We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Projected futures : the political matter of UK higher activity radioactive waste.

Gregson, N. (2012) 'Projected futures : the political matter of UK higher activity radioactive waste.', Environment and planning A., 44 (8). pp. 2006-2022.


This paper identifies, and works from, the technoconceptual as a site of intervention for a politics of stuff. Its case is radioactive waste: specifically, UK higher activity wastes (HAW) and the policy future of a UK Deep Geological Disposal Facility (DGF). The paper proceeds through three steps. It charts, first, the unravelling of HAW as onto-politics through the democratisation of technoscience, showing that, as the gap between stuff and politics has opened, HAW’s future in a DGF has become the preserve of science–technical discourses (currently geology and engineered design). Secondly, it joins with the undone-science traditions of STS (science, technology, and society), to critique existing technoscientific conceptualisations of a DGF and to anticipate a future in which a DGF is abandoned. Third, and in response to abandonment, it proposes a different future for a DGF. This starts from thinking radioactive waste as ‘thing power’ but argues that, for a DGF to be materialised in ways that forge attachments with publics, requires a turn to material culture. More broadly, the paper argues that furthering onto-politics requires keeping the demos alive to stuff’s vitality. This means engaging in political settlements of technoscientific controversies; with old, or established, technologies, and ‘cold’ politics; and in politics as practised.

Item Type:Article
Keywords:Radioactive waste, Materiality, Deep geological disposal, Onto-politics, UK
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:Gregson N., 2012, The definitive peer-reviewed and edited version of this article is published in Environment and Planning A 44(8) 2006–2022, 2012,
Date accepted:No date available
Date deposited:26 March 2013
Date of first online publication:2012
Date first made open access:No date available

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar