the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Apr 2026
The Half-Life Afterlife
Abstract. Although situated firmly in the present, The Half-Life Afterlife is a speculative, time-travelling sculptural and text-based artwork reflecting on the geological disposal of radioactive waste and the entangled nature of our human-generated atomic activities from the vantage point of an unspecified, undefined and possibly post-nuclear future. It assumes the form of a collection of ancient looking bentonite clay objects, recently discovered in the vicinity of Gloucestershire Airport which was thought to have become the site of a Geological Disposal Facility or GDF where the UK’s most hazardous and long-lived nuclear waste was eventually buried, deep underground.
Possibly created as radioactive waste burial charms or above ground protection devices, these found objects have been subject to speculative research methods, fusing nuclear fact and fiction, before being catalogued and displayed in a very human attempt to imbue them with cultural significance and meaning as future nuclear artefacts.
At the heart of this artwork is the notion that we are asked to place our trust in the science and engineered barriers of the GDF but at the same time we cannot know with any certainty how societal and cultural changes will impact on our long-term future understanding and relationship with our atomic past and the waste we have left behind.
Also, in terms of addressing our domestic waste, geological disposal is presented as both a safe and neat and tidy solution, but we should also consider this within the context of our wider global nuclear footprint and keep in mind the ongoing and enduring legacies of uranium mining, atomic weapons testing and unplanned radiological releases are not so tidily managed or contained and will continue to unfold over both human and geological timescales.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2003 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
- RC1: 'Comment on sand-2026-2', Jessica Holtaway, 01 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on sand-2026-2', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jun 2026
The article addresses relevant questions concerning the disposal of nuclear waste, in line with the scope of the journal, through an artwork: the author’s speculative artistic project reflects on the implications of the final disposal of nuclear waste in the UK, proposing an alternative future in which nuclear waste has been buried underneath Gloucestershire Airport.
Clearly written and well articulated, the article raises questions about the processes involved in siting for a GDF, the nature of political decision-making, and the participation of local communities in these processes; the author’s artwork is contextualised accordingly.
While the paper presents an interesting and clear research address through the personal way the artist investigated the GDF programme, and specifically the author’s artwork, there are still important points to be implemented if the aim of the paper is to speak to a broader community of researchers and scientists, such as the readers of this journal. Therefore, my suggestion is that the paper be accepted if the following points are implemented:
- While novel ideas (the author’s artwork) are presented, this lacks a contextualisation within the field of artistic research to which the contribution belongs.
- The paper needs to be contextualised more in depth, also in relation to current scientific research in the context of the disposal of (high-level) nuclear waste.
- Missing references should be integrated accordingly.
- The conclusion is missing.
More specifically:
3) references
-The section “background readings” presents at the moment a discursive approach which is well written as a non-scientific text, but inadequate as a scientific paper: the text often assumes a reader’s background knowledge, failing to provide the necessary references to the statements provided. A few examples here:
-line 42 “make nuclear waste permanently safe, sooner” - a reference is needed.
-line 42-43 “Formed in 2022, NWS are a subsidiary organisation within the larger UK government funded Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)” - a reference is needed.
-line 45 “several previously failed attempts to address the domestic nuclear waste issue since the mid 1970s” - a reference is needed.
-line 116 introduces the important topic of a “nuclear renaissance” but does not contextualise it with relevant literature - please add references.
In practice, whenever the author makes a statement that is not their own reflection or personal experience, this needs to be grounded in relevant research and referenced accordingly.
2) research background
The section “background readings” is particularly problematic at the moment and should be implemented. Furthermore, for clarity, this section could be better integrated into the flow of the text by creating a separate subheading, perhaps with a more specific title, such as “theoretical framework: history and politics…” or something else.
Also remarkably, when addressing the planning of a GDF, there is no contextualisation on what kind of nuclear waste it will host, such as a mention of the difference between high-level waste and other kinds of nuclear waste. There is also no mention of whether this kind of project has been realised before (see “Onkalo” in Finland), or of how the same issues have been dealt with in the past. For example, the author addresses the involvement of local communities, but this has not always been the case for this kind of technology (see for example the case of the stalled project for a repository in Yucca Mountain, US).
1) artistic research
For what concerns the interesting and relevant part of the article that delves into the author’s artistic project, the main contribution of this paper, one important remark I wish to make here is that the author does not acknowledge any other artistic projects that have tackled the issue, not in the UK, not via archaeology, not through sculpture. If the author’s artistic project aims to be considered research, it is fundamental that it also acknowledges prior research of this kind, namely, within the arts. There are several relevant examples of other artistic projects that engage with the same issue. For example, as presented by Anna Volkmar in “Art and nuclear power”, or by Ele Carpenter in “The nuclear culture source book”. Concerning the UK specifically, the author may be interested in looking at Bryan McGovern Wilson’s “The Atomic Priesthood Project”. Another relevant reference in this context is the research of anthropologist Dr. Petra Tjitske Kalshoven, for example in collaboration with local artists: https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/atomic-houses-and-space-hoppers-international-researchers-j-431046/
The author highlights in line 110 “If there is one thing artists are particularly good at, it’s asking questions with no clear or ready answers”. This is a very relevant remark, which should be contextualised as specified so far.
Line 130 misses an opportunity to reference the relevance of research in archaeology in the context of a GDF, also considering that the artwork does reference it. See, for example, Rosemary Joyce’s “The future of nuclear waste”.
At line 165 the author states that “ The Half-Life Afterlife is a speculative, sculptural and text-based artwork”. However, it is not clear what is the role of text in the artwork, and which text is part of it.
4) conclusion
At the moment, the paper does not include a conclusion. This should be added, for example, by summarising the main findings and reflecting on what contribution the paper proposes to current research. In the abstract the author states that “we are asked to place our trust in the science and engineered barriers of the GDF but at the same time we cannot know with any certainty how societal and cultural changes will impact on our long-term future understanding and relationship with our atomic past and the waste we have left behind”. Another relevant point is that “geological disposal is presented as both a safe and neat and tidy solution, but we should also consider this within the context of our wider global nuclear footprint and keep in mind the ongoing and enduring legacies of uranium mining, atomic weapons testing and unplanned radiological releases are not so tidily managed or contained”. These points are very clear in the abstract but do not come back with the same clarity within the text. If articulated properly, and specifically in relation to the author’s artwork, these reflections and findings can be made explicit in the conclusion section as well.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-2-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Nic Pehkonen, 29 Jun 2026
Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to review my text in detail and raising extremely relevant points in terms of references, context and structure, all of which I gladly take on board.
I am familiar with a number of the artistic projects and literature mentioned (Volkmar, Carpenter, McGovern, Joyce) as well as the historic and more technical aspects of geological disposal, albeit from a lay-persons perspective but I wasn’t really thinking too much about the wider context of my offering and readership, which probably seems all kinds of strange in lots of ways given the raison d’être of the journal I have submitted it to!
Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that although I didn’t really set out to pursue an academic path with my creative practice, I have found that writing/text has become an important and enjoyable part of my work but perhaps not necessarily when it comes to embracing more overtly academic approaches and formats and all this entails.
Having said that, I do quite like the challenge (and can see the value) of rewriting my submission but I'm not sure I have the capacity at present so I'm wondering if it might make more sense to step off the process at this time and withdraw my SAND contribution in its current format.
That’s not to say I won’t have another go in the future but not necessarily the near future!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-2-AC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on sand-2026-2', Jessica Holtaway, 01 Jun 2026
General comments
The Half-Life Afterlife represents a valuable contribution to scientific progress within the scope of Safety of Nuclear Waste Disposal, particularly in terms of approaching issues of nuclear waste disposal through the use of speculative art and fiction as research methods into the social and ecological implications of geological disposal facilities. The paper draws attention to narratives within scientific practice, playfully expanding on these through an arts practice.
In terms of scientific quality, this is a well-researched text that weaves together significant historical events relating to nuclear waste disposal, with attention to the speculative nature of nuclear science, particularly considering the social and ecological complexities and ambiguities of such study.
The paper is well-presented, the conceptual rationale and context is clearly communicated, prior to sharing the speculative arts practice. Overall, it is clear and structured, although there are some minor suggestions below, for consideration.
Specific comments
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of SaND?
Yes, as outlined in the aims and scope of SaND: ‘research focusing on the safety of responsible nuclear disposal practices represents a task that no single scientific discipline is able to solve alone’. This paper brings an interdisciplinary perspective to the discussion of nuclear disposal practices. The artistic and speculative approach draws attention to the storytelling inherent in scientific practice and therefore offers a critical and creative perspective.
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
Yes, it offers a speculative reinterpretation of historic data.
Are substantial conclusions reached?
As the writer explains, art plays an important role in asking difficult questions, opening conversations to allow for critical analysis. In this way, the article is not ‘conclusive’ as such. I would perhaps suggest that at the end of the section ‘Supplement: The Half-Life Afterlife’ there might be a more conclusive paragraph, perhaps continuing the style of a report, that summarises key takeaways/ questions that would be applicable to the speculative site, and to historical sites.
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
Yes, the style and approach are clearly outlined and justified.
Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
Yes, within the scope outlined by the writer, the results (here a series of artworks) reflect the critical questions posed by the writer and respond to the research and data he has outlined.
Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
I believe this question is not applicable to the nature of this work – perhaps it will encourage further interdisciplinary responses.
Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
I believe so. Further clarity could be developed perhaps through an additional paragraph (e.g. near the start of the article) that directly justifies (or further situates) the role of art practice-led research with relation to scientific research and practice.
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes, although a subtitle indicating the speculative and artistic nature of the paper might be helpful.
Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
Yes
Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
Yes. There are a few lines that could be elaborated on, for further clarity and context. These are:
Line 46: ‘new model of volunteerism’ – a footnote to elaborate/ explain this further would add clarity.
Please see q.13 for further suggestions
Is the language fluent and precise?
Yes.
Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
N/A
Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
Minor suggestion:
Line 65: reference to the surprise to local communities – where is this info from? Was it an observation? Or in the local media? A footnote here would add further context.
Figures 1 and 2: ‘redacted by the author for your safety’ – I was unsure why this was the case.
Line 228 ‘held together by strong cultural forces’ – elaboration/ clarification of meaning here would be good.
Line 256: elaboration on ‘non-critical rings’ could add clarity
Line 279-280: the grammar/ syntax of this sentence might be reviewed, for greater clarity/ flow.
Line 295: a footnote to allow the reader to see the text about the objects with holes from 3700 BC would add to the context – the text in the image wasn’t readable
Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
Yes.
Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?
Yes.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-2-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on sand-2026-2', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Jun 2026
The article addresses relevant questions concerning the disposal of nuclear waste, in line with the scope of the journal, through an artwork: the author’s speculative artistic project reflects on the implications of the final disposal of nuclear waste in the UK, proposing an alternative future in which nuclear waste has been buried underneath Gloucestershire Airport.
Clearly written and well articulated, the article raises questions about the processes involved in siting for a GDF, the nature of political decision-making, and the participation of local communities in these processes; the author’s artwork is contextualised accordingly.
While the paper presents an interesting and clear research address through the personal way the artist investigated the GDF programme, and specifically the author’s artwork, there are still important points to be implemented if the aim of the paper is to speak to a broader community of researchers and scientists, such as the readers of this journal. Therefore, my suggestion is that the paper be accepted if the following points are implemented:
- While novel ideas (the author’s artwork) are presented, this lacks a contextualisation within the field of artistic research to which the contribution belongs.
- The paper needs to be contextualised more in depth, also in relation to current scientific research in the context of the disposal of (high-level) nuclear waste.
- Missing references should be integrated accordingly.
- The conclusion is missing.
More specifically:
3) references
-The section “background readings” presents at the moment a discursive approach which is well written as a non-scientific text, but inadequate as a scientific paper: the text often assumes a reader’s background knowledge, failing to provide the necessary references to the statements provided. A few examples here:
-line 42 “make nuclear waste permanently safe, sooner” - a reference is needed.
-line 42-43 “Formed in 2022, NWS are a subsidiary organisation within the larger UK government funded Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)” - a reference is needed.
-line 45 “several previously failed attempts to address the domestic nuclear waste issue since the mid 1970s” - a reference is needed.
-line 116 introduces the important topic of a “nuclear renaissance” but does not contextualise it with relevant literature - please add references.
In practice, whenever the author makes a statement that is not their own reflection or personal experience, this needs to be grounded in relevant research and referenced accordingly.
2) research background
The section “background readings” is particularly problematic at the moment and should be implemented. Furthermore, for clarity, this section could be better integrated into the flow of the text by creating a separate subheading, perhaps with a more specific title, such as “theoretical framework: history and politics…” or something else.
Also remarkably, when addressing the planning of a GDF, there is no contextualisation on what kind of nuclear waste it will host, such as a mention of the difference between high-level waste and other kinds of nuclear waste. There is also no mention of whether this kind of project has been realised before (see “Onkalo” in Finland), or of how the same issues have been dealt with in the past. For example, the author addresses the involvement of local communities, but this has not always been the case for this kind of technology (see for example the case of the stalled project for a repository in Yucca Mountain, US).
1) artistic research
For what concerns the interesting and relevant part of the article that delves into the author’s artistic project, the main contribution of this paper, one important remark I wish to make here is that the author does not acknowledge any other artistic projects that have tackled the issue, not in the UK, not via archaeology, not through sculpture. If the author’s artistic project aims to be considered research, it is fundamental that it also acknowledges prior research of this kind, namely, within the arts. There are several relevant examples of other artistic projects that engage with the same issue. For example, as presented by Anna Volkmar in “Art and nuclear power”, or by Ele Carpenter in “The nuclear culture source book”. Concerning the UK specifically, the author may be interested in looking at Bryan McGovern Wilson’s “The Atomic Priesthood Project”. Another relevant reference in this context is the research of anthropologist Dr. Petra Tjitske Kalshoven, for example in collaboration with local artists: https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/atomic-houses-and-space-hoppers-international-researchers-j-431046/
The author highlights in line 110 “If there is one thing artists are particularly good at, it’s asking questions with no clear or ready answers”. This is a very relevant remark, which should be contextualised as specified so far.
Line 130 misses an opportunity to reference the relevance of research in archaeology in the context of a GDF, also considering that the artwork does reference it. See, for example, Rosemary Joyce’s “The future of nuclear waste”.
At line 165 the author states that “ The Half-Life Afterlife is a speculative, sculptural and text-based artwork”. However, it is not clear what is the role of text in the artwork, and which text is part of it.
4) conclusion
At the moment, the paper does not include a conclusion. This should be added, for example, by summarising the main findings and reflecting on what contribution the paper proposes to current research. In the abstract the author states that “we are asked to place our trust in the science and engineered barriers of the GDF but at the same time we cannot know with any certainty how societal and cultural changes will impact on our long-term future understanding and relationship with our atomic past and the waste we have left behind”. Another relevant point is that “geological disposal is presented as both a safe and neat and tidy solution, but we should also consider this within the context of our wider global nuclear footprint and keep in mind the ongoing and enduring legacies of uranium mining, atomic weapons testing and unplanned radiological releases are not so tidily managed or contained”. These points are very clear in the abstract but do not come back with the same clarity within the text. If articulated properly, and specifically in relation to the author’s artwork, these reflections and findings can be made explicit in the conclusion section as well.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-2-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Nic Pehkonen, 29 Jun 2026
Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to review my text in detail and raising extremely relevant points in terms of references, context and structure, all of which I gladly take on board.
I am familiar with a number of the artistic projects and literature mentioned (Volkmar, Carpenter, McGovern, Joyce) as well as the historic and more technical aspects of geological disposal, albeit from a lay-persons perspective but I wasn’t really thinking too much about the wider context of my offering and readership, which probably seems all kinds of strange in lots of ways given the raison d’être of the journal I have submitted it to!
Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that although I didn’t really set out to pursue an academic path with my creative practice, I have found that writing/text has become an important and enjoyable part of my work but perhaps not necessarily when it comes to embracing more overtly academic approaches and formats and all this entails.
Having said that, I do quite like the challenge (and can see the value) of rewriting my submission but I'm not sure I have the capacity at present so I'm wondering if it might make more sense to step off the process at this time and withdraw my SAND contribution in its current format.
That’s not to say I won’t have another go in the future but not necessarily the near future!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sand-2026-2-AC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 96 | 15 | 17 | 128 | 15 | 21 |
- HTML: 96
- PDF: 15
- XML: 17
- Total: 128
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General comments
The Half-Life Afterlife represents a valuable contribution to scientific progress within the scope of Safety of Nuclear Waste Disposal, particularly in terms of approaching issues of nuclear waste disposal through the use of speculative art and fiction as research methods into the social and ecological implications of geological disposal facilities. The paper draws attention to narratives within scientific practice, playfully expanding on these through an arts practice.
In terms of scientific quality, this is a well-researched text that weaves together significant historical events relating to nuclear waste disposal, with attention to the speculative nature of nuclear science, particularly considering the social and ecological complexities and ambiguities of such study.
The paper is well-presented, the conceptual rationale and context is clearly communicated, prior to sharing the speculative arts practice. Overall, it is clear and structured, although there are some minor suggestions below, for consideration.
Specific comments
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of SaND?
Yes, as outlined in the aims and scope of SaND: ‘research focusing on the safety of responsible nuclear disposal practices represents a task that no single scientific discipline is able to solve alone’. This paper brings an interdisciplinary perspective to the discussion of nuclear disposal practices. The artistic and speculative approach draws attention to the storytelling inherent in scientific practice and therefore offers a critical and creative perspective.
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
Yes, it offers a speculative reinterpretation of historic data.
Are substantial conclusions reached?
As the writer explains, art plays an important role in asking difficult questions, opening conversations to allow for critical analysis. In this way, the article is not ‘conclusive’ as such. I would perhaps suggest that at the end of the section ‘Supplement: The Half-Life Afterlife’ there might be a more conclusive paragraph, perhaps continuing the style of a report, that summarises key takeaways/ questions that would be applicable to the speculative site, and to historical sites.
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
Yes, the style and approach are clearly outlined and justified.
Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
Yes, within the scope outlined by the writer, the results (here a series of artworks) reflect the critical questions posed by the writer and respond to the research and data he has outlined.
Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
I believe this question is not applicable to the nature of this work – perhaps it will encourage further interdisciplinary responses.
Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
I believe so. Further clarity could be developed perhaps through an additional paragraph (e.g. near the start of the article) that directly justifies (or further situates) the role of art practice-led research with relation to scientific research and practice.
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes, although a subtitle indicating the speculative and artistic nature of the paper might be helpful.
Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
Yes
Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
Yes. There are a few lines that could be elaborated on, for further clarity and context. These are:
Line 46: ‘new model of volunteerism’ – a footnote to elaborate/ explain this further would add clarity.
Please see q.13 for further suggestions
Is the language fluent and precise?
Yes.
Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
N/A
Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
Minor suggestion:
Line 65: reference to the surprise to local communities – where is this info from? Was it an observation? Or in the local media? A footnote here would add further context.
Figures 1 and 2: ‘redacted by the author for your safety’ – I was unsure why this was the case.
Line 228 ‘held together by strong cultural forces’ – elaboration/ clarification of meaning here would be good.
Line 256: elaboration on ‘non-critical rings’ could add clarity
Line 279-280: the grammar/ syntax of this sentence might be reviewed, for greater clarity/ flow.
Line 295: a footnote to allow the reader to see the text about the objects with holes from 3700 BC would add to the context – the text in the image wasn’t readable
Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
Yes.
Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?
Yes.