the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 22 Jan 2026
Living with the nuclear: Spatio-temporal entanglements, nuclear cultures, and the afterlives of uranium mining
Abstract. This paper examines how uranium mining in East Germany – embedded in the geopolitical dynamics of the Cold War – produced specific nuclear cultures that continue to shape the present. Drawing on the spatio-temporal entanglements of extraction and post-extractive remediation, the article demonstrates that the ‘nuclear’ is not solely technological but deeply rooted in everyday life-worlds, social relations, and cultural practices. By analysing ambivalences – between exceptionalism and banalisation, risk and privilege, destruction and infrastructure, secrecy and everyday life, as well as trauma and nostalgia – it becomes evident how uranium mining shaped identity, memory, and regional belonging. Particular attention is paid to the role of knowledge archives, nuclear cultural heritage, and global circulations of expertise, as well as the challenges posed by long-term radioactive temporalities. In doing so, the paper contributes to understanding how the nuclear becomes effective in everyday life, and how its material and immaterial afterlives can be remembered, communicated, and responsibly shaped across generations.
From Cold War extraction to post-mining remediation, this paper examines how uranium mining in East Germany – locally embedded in global power structures – shaped everyday life, regional identity and long-term futures. It traces how people live with ambivalences and radioactive afterlives, and how knowledge, memory and nuclear heritage circulate across generations. By revealing spatio-temporal entanglements, it demonstrates why nuclear legacies demand justice, responsibility, future visions.
- Preprint
(891 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on sand-2025-7', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Feb 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on sand-2025-7', Grit Ruhland, 07 Mar 2026
General comment
The article describes the history of uranium mining in East Germany in the context of international history of violence. It refers to well-known facts and concepts, relates them to the East German uranium mining territories and also integrates own exploratory research. It pursues the ambitious goal of taking a temporal and spatial bird's-eye view while also depicting local positions. However, the author has challenged herself with this undertaking. The historical accounts are too imprecise, and important events and constellations are missing.
At 31 pages without a bibliography, the article is too long.
Limiting the article to investigation of "slow violence" in the Wismut areas would still have been insightful and yet feasible – precisely because of the author's position as an outsider with different biographical experiences, which she also situates herself (positive credit). The application of Barad's theory seems very fruitful and has not yet been applied. Same as that of Hecht, but this has already been positioned and is not a new insight. A more detailed description of the areas of tension, which are in fact a genuinely new describtion, would be desirable. The article should be restructured, at least in part. The many jumps in time and space make it difficult to follow the argumentation. For example, the term "nuclear culture" is only defined in the second half of the text, although it has already been used since the beginning. Such occurrences can be found in several places.
Specific comments
It was not made sufficiently clear that Wismut SAG's uranium mining until 1953 was carried out purely as reparations. This is a fact that should also be addressed in the argumentation. The case Wismut is simply placed alongside after a long discussion of "nuclear colonialism" (which is well known). Here, it would be appropriate to offer own thoughts and arguments; a clever positioning on this constellation would be needed. The GDR reparations are a unique case, which is why it is important to acknowledge the reasons behind them, especially as they are undoubtedly linked to a history of violence. After this long description, it would be necessary to ask the question: How does reparation relate to colonialism? I would expect an answer to this question that is not limited to a half-sentence on extraction and global dependency. (p. 235) The detailed mention of a few international examples (mostly from the USA) is unfortunate, as arguments are left standing side by side without being classified or positioned.
Not even the sparse literature on Soviet colonialism in relation to the GDR was taken into account. The very courageous (new) division of time into "1946-1954, 2) 1955- mid-1970s, 3) mid-1970s to 1990, and 4) post-1990" ignores important organisational restructuring (re-establishment in 1953/1954) and historical data. The source of this new classification, "Die Pyramiden von Ronneburg: Uranerzbergbau in Ostthüringen. Bergbautraditionsverein Wismut" (The Pyramids of Ronneburg: Uranium Mining in Eastern Thuringia. Wismut Mining Tradition Association), is considered grey literature. Its use would not have posed any major difficulties if it were a unique source, which is not the case. As a basis for a new classification, it would at least be necessary to comment on this. The new classification was not substantiated with sound arguments.
Another aspect is that the author has only limited knowledge of the local and regional area. This leads to generalisations that reproduce stereotypes and in some cases even become errors. It is possible to consider the Ore Mountains and the Ronneburg region together, but this would require a clearer definition of the topic. They are too different, especially in terms of regional history and identity, particularly with regard to the local actors and stakeholders. Unfortunately, the presentation of the local "nuclear culture" is limited to the actors of the mining traditions. Critics and non-organised residents, who would certainly not all paint the same picture of history, are not mentioned or represented at all. There is a lack of differentiation in the portrayal of the stakeholders. The announcement to research everyday life was promising, but this was not reflected enough in the paper – it remained more of a claim.
As I mentioned in the previous section, it would have been better to limit the study to one location and examine it in more detail. It is the researcher's task to choose methods that also include interviewing groups that are not organised or seek publicity in order to determine the discourse. Adopting the portrayal of this highly visible group (tradionalists) creates a distorted representation. To interview only one group of stakeholders is of course acceptable if it were stated clearly and taken into account in the analysis,which is however not done in the article. In any case, a more critical classification of the interviews would be desirable. Even the mentioned ‘Wismut culture’ is also likely to be more diverse than portrayed. Not all former and current Wismut employees tend towards nostalgia. Some reflect on their role and the danger to themselves and others very well. Some regret their employment. However, those are not an organised group and do not seek publicity, either.
The article sometimes lacks references, or they are incomplete. This makes it impossible to verify some of the more surprising claims. There is a lack of regional research literature published on Wismut in various fields, including history, science, technology and culture.
Some of the wording is not standard terminology.
Closer remarks are included in the PDF.
Conclusion
The scope of the paper is relevant for SAND-2025-7. I recommend the paper for publication only with reservations and after it has undergone the major revisions commented on.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 161 | 47 | 16 | 224 | 19 | 19 |
- HTML: 161
- PDF: 47
- XML: 16
- Total: 224
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Referee Report on
Elisabeth Saar, “Living with the nuclear: Spatio-temporal entanglements, nuclear cultures, and the afterlives of uranium mining”
General Assessment
This manuscript examines the afterlives of uranium mining, illustrated through the case of the Wismut in East Germany. Its central concern is not the technical history of extraction as such, but the long-term cultural, temporal, and political effects that continue to shape regional identities, memories, and future imaginaries. In doing so, the author situates the Wismut within Cold War geopolitics and broader debates on nuclear modernity, remediation, and intergenerational responsibility.
The topic is highly relevant for “Safety of Nuclear Waste Disposal”, particularly in its attention to long-term legacies and the social dimensions of radioactive futures. The manuscript expands the discussion beyond technical disposal and regulatory frameworks by foregrounding cultural practices, knowledge circulation, and the everyday presence of nuclear infrastructures. While this line of argument has been developed in previous scholarship, it remains a valuable and necessary perspective within the context of SaND. The language is fluent and precise, and the argument is clearly structured.
Overall, this is a thoughtful and conceptually ambitious contribution that would benefit from revision in several areas to strengthen clarity, positioning, and empirical persuasiveness.
Conceptual Framing and Contribution
One of the manuscript’s strengths lies in its conceptual ambition. Particularly innovative is the author’s engagement with extractivism and colonialism. By drawing structural parallels between colonial extraction regimes and Cold War uranium mining—without collapsing these contexts into each other—the manuscript offers a nuanced comparative frame. The analysis demonstrates how similar logics of secrecy, control, invisibility, and long-term environmental impact operate across different geopolitical contexts. This is one of the more original and stimulating aspects of the article.
Moreover, the author analyses uranium mining as a process that generates specific spatio-temporal configurations rather than merely unfolding within them. The argument that nuclear extraction and remediation reshape perceptions of time, responsibility, and belonging is convincingly developed.
The discussion of remediation as a reconfiguration of expectations, responsibility, nostalgia, and future visions is also analytically strong and well suited to SaND’s interdisciplinary scope.
To sharpen the manuscript’s contribution further, it would be helpful to articulate more explicitly what is conceptually new in this study in relation to existing debates on nuclear cultures and environmental temporalities (see discussion below). The author draws on established theoretical traditions; clarifying how her approach extends, modifies, or reframes these discussions would strengthen the article’s analytical profile.
Positioning within the Literature
The manuscript engages with influential scholarship in nuclear and environmental studies. However, the conceptual discussion would benefit from more explicit acknowledgement of foundational work on temporal regimes and environmental timescapes.
In particular, the work of Barbara Adam, who introduced and elaborated the concept of “timescapes” in sociological and environmental scholarship, should be referenced. Likewise, more recent contributions that further develop toxic or environmental timescapes—including edited volumes such as “Toxic Timescapes”—would enrich the theoretical genealogy of the argument.
The author does not need to adopt these frameworks, but acknowledging them and clarifying how her use of spatio-temporal entanglements (alongside her reference to Barad’s “spacetimemattering”) relates to or differs from these earlier formulations would ensure appropriate scholarly positioning and intellectual transparency.
Use of Empirical Material
The manuscript includes interview excerpts and references to archives and heritage practices. However, the way empirical material is integrated into the argument raises some questions.
Interview material is often cited in short phrases rather than in extended quotations, and speakers are not contextualised in terms of their position, background, or the situation of the interview. As a result, the quoted material tends to function primarily as illustration of theoretical claims rather than as a source that opens up the lived experiences of former Wismut workers and residents in their own terms.
This is a legitimate methodological choice; however, given the manuscript’s emphasis on everyday ambivalences and lived experience—as outlined in the introduction—the analysis would gain depth if empirical voices were given more narrative space. More contextualised examples, indicating who is speaking, in what situation, and from which background, would clarify how the conceptual categories are grounded in lived realities.
Relatedly, the central claim that the region is characterised by a “dense web of everyday ambivalences” would benefit from clearer differentiation between ambivalence as an analytical lens and ambivalence as articulated in empirical material. In some passages, the material suggests strong identification and pride alongside awareness of risk. Clarifying how these positions are interpreted analytically would enhance conceptual precision. Consultation of additional oral history collections from the Wismut context may provide further perspectives. Such interviews often document enduring identification and pride among former workers, which underscores the importance of contextualising speakers and interview settings.
Structure and Integration
The manuscript follows a coherent argumentative trajectory, moving from Cold War extraction to post-mining remediation and cultural afterlives. The theoretical framing is substantial and carefully constructed.
At times, the conceptual discussion outweighs empirical illustration. The author may wish to consider a somewhat tighter interweaving of theory and case-based material throughout the text. Introducing concrete examples earlier and returning to them more iteratively could enhance cohesion and readability.
Some theoretical passages reiterate similar points, not only regarding spatio-temporal entanglements but also in other parts of the conceptual discussion. Streamlining these sections would further strengthen the clarity and overall flow of the manuscript.
Conclusion and Recommendation
This manuscript presents a sophisticated and interdisciplinary perspective on uranium mining and its long-term cultural and temporal afterlives. Its comparative framing of extractivism and colonial logics, as well as its emphasis on remediation and radioactive futures, make it a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions within the scope of SaND.
I recommend publication after revision. The suggested revisions concern primarily:
These adjustments would enhance the manuscript’s clarity, scholarly positioning, and empirical persuasiveness while preserving its conceptual strengths.