UNESCO

Chair on Heritage Futures

Claudio Pescatore: Uranium and Nuclear: Humanity’s Web of Liabilities

2025-11-06

Claudio Pescatore explains why uranium’s chemical hazard is not a distant issue but a present debt — and why it will remain forever.

Not tomorrow, but today

When most people think of nuclear waste, they imagine glowing canisters buried in rock, hazards for a far-off future. The truth is different, and more unsettling. The greatest uranium problem is already with us now.

From the deserts of the American Southwest to abandoned mines in Central Asia, uranium residues contaminate soil, rivers, and aquifers. Communities live with the consequences today — kidney disease, unusable water.

Present-day scars

The Navajo Nation (U.S.) bears the legacy of Cold War uranium mining. Hundreds of abandoned mines and one out of four contaminated water-wells leave residents facing disproportionate health risks, needing endless cleanup.

Wismut (Germany), once the largest uranium mine outside the Soviet Union, has been under remediation since reunification. Billions of euros have been spent, yet groundwater plumes persist and treatment must continue indefinitely.

Mailuu-Suu (Kyrgyzstan), a former Soviet mining town, is home to dozens of unstable tailings piles above a river valley. Landslides and floods threaten to spread contamination widely.

UMTRA sites (U.S.), meant to stabilize mill tailings from past uranium production, continue to show uranium plumes exceeding drinking-water standards decades after closure.

These are not failures of engineering so much as reflections of uranium’s nature: a hazard that does not diminish on human timescales. Covers break, dams erode, pumps wear out. Each “remedy” is temporary, and each handoff pushes costs into the future.

We hardly use what we extract

Of all uranium mined for the nuclear fuel cycle, less than 0.4% has been used in reactors. The other 99.6% remains as residues — mill tailings, depleted uranium, and reprocessed uranium (see Figure 1). Its inventory by stock type is shown in Figure 1.   For each ton of Uranium is spent fuel, there will also exist an additional 9 tons as Depleted Uranium or Mill-tailings uranium.

Figure 1. Distribution of humanity’s uranium by stock type. Depleted uranium (≈69.5%) and uranium mill tailings (≈19.5%) dominate the global inventory, while spent fuel (≈8.1%) and reprocessed uranium (≈2.9%) make up the remainder.

Figure 2 shows that the largest uranium stocks — DU and mill tailings — are exactly those left near the surface. In other words, the smaller share is given the world’s most advanced containment, while the larger share remains exposed.   Put differently: a single metric ton of uranium represents hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of water needed for dilution, and millions of lifetime toxic doses. Multiplied by thousands of tons, the numbers are staggering.

Figure 2.  A measure of the liability from managing uranium is the Total Lifetime Doses (TLD) indicator. Values associated with each stock represent the number of lifetime-equivalent chemo-toxic exposures, expressed in billions of people. As the largest stocks of uranium reside in Depleted Uranium and in Mill Tailings, there lies most of the uranium liability to the future. Yet they receive far less stringent containment. 

A web of liabilities

Uranium’s hazard is not just technical. It is woven into a web of liabilities:

Geographical liabilities: Uranium may be mined in one country, enriched in another, and its waste left in a third. Communities that never benefited from the electricity pay the price. The Navajo did not choose the bombs their ore fueled; Mailuu-Suu’s residents did not choose Soviet reactors.

Temporal liabilities: Every cover or dam has a lifespan measured in decades or centuries. Uranium’s hazard lasts for billions of years. Each cycle of repair and neglect transfers liability to the next generation.

Institutional liabilities: Regulators often focus on radium or radon, ignoring uranium itself. Mining laws may require closure plans but not perpetual stewardship. Health agencies emphasize chemical toxicity, while nuclear agencies emphasize radiation. No one body takes full responsibility.

The result is a system that allows uranium to slip through the cracks, its hazard passed along invisibly until it reemerges as a plume, a lawsuit, or an abandoned site. 

Externalization of uranium costs

Uranium’s spread dismantles the idea of nuclear energy as “clean.” Yes, reactors emit little carbon dioxide. But the residue they generate — and the residues left by mining and enrichment — are anything but clean. Calling nuclear clean externalizes uranium’s costs onto:

future generations, who will inherit broken dams and leaking piles;
local communities, often Indigenous or marginalized, who live with toxic water and unsafe lands;
other geographies, as uranium mined elsewhere, in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and North America leaves residues that outlast states and borders.

Nuclear power may be low-carbon, but when uranium’s chemical liability is ignored, it is not low-cost, low-risk, or clean.

As an example, countries like Finland or Sweden that only have spent fuel still carry an indirect liability ten times as large in terms of Total Lifetime Doses and Dilution Liability. This stems from the additional uranium mill tailings and depleted uranium left to others to manage. Unlike spent fuel, these vast residues remain in shallow sites, piles, or surface storage — often in jurisdictions with lower environmental standards and certainly facing the endless remediation that surface storage entails.

Toward accountability: a Uranium Liability Convention

How do we begin to govern such a debt? One step is recognition: uranium is the parent hazard. It should not be masked by proxies like radium or radon.

But recognition is not enough. Uranium is traded globally, yet its liabilities are stranded locally. This calls for a Uranium Liability Convention (ULC) — a framework to:

Map liabilities: track where uranium has been mined, processed, stored, and abandoned.
Assign responsibility: link benefits and burdens so costs cannot be endlessly shifted.
Set binding obligations: require durable containment, including deep disposal for depleted uranium.
Integrate health and environment: recognize both chemical and radiological hazards.

Such a convention would not be a technical fix. It would be a moral and political acknowledgment that uranium’s hazard cannot be wished away, and that accountability must match the timescales of the debt.

What this means in human terms

For communities now: remediation cannot be partial. The Navajo, Mailuu-Suu, Wismut, and countless others need more than fences and promises. They need durable remedies that reduce exposure and stop passing costs to their children.

For nuclear debates: sustainability claims must account for uranium’s unresolved debt. Low-carbon is not clean when its waste contaminates forever.

For future generations: memory and containment must last longer than institutions usually plan for. Passing the burden on is not stewardship; it is abandonment.

Takeaway

The uranium hazard is not a future scenario. It is present contamination, future inevitability, and permanent liability.

It is a web that links countries, generations, and institutions. And unless we confront it honestly — by recognizing uranium itself, containing it durably, and sharing responsibility globally — that web will only tighten.

Uranium is not just fuel or waste. It is an environmental debt. The question is whether we will keep externalizing it, or whether we will finally take responsibility for paying it down.

Further reading

– Claudio Pescatore (2025). Humanity’s Uranium Inventory: A Persistent Chemical and Ecotoxicological Liability. Energy Research & Social Science 127 (2025) 104298  in open access

Claudio Pescatore

Claudio Pescatore is a member of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University

Anticipating Change: Exploring Long-term Futures for Heritage

2025-10-23

On the 16th of October 2025 ICCROM organized a workshop on Strategic Foresight in Heritage taking place in Rome, titled Anticipating Change: Exploring Long-term Futures for Heritage. The purpose of the workshop was to found a community for practice surrounding Strategic Foresight in heritage, to build resilience, relevance and agency among heritage organisations in the face of uncertainty and change.

Gustav Wollentz from the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures assisted in the organisation and facilitation of the workshop, contributing with a presentation on the value of Strategic Foresight in heritage and moderating parts of the agenda, which included both a hands-on Foresight exercise, the Futures Wheel, as well as a discussion on how to move forward together.

The goals of the newly established group are to:

  • Connect and amplify foresight and innovation efforts across the heritage sector. 
  • Co-developing and testing foresight methods in real-world heritage contexts. 
  • Building an open repository of trends, tools, and insights tailored to the sector’s needs. 

Together vid ICCROM, the workshop gathered representatives from the International Council on Archives, ICOM (International Council of Museums), IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), NEMO (Network of European Museum Organizations), UNESCO, the French Ministry of Culture, the Swedish National Heritage Board, the Heritage Alliance, UK, the Fondation des Sciences du Patrimoine, France, the Getty Foundation, USA, and University College London, UK. 

More information on the workshop is available here: https://www.iccrom.org/news/anticipating-change-exploring-long-term-futures-heritage

Future-Making at Riksantikvaren (Norway)

On Wednesday, 22 October, Anders Högberg was invited by the Norwegian National Heritage Board (Riksantikvaren) to give a presentation on Heritage Practices as Futures-Making Practices. The presentation was well received, and the subsequent discussion centred largely on the novelty of the future-oriented perspective that was introduced, as well as on how one might think in order to translate future-oriented ideas into more concrete heritage practices.

Anders Högberg, professor of Archaeology and member of the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University.

New article on urban transformation, heritage and social sustainability

2025-04-03

Bebyggelsehistorisk Tidskrift (Nordic Journal of Settlement History and Built Heritage): Urban transformation, heritage processes and social sustainable futures by Ulrika Söderström & Anders Högberg.

Short summary:

In this study, we use three case studies to discuss heritage processes as future-building practices. Through examples from urban regeneration processes in three Swedish cities, we discuss how these processes have contributed to social sustainability. The case studies are the Caroli neighbourhood in Malmö (transformed 1967-1973), the Valnötsträdet neighbourhood in Kalmar (transformed 2008-2018) and the ongoing transformation of Kiruna city. Our findings show that the cultural heritage processes activated in urban regeneration processes do not always promote socially sustainable future-making practices. We conclude that an engagement in different forms of future-making is crucial for heritage processes to contribute to long-term sustainable urban development. We suggest that this requires a way of thinking and acting that includes change and transformation. Our findings are conceptualised in a model that we hope can be used to understand heritage processes as future-making practices in urban transformation projects.

Bebyggelsehistorisk Tidskrift is a Nordic forum for research and debate on the history of the built environment. It is the Nordic region’s leading academic journal on the history of the built environment. The periodical presents the latest research on the history of the built environment, and also provides a forum for discussing the discipline in practice when buildings and heritage environments are being conserved.

https://bebyggelsehistoria.org/en/bebyggelsehistorisk-tidskrift-english/

Open access (Doctoral Thesis by Ulrika Söderström) https://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1901953

————————

POSTSCRIPT 13 April 2025. Here is a graphical summary of the paper prepared by ChatGPT:

Conference by the Swedish National Heritage Board

2025-03-24

Anders Högberg held a keynote lecture at the conference “Kulturarvsforskning i Sverige 2025” – Cultural Heritage Research in Sweden 2025, organised by the Swedish National Heritage Board 20-21 March 2025 in Stockholm. Keynote paper: ‘Cultural heritage research 2025 – some thoughts on where we stand and questions for the future’.

Ulrika Söderström also presented her dissertation at the conference: “Cultural heritage as a resource in socially sustainable urban development: A designed living environment for the future”.

More about the dissertation here

Kulturarvsforskning i Sverige 2025 -Riksantikvarieämbetet (The Conference Programme in Swedish)

Anders Högberg
Anders Högberg, Professor of Archaeology UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures
Ulrika Söderström
Ulrika Söderström, Doctor of Archaeology UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures

Futures Activism

2024-07-26

I was among the very many passengers on the 200-or-so cancelled flights whose journeys and plans got interrupted by climate activists who had gotten onto the runways of Frankfurt Airport yesterday.

It meant for me four hours of queuing until I got rebooked as well as a full additional day of travelling to a new destination and a long train journey from there (as Kalmar is remote and the cancelled flight goes only twice a week). They also lost my baggage along the way, including the German bread, the cheese, and some fish, all of which will likely be unedible when I will eventually receive them. On top, there is subsequent office work at home to try and reclaim my extra costs from the airline or my travel insurance.

Despite all this, I still wasn’t hit extremely hard I’d say, but only because I was travelling without small children, during my holidays, and because of tough EU regulation protecting travellers’ rights (which made the airline and airport supply us with essentials, including a hotel and food). But this act of activism by activists certainly did add stress and affected my immediate future. Was it worth it, for them?

For some reason, two TV crews (Welt TV live and ZDF) chose me for interview while queuing, asking what I made of the climate activists’ action. This led to discussion with a fellow queuer on his way (or not) to London. Whereas I can understand, and even sympathise with the activists’ cause and their hope—and expectation—to be vindicated by distant future generations, I also insist on the fact that Germany is a state ruled by law. It is not a state where citizen activists decide themselves what is right or wrong for others to do, either now or in the future, including when and how to travel.

There are many worthwhile causes of primary and even of existential significance for present and future generations. There are people championing causes as diverse as world peace and global sustainability, gender equality and equal opportunities, global justice replacing the neoliberal economy, anti-racism and decolonialization, and a whole lot more…

But is it all worth risking our hard-won democratic system of representative and law-based governance? Is a kind of climate dictatorship legitimated by activists (resorting to methods of minor terrorism?) really such a great prospect – or would this risk precisely what makes citizens believe in their joint society and trust in state and government? Are we from now on all supposed to be disrupting the lives of others for the particular existential causes we believe in?

As for me, for example, I am quite perplexed by the fact that very many citizens seem to be more concerned by future climate change than by the mid-term prospect of a global war or other military conflicts in our own world region. But that does not make me try to halt physically, say, the massive current weapon exports to war areas like Ukraine – or disrupt the lives of the very many people supporting this.

In a strong democracy like Germany political activism should be done by voting or other dedicated mechanisms including demonstrations, legal cases, petitions, publications, etc. Europe is not the Wild West where the guys with the biggest guns call the shots.

All this was on my mind precisely because the activists had chosen the day before the opening of the Olympic Games in Paris for their action – but had they ever reflected on the meaning of the Olympics? The Resolution of the 2024 Games is entitled “Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal.”

In sum, I hope the activists (probably feeling quite chuffed about the immediate impact of their action) will be persecuted and convicted by the courts and that some or all of all the extra costs can be recovered as a result.

For a better future!

Workshop on futures thinking

2023-02-22

In a join effort of developing our picture book WOW! further, Pernilla Frid and Cornelius Holtorf held today an experimental workshop on futures thinking with the staff of the Dept of External Relations at Linnaeus University.

The 20 participants got engaged in various discussions, both in plenary and in groups, on how they relate to the future and what action towards (any aspect of) the future they would propose to take…

Kan vara en bild av 7 personer, personer som står och inomhus

Heritage Futures and Museums

2023-01-29

Cornelius Holtorf was interviewed by Mario Giognorio, PhD student at the School of International Studies in Trento, Italy, on “Heritage Futures: Museums, communities, and the future that is already here.

He had been visiting Trento in November 2022 to give public lectures and seminars for the students participating in the Challenge Hitchhikers’ guides, virtual Charons, and the future of cultural objects, organized by Francesca Odella (Department of Sociology) and promoted by the University of Trento’s School of Innovation and the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU).

Is the future a luxury?

2022-12-21

Sarah May writes: I keep hearing people suggest they don’t have time for the future. Or that other people don’t have time for the future.  I hear the classist suggestion that people who are struggling in the present, working hard, don’t think of the future. Some of the strongest futures thinking comes from people who are marginalised, because they need it. It’s the wealthy who can afford not to think of the future, or to do so poorly.

Read more in her new blog entry here.