It was a pleasure to read this article. It is not often that an artist writes about their own work with such intellectual and academic insight. The article contains several interesting and well-chosen references, and the work itself is compelling—both poetic and deeply political. At a time when Japan is releasing “safe” treated water from the Fukushima accident, the artist’s work functions as a form of micro-resistance, revealing another truth alongside the official narratives. In fact, her work is far more than “a drop in the ocean,” so to speak.

I can see only one possible suggestion to improve a piece that is already strong: perhaps the artist might one day create a work situated in Fukushima as well. However, I imagine this may already be part of her future projects. In any case, the article is excellent as it stands. It would be a valuable contribution to the field of nuclear art. So I strongly recommend publishing it. 

General comments:

This paper clearly demonstrates how artistic research into sensing radiation through photography can be used as a material witness of both visual, sensory, indexical and geopolitical contexts. Through first hand experience of nuclear sites and landscapes, the artist has used contaminated seaweed to develop her images of the nuclear landscapes of the trees that survived the detonation of an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, and the new Japanese military base on Ishigaki Island. Pinhole photography is used to visually and politically articulate the impact of tritium on the images developed using contaminated seaweed. The original use of contaminated seaweed as a developer is clearly described and theoretically framed as an indexical material witness. Drawing on relevant critical and artistic theory the author’s images aim to broaden human perception of nuclear images, and uses close reading to situate the work in an ideological context. The paper makes a valuable contribution to the practice and theories of photography, art and nuclear culture, as well as the wider concerns of how communities can sense and represent the contamination of their environments.

This work is highly relevant to the broader understanding of radioactive waste, as a category of contaminated materials which can easily escape the narrow scope of nuclear designated sites and environmental standards. The project asks relevant questions about the ubiquity of radioactive isotopes from testing and accidents, and how they are sensed in the oceans. The results are compared with other related photographic sensing practices, and the findings situated within both the nuclear and artistic fields.

Specific Comments:

The discussion of the electromagnetic spectrum is a little clumsy at times, and further clarification of the different frequencies of radiation being discussed and the physical properties of their impact on photographic emulsion would benefit the reader. For example, the introductory description of the relationship between photography and radiation might be more nuanced in terms of high and low frequency, scale and energy. This would help the confusion of visible and non-visible light.

Although perhaps a topic for a longer paper, it could be helpful to describe the characteristics of radiation on the photographic surface such as spotting and fogging in terms of the alpha, beta and gamma radiation.

Line 27-29: Treated and diluted are scientifically measurable claims. But purification is always subjective. This could be discussed in relation to the social construction of images later in the paper.

Line 36-41: Whilst photographic sensitivity to ionizing radiation is undoubtably a form of sensing and material witness, it is not clear how the radioactive fogging of an image is ideological or political in itself.

Technical comments:

Image captions should include the name of the artist.

References: Websites should be referenced with the date of access.

Throughout:  typo ironizing should be ionizing (it is not ironic!)

Line 57-58: physical and material are not alternatives here – the material is physical.

223: comma

Footnote 1: I would suggest that footnote 1 refers to the scientific demonstration (Bequerel etc) of how analogue photography captures the effects of radiation and not a reference to AI generated images which are not discussed anywhere in the paper. (The impact of radiation on digital technology is a material impact wiping hard drives, which is not discussed). The model collapse of AI would be interesting to discuss in relation to the model collapse of mutation – but this is another paper.