert Blumer, pp. 46–53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23.
StraussA. L. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
UN Chernobyl Forum (IAEA, WHO, FAO, UNDP, UNEP, UN-OCHA, UNSCEAR, the World Bank Group, the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine) (2005) Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts and Recommendation to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, Digest Report.
26.
WallmanS. (1998) “Ordinary Women and Shapes of Knowledge: Perspectives on the Contexts of STD and AIDS,” Public Understanding of Science7: 169–85.
27.
WynneB. (1992) “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,” Public Understanding of Science1: 281–304.
28.
WynneB. (2003) “Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins and Evans (2002),” Social Studies of Science33(3): 401–17.
29.
WynneB. (2008) “Elephants in the Room where Publics Encounter ‘Science’? A Response to Darrin Durant, ‘Accounting for Expertise: Wynne and the Autonomy of the Lay Public’,” Public Understanding of Science17: 21–33.
