Vol. 9 No. 1 (2026)
Research

Lively Doings: Centring Waste in Nuclear Waste Management

PDF HTML
  • Marika Silvikko de Villafranca,
  • Robbe Geysmans
Marika Silvikko de Villafranca
Aalto University
Robbe Geysmans
Belgian Nuclear Research Center SCK CEN
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3197/whpww.63857928646681
Categories

Published 2026-03-28

Keywords

  • nuclear waste management,
  • nuclear waste,
  • spent nuclear fuel,
  • materialism,
  • material agency

How to Cite

Silvikko de Villafranca, M., & Geysmans, R. (2026). Lively Doings: Centring Waste in Nuclear Waste Management. Worldwide Waste, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3197/whpww.63857928646681

Copyright (c) 2026 Marika Silvikko de Villafranca, Robbe Geysmans

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Nuclear actors often describe long-term nuclear waste management as a social problem, characterised by a lack of public acceptance and political will to implement waste management solutions. In public and social scientific discussions, waste itself tends to be sidelined. Analysing IAEA and NEA documents, we seek to shift attention to nuclear waste, with a focus on spent nuclear fuel (SNF). We trace some of the ways in which nuclear actors differently enact SNF through management practices, but also how SNF, as an agentic entity, informs to those enactments. We also explore how SNF, as a composite material, inspires and enables different kinds of futures. We propose that starting nuclear waste debates from SNF as an active entity shaping and engaging with systems designed to contain it, rather than from technologically fixed solutions, provides a better platform to deliberate what kind of nuclear future(s) and waste management solutions are societally desirable.

PDF HTML

References

  1. Adam, B. and C. Groves. 2007. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004161771.i-218
  2. Aït Abderrahim, H., P. Baeten, A. Sneyers et al. 2020. ’Partitioning and transmutation contribution of MYRRHA to an EU strategy for HLW management and main achievements of MYRRHA related FP7 and H2020 projects: MYRTE, MARISA, MAXSIMA, SEARCH, MAX, FREYA, ARCAS’. EPJ - Nuclear Sciences & Technologies 6 (33): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2019038
  3. Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv12101zq
  4. Barad, K. 2023. ‘Nuclear hauntings & memory fields, for the time-being(s)’. Apocalyptica 1: 24–39. https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.apoc.2023.1.24891
  5. Barthe, Y. 2009. ‘Framing nuclear waste as a political issue in France’. Journal of Risk Research 12 (7–8): 941–54.
  6. Barthe, Y. 2010. ‘Nuclear waste: The meaning of decision-making’. In L. Aparicio (ed.), Making Nuclear Waste Governable. Deep Underground Disposal and the Challenge of Reversibility. Springer.
  7. Barthe, Y., M. Elam and G. and Sundqvist. 2020. ‘Technological fix or divisible object of collective concern? Histories of conflict over the geological disposal of nuclear waste in Sweden and France’. Science as Culture 29 (2): 196–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1645108
  8. Barthe, Y., M. Meyer and G. Sundqvist. 2022. ‘Technical problematisation: A democratic way to deal with contested projects?’ Science, Technology and Society 27 (1): 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721821995584
  9. Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822391623
  10. Bergen, J.P. 2016. ‘Reversible experiments: putting geological disposal to the test’. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3): 707–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9697-2
  11. Bergmans, A., G. Sundqvist, D. Kos and P. Simmons. 2015. ‘The participatory turn in radioactive waste management: deliberation and the social–technical divide’. Journal of Risk Research 18 (3): 347–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.971335
  12. Bowker, G.C. and S.L. Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001
  13. Braun, V. and V. Clarke. 2019. ‘Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis’. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11 (4): 589–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  14. Callon, M. 1984. ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’. The Sociological Review 32 (1): 196–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
  15. Denis, J. and D. Pontille. 2015. ‘Material ordering and the care of things’. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (3): 338–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914553129
  16. EC. 2011. Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM of19th July 2011 Establishing a Framework for the Responsible and Safe Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste. Brussels: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  17. Elam, M. and G. Sundqvist. 2011. ‘Meddling in Swedish success in nuclear waste management’. Environmental Politics 20 (2): 246–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2011.551030
  18. Emmenegger, R. 2025. ‘Nuclear strata: Enacting clay for the deep geological disposal of nuclear waste in Switzerland’. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 8 (3): 978–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486251324935
  19. Evens, S. 2024. Streams, Steams, and Steels: A Transnational History of Risk Regulation in Nuclear Power Plants (1850–1985). Ph.D. Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-344897
  20. Feiveson, H.A., T.B. Taylor, F. von Hippel and R.H. Williams. 1976. ‘Plutonium economy’. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 32 (10): 10–21, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1976.11455664
  21. Foley, T.J. 2021. ‘Waiting for waste: Nuclear imagination and the politics of distant futures in Finland’. Energy Research & Social Science 72: 101867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101867
  22. Geysmans, R, M. Silvikko de Villafranca and G. Meskens. 2023. ‘Making the future in the present: using Science and Technology Studies to reflect on 40 years of research in the HADES Underground Research Laboratory’. In X.L. Li, M. van Geet, C. Bruggeman and M. De Craen (eds), Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Deep Clay Formations: 40 Years of RD&D in the Belgian URL HADES, pp. 311–320. London: Geological Society. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP536-2022-21
  23. Gregson, N. 2012. ‘Projected futures: The political matter of UK Higher Activity Radioactive Waste’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44 (8): 2006–22. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44600
  24. Gregson, N., H. Watkins and M. Calestani. 2010. ‘Inextinguishable fibres: demolition and the vital materialisms of asbestos’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 42: 1065–83. https://doi.org/10.1068/a42123
  25. Harvey, P. 2024. ‘Geology as unconforming infrastructure for the hosting of nuclear waste’. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society 48 (2): 67–83. https://doi.org/10.30676/jfas.125713
  26. Hecht, G. 2012. Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  27. Hetherington, K. 2004. ‘Secondhandedness: consumption, disposal, and absent presence’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: 157–73. https://doi.org/10.1068/d315t
  28. Hietala, M. 2018. Making Distant Futures: Implementing Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste in the UK and Finland. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Exeter. https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/33976
  29. Hietala, M. and R. Geysmans. 2021. Investigating the Socio-Technical Boundary Conditions of Partitioning, Conditioning and Transmutation through (Inter)National Case Studies. https://roma.sckcen.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/7203613/ER_0965_ASOF_Deliverable_D4.3_Investigating_the_socio_technical_boundary_conditions_of_partitioning_conditioning_and_transmutation_through_inter_national_case_studies.pdf
  30. Hietala, M. and R. Geysmans. 2022. ‘Social sciences and radioactive waste management: acceptance, acceptability, and a persisting socio-technical divide’. Journal of Risk Research 25 (4): 423–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1864010
  31. Hird, M.J. 2013. ‘Waste, landfills, and an environmental ethic of vulnerability’. Ethics & the Environment 18 (1): 105–24. https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.18.1.105
  32. Holtorf, C. and A. Högberg. 2020. ‘What lies ahead?: Nuclear waste as cultural heritage of the future’. In C. Holtorf and A. Högberg (eds), Cultural Heritage and the Future, pp. 144–58. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644615-10
  33. Högselius, P. 2009. ‘Spent nuclear fuel policies in historical perspective: An international comparison’. Energy Policy 37 (1): 254–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.043
  34. IAEA. 2003. Scientific and Technical Basis for the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Wastes. Technical Reports Series No. 4I3: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TRS413_web.pdf
  35. IAEA. 2004. Implications of Partitioning and Transmutation in Radioactive Waste Management: https://www.iaea.org/publications/7112/implications-of-partitioning-and-transmutation-in-radioactive-waste-management
  36. IAEA 2007. Factors Affecting Public and Political Acceptance for the Implementation of Geological Disposal. IAEA-TECDOC-1566: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1566_web.pdf
  37. IAEA. 2008. Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options. IAEA-TECDOC-1587: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1587_web.pdf
  38. IAEA. 2013. Spent Fuel Storage Operation — Lessons Learned. IAEA TECDOC Series. TEC DOC no. 1725: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1725_web.pdf
  39. IAEA. 2015. Spent Fuel Performance Assessment and Research: Final Report of a Coordinated Research Project on Spent Fuel Performance Assessment and Research (SPAR-III) 2009–2014. IAEA-TECDOC-1771: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE-1771_web.pdf
  40. IAEA. 2018. Options for Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste for Countries Developing New Nuclear Power Programmes. IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. No. NW-T-1.24 (Rev. 1): https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1825_web.pdf
  41. IAEA. 2019a. Storing Spent Fuel until Transport to Reprocessing or Disposal. No. NF-T-3.3: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1846_web.pdf
  42. IAEA. 2019b. TECDOC 1862: Behaviour of Spent Power Reactor Fuel during Storage: Extracts from the Final Reports of Coordinated Research Projects on Behaviour of Spent Fuel Assemblies in Storage (BEFAST I–III) and Spent Fuel Performance Assessment and Research (SPAR I–III): https://www.iaea.org/publications/12358/behaviour-of-spent-power-reactor-fuel-during-storage
  43. IAEA. 2020a. Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: Specific Safety Guide. IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-15 (Rev.1): https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1882_web.pdf
  44. IAEA. 2020b. Management of Spent Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors: Learning from the Past, Enabling the Future: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1905_web.pdf
  45. IAEA. 2022a. Status and Trends in Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management:https://www.iaea.org/publications/14739/status-and-trends-in-spent-fuel-and-radioactive-waste-management
  46. IAEA. 2022b. From Stakeholder Engagement to Geological Disposal: Sustainable Solutions for Radioactive Waste Management: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/from-stakeholder-engagement-to-geological-disposal-sustainable-solutions-for-radioactive-waste-management
  47. IAEA. 2024a. Roadmap for Implementing a Geological Disposal Programme. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA Nuclear Energy Series). https://doi.org/10.61092/iaea.80st-qaw7
  48. IAEA. 2024b. Guidebook on Spent Fuel Storage Options and Systems. 3rd Edition. Technical Reports Series no. 240: https://www.-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/DOC_010_240_web.pdf
  49. IAEA. n.d. Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc50inf-3-att5_en.pdf
  50. Ialenti, V. 2018. ‘Waste makes haste: How a campaign to speed up nuclear waste shipments shut down the WIPP long-term repository’. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 74 (4): 262–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2018.1486616
  51. Ialenti, V. 2020. ‘Spectres of Seppo: The afterlives of Finland’s nuclear waste experts’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 26 (2): 251–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.13247
  52. IGD-TP. 2009. Implementing Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste Technology Platform: https://igdtp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/VisionDoc_Final_Oct24-1.pdf
  53. Jasanoff, S. and S.-H. Kim. 2009. ‘Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea’. Minerva 47 (2): 119–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
  54. Kasperski, T. and A. Storm. 2020. ‘Eternal care: Nuclear waste as toxic legacy and future fantasy’. Geschichte Und Gesellschaft 46 (4): 682–705. https://doi.org/10.13109/gege.2020.46.4.682
  55. Keating, T. 2022. ‘Nuclear remains: For a speculative empirical approach’. In N. Williams and T. Keating (eds), Speculative Geographies, pp. 173–86. Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0691-6_11
  56. Keating, T.P. and A. Storm. 2023. ‘Nuclear memory: Archival, aesthetic, speculative’. Progress in Environmental Geography 2 (1–2): 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/27539687231174242
  57. Kim, S. 2025. ‘Consolidating the strata: Geoscience and underground territory in South Korean radioactive waste disposal’, Science, Technology, & Human Values: 01622439241310294. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241310294
  58. Kinsella, W.J. 2001. ‘Nuclear boundaries: Material and discursive containment at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation’. Science as Culture 10 (2): 163–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120052284
  59. Kooyman, T. 2021. ‘Current state of partitioning and transmutation studies for advanced nuclear fuel cycles’. Annals of Nuclear Energy 157: 108239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108239
  60. Lagerlöf, H., G. Sundqvist and A. Bergmans. 2022. ‘Striving for technical consensus by agreeing to disagree: The case of monitoring underground nuclear waste disposal facilities’. Journal of Risk Research 25 (5): 666–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2049620
  61. Landström, C. and A. Bergmans. 2015. ‘Long-term repository governance: A socio-technical challenge’. Journal of Risk Research 18 (3): 378–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.913658
  62. Latour, B. 1992. ‘Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts’. In W. Bijker and J. Law (eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp. 151–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  63. Latour, B. 2000. ‘When things strike back: A possible contribution of “science studies” to the social sciences’. The British Journal of Sociology 51 (1): 107–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00107.x
  64. Latour, B. and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400820412
  65. Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481141
  66. Law, J. 2009. ‘Actor Network Theory and material semiotics’. In B.S. Turner (ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, pp. 141–58. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304992.ch7
  67. Lennemann, W.L. 1979. ‘The management of high-level radioactive wastes’. IAEA Bulletin 21 (4): 2–11.
  68. Li, X.L., M. van Geet, C. Bruggeman and M. De Craen (eds). 2023. Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Deep Clay Formations: 40 Years of RD&D in the Belgian URL HADES. London: Geological Society. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP536
  69. Liboiron, M. 2021. ‘Matter out of place’. In Z. Gille and J. Lepawsky (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Waste Studies, pp. 31–40. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003019077
  70. Lloyd, J.R. and A. Cherkouk (eds). 2020. The Microbiology of Nuclear Waste Disposal. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  71. Macfarlane, A. 2003. ‘Underlying Yucca Mountain: The interplay of geology and policy in nuclear waste disposal’. Social Studies of Science 33 (5): 783–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312703335006
  72. Masco, J. 2006. The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400849680
  73. Mol, A. and J. Law. 1994. ‘Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology’. Social Studies of Science 24 (4): 641–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631279402400402
  74. Morton, T. 2012. ‘An object-oriented defense of poetry’. New Literary History 43 (2): 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2012.0018
  75. Morton, T. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  76. Mukerji, C. 2015. ‘The material turn’. In M. Buchmann, S.M. Kosslyn and R. A. Scott (eds), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, pp. 1–13. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0109
  77. NEA. 2003. The Potential Impacts on Repository Safety from Potential Partitioning and Transmutation Programme. Topical Session Proceedings of the 4th IGSC Meeting, 6 Nov 2002, Paris France: https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_17826/topical-session-proceedings-of-the-4th-igsc-meeting-on-the-potential-impacts-on-repository-safety-from-potential-partitioning-and-transmutation-programme?details=true
  78. NEA. 2008. Moving Forward with Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: A Collective Statement by the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC): https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/nea6433-statement.pdf
  79. NEA. 2011. Trends towards Sustainability in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Executive Summary: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/trends-nuclear-fuel-cycle-ex.pdf
  80. NEA. 2013. The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7061-ebenfc.pdf
  81. NEA. 2021. Strategies and Considerations for the Back End of the Fuel Cycle: https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_55928/strategies-and-considerations-for-the-back-end-of-the-fuel-cycle
  82. Nimmo, R. 2011. ‘Actor-Network Theory and methodology: Social research in a more-than-human world’. Methodological Innovations Online 6 (3): 108–19. https://doi.org/10.4256/mio.2011.010
  83. ONR. 2024. International Safety Standards (IAEA): https://www.onr.org.uk/our-work/how-we-regulate/international-safety-standards-iaea
  84. Pelopidas, B. 2021. ‘The birth of nuclear eternity’. In S. Kemp and J. Andersson (eds), Futures, pp. 484–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198806820.013.28
  85. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2009. ‘Touching technologies, touching visions. The reclaiming of sensorial experience and the politics of speculative thinking’. Subjectivity 28 (1): 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2009.17
  86. Rindzevičiūtė, E. 2025. ‘The politics of nuclear cultural heritage in a closed city: Layering the past’. Urban History: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963926825100394
  87. Ross, L.M. 2024. ‘Nuclear cultural heritage: From energy past to heritage future’. Heritage & Society 17 (2): 296–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032X.2023.2266644
  88. Schröder, J. 2016. ‘Geological disposal of radioactive waste: A long-term socio-technical experiment’. Science and Engineering Ethics 22: 687–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9650-4
  89. Schürkmann, C. 2022. ‘Joining multiple collaborations: Toward a sociomaterial perspective on nuclear waste management between society, technology and nature’. Worldwide Waste 5 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5334/wwwj.86
  90. Schwartz, M.O. 2012. ‘Modelling groundwater contamination above a nuclear waste repository at Gorleben, Germany’. Hydrogeology Journal 20 (3), 533–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0825-z
  91. Solomon, B.D., M. Andrén and U. Strandberg. 2010. ‘Three decades of social science research on high‐level nuclear waste: Achievements and future challenges’. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 1 (4): 13-47. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-4079.1036
  92. SSM. 2023. Kingdom of Sweden ARTEMIS Self-Assessment Report 2023: https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/contentassets/714b1841b7e245779270916c57f08181/202304-kingdom-of-sweden-artemis-self-assessment-report-2023.pdf
  93. Stsiapanau, A. 2025. ‘Nuclear clay: Prerequisites for geological disposal of radioactive waste in Soviet Lithuania and Russia’. Worldwide Waste 8 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3197/whpww.63857928646676
  94. Thorpe, C.L., J.J. Neeway, C.I. Pearce et al. 2021. ‘Forty years of durability assessment of nuclear waste glass by standard methods’. NPJ Materials Degradation 5 (1): 61. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41529-021-00210-4
  95. Ureta, S. 2016. ‘Caring for waste: Handling tailings in a Chilean copper mine’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 48 (8): 1532–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16645103
  96. van Wyck, P.C., 2005. Signs of Danger: Waste, Trauma and Nuclear Threat. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  97. Velasquez, C.E., F.B. Estanislau, A.L. Costa, M.A.F. Veloso and C. Pereira. 2021. ‘Scenarios of nuclear energy for countries with different options of nuclear fuel cycle: Utilization and perspective’. Progress in Nuclear Energy 136: 103747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103747
  98. Walker, W. 2021. ‘The History of nuclear power’s imagined future: Plutonium’s journey from asset to waste’. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 77 (5): 259–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2021.1964257
  99. Weber, H. 2022. ‘Unmaking the made: the troubled temporalities of waste’. In Z. Gille and J. Lepawsky (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Waste Studies, pp. 88–102. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003019077-7
  100. Weichselbraun, A.M. 2016. Constituting the International Nuclear Order: Bureaucratic Objectivity at the IAEA. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago. https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/1770/files/Weichselbraun_uchicago_0330D_13471.pdf
  101. WNA. 2024. Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities - World Nuclear Association: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities