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 — cancers, 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 three 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 10 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 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.

Constructing heritage for future-making

2025-10-16

On 11 March 2011, Eastern Japan was hit by a triple disaster caused by the combination of the impacts of an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown. Many people lost their lives, their homes, or their livelihoods, and are still affected by the aftermath now.

Figure 1: Central area of the Disaster Memorial Park under construction in Futaba, Fukushima

Over fourteen years later, the region most affected is now covered by a plethora of topical museums, exhibitions, memorial stones, and even some largescale memorial parks that either opened over the last few years or are still under construction. They all do not only aim at recalling what happened but also intend to create a better future.

Figure 2: 3.11 Densho Road connecting disaster memorial facilities in Eastern Japan

I first explored the topic on an exploratory trip to Fukushima Prefecture (with Tomas Nilsson and Tom Holtorf) in spring 2023. Now I was able to return for some days in connection with a NEA (OECD) conference on Nuclear Waste Management I participated in in Yokohama. I could even spend two days in Miyagi Prefecture this time. I am more than ever convinced that Eastern Japan provides a good case for studying the role of cultural heritage in negotiating the relations between present and future societies, i.e. what we call heritage futures.

Figure 3: Display in the Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum in Futaba, Fukushima


I found evidence that remembering the 3.11-Disaster related present and future societies in at least the following interrelating but different ways:

1. Restoring and continuing after hiatus

  • Restoring shrines and other cultural heritage to reconnect with the past for the future
  • Passing down memories and lessons of the disaster to protect lives around the world in the future, e.g. building higher seawalls and promoting tsunami alert response (e.g. memorial facilities along 3.11 Densho Road)
  • Expressing personal memories of the disaster to continue life
  • Revitalizing the region by promoting and rebuilding economic development, e.g. through high-tech and tourism (e.g. Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Disaster Memorial Museum in Futaba)

2. Making up for past failure

  • Accepting apologies and accountability that come with the responsibility to make up for the damage (Tepco)
  • Honouring the victims forever (memorial stones)

3. Finding a better way forward

  • Increasing resilience by improving the human ability to embrace loss, change, transformation, adaptation and renewal in the future (e.g. inspired by Sakura, the reoccurring cherry blossoming)
  • Learning from the mistakes of modernity and capitalism to create a more sustainable society for the future.

4. Restarting and regenerating life

  • Partial forgetting of the disaster in order to move on with new life (e.g. resprouting of burned trees, see Figure 4)
  • International support and joint remembering as an opportunity for connecting people around the world (Ishinomaki City Kadonowaki Elementary School exhibit)
  • Recovering from the disaster to regenerate our lives for the future refocusing human priorities (e.g. some eye-witness storytelling).

Figure 4: a tree outside Ishinomaki City Kadonowaki Elementary School burned by the disaster in 2011 but now resprouting with new life

In sum, preliminary outcomes of my fieldwork reveal how past, present, and future can be strongly interconnected: the way we tell the past in the present strongly correlates with our assumptions and anticipations of the future. This becomes particularly pertinent in the case of the 3.11.-Disaster which brought about extensive losses of lives and livelihoods, including entire town areas and much essential infrastructure.

The future we are building today in the aftermath of the disaster depends on how we describe and remember what actually happened, e.g. by constructing cultural heritage sites, as currently happens in the area affected by the 3.11 disaster along the Japanese East Coast. There are different ways of recalling the disaster and different futures following on from that. That is why cultural heritage is of great importance in future-making, and why heritage futures matter in the present.

Heritage Futures for Nuclear Waste

2025-10-09

Cornelius Holtorf presented a talk entitled for cirka 100 participants at the Symposium on Information, Data, and Knowledge Management for Radioactive Waste: Challenges Across All Timescales, organised by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD and hosted by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) in Yokohama, Japan (7-10 October 2025).

Heritage Futures: Archaeological Insights for the Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste

Cornelius Holtorf, UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures, Linnaeus University

Managing radioactive waste is a challenge that extends across many generations, requiring long-term safety measures. Archaeologists, like myself, are familiar with time scales of thousands of years as we seek to understand the distant past. A key part of our work involves questioning assumptions rooted in the present and learning to imagine past worlds that were vastly different from today. This is very difficult, but only after doing so can we draw meaningful insights from the past to inform the present. The same principles should apply when communicating information, knowledge, and guidance about radioactive waste repositories to societies of distant futures. This calls for a strengthened capacity in ‘futures literacy,’ a concept developed and promoted by UNESCO.

Futures literacy consists of three core dimensions: 1. Becoming aware of the assumptions we hold about the future, 2. Learning to imagine multiple alternative futures, and 3. Reframing the original issue and developing new strategies to address it.

In this paper, I explore this argument and discuss its implications for a long-term, safe and responsible management of radioactive waste. The paper is based on extensive research conducted by the UNESCO Chair on Heritage Futures at Linnaeus University in Kalmar, Sweden. The research has been carried out in collaboration with the radioactive waste sector in Sweden and internationally, including through participation in several expert groups of the NEA.

Beyond fear of the future concerning heritage

2025-09-02

I listened today to the keynote lecture by Tatjana Cvjetićanin during the Opening session of the Annual Conference of the European Association of Archaeologists in 2025. She has been the Director of the National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade (2003-2012).

In her lecture, Cvjetićanin asked whether archaeological heritage really always provides benefits for the future, whether it is sensible to do archaeological “hoarding” of finds in collections, and why we always have to fear the future for perpetual crises of endangerment of archaeological heritage.

Instead, she referred to the Heritage Futures project (Harrison et al 2020) and emphasized archaeologists’ responsibility to work with the public for the public, described the nature of their work as ‘heritage-making’, and insisted on the temporally and spatially variable value of archaeological heritage.

Very interesting to follow in lectures like this one how heritage futures are gradually becoming mainstream in Archaeology… 🙂

Gamma Fields: The Industrial Legacy We Cannot Afford to Forget

2025-04-28

By Claudio Pescatore

What if the true monuments of the nuclear age are not vaults, vitrified blocks, or warning markers—but fields of invisible light?

  • Gamma radiation is insidious. It leaves no ruin, no ash, no wound you can see. You don’t need to touch it. You don’t need to breathe it in. You simply pass by—and it passes into you. No trace is left on the soil. But a trace is left in you. And when the next person passes, they too receive the signal. Yet the source remains—unchanged, unweakened.
  • Most poisons are spent as they harm. Gamma radiation is not. It accumulates elsewhere, silently, without diminishing its source. A kind of ambient inheritance.

In a recent study, I calculated the gamma radiation field unleashed by humanity’s Uranium-238 (U-238) legacy. The results show that this field is not temporary. It is already present, slow to mature, but geologically assured and radiologically significant, beyond safety thresholds.

  • Mill tailings scattered across continents emit gamma radiation through uranium’s progeny. This signal will slowly fade over the next half a million years—but it will reach a baseline, unsafe value and will continue indefinitely.
  • Meanwhile, depleted uranium stockpiles—which emit almost no gamma today—are quietly maturing. From a few thousand years onward, their gamma output will rise steadily, eventually overtaking significantly that of tailings, peaking in two million years, and continuing unabated into geological time.
  • Most U-238 residues lie close to the surface—mill tailings, depleted uranium (DU) stockpiles, weapons testing sites, contaminated soils from mining and from exploded DU munitions. Even when their radiation does not cause immediate harm, it defines a long-term environmental signal whose meaning we have barely begun to grasp.

This raises questions not only of science, but of ethics, inheritance, and imagination:

  • What does it mean to leave behind a hazard that grows in potency over time?
  • How do we warn future beings of a danger concealed in ordinary soil or dust?
  • Should gamma radiation be seen not only as threat, but also as a marker of human agency?

Nuclear waste lasts a long time. But U-238 isn’t just persistent—it performs. It changes. It regenerates. It returns. And surprisingly, we don’t call it waste. We call it an industrial by-product.

And now we are not just leaving behind a signal—we are leaving a body.

  • About 4.5 million tonnes of U-238, mostly in oxide form, now reside in uranium tailings, DU, and spent fuel. It is a real, physical legacy—not symbolic, not speculative. This body must be put away—not forgotten, but deliberately placed and traced. Shielded, marked, and remembered.
  • We can still act. We can treat uranium’s gamma legacy not as an afterthought, but as a defining part of our industrial inheritance. This won’t undo the past—but it may shape how future generations understand what we’ve left them.

We often speak of the nuclear age as bracketed—confined by Cold War dates or the operational lifespan of reactors. But its material consequences are just beginning. Care begins by acknowledging and tending to what endures.

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

Read more: http://www.nukleonika.pl/www/back/full/vol70_2025/v70n2p031f.pdf 

Miras Gelecekleri

2025-04-14

Miras Gelecekleri is “Heritage Futures” in Turkish!

I was interviewed by Erman Ertuğrul for the popular Turkish website arkeofili.

In the interview I am talking, among others, on how I got into archaeology at age 10 and then, much later, into future archaeology.

See for the English version: https://arkeofili.com/on-future-archaeology-an-interview-with-cornelius-holtorf/ and for the Turkish version: https://arkeofili.com/gelecek-arkeolojisi-uzerine-cornelius-holtorf-roportaji/

Thank you, Erman!

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:

Various activities January – March 2025

2025-04-02

Cornelius Holtorf took part in the first meeting of the Heritage and Climate Change Working Group of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and Presentation (ICIP) (14 January 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf lectured on “Communicating Cultural Heritage with the Future” for 15 students reading the course “Cultural Heritage and Communication” as part of the Undergraduate Programme in Cultural Heritage in Present and Future Socities at Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden (5 February 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf lectured on “Unesco världsarv: vad kommuniceras för framtida generationers skull?” for 15 students reading the course “Cultural Heritage and Communication” as part of the Undergraduate Programme in Cultural Heritage in Present and Future Socities at Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden (10 February 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf participated in a short survey on the illicit trafficking of cultural property, with a particular focus on its online dimension, shaping discussions at the upcoming UNESCO Conference “Addressing Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Property in the Digital Era” to be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris on 26 June 2025 (15 February 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf had an informal meeting with Ulrik Brandén, Deputy Mayor of Mörbylånga, Emma Rydnér, World Heritage Coordinator at Mörbylånga Municipality, and Örjan Molander, Director at Kalmar County Museum, on various ideas for collaboration regarding development of the UNESCO World Heritage property Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland (20 February 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf took place in the regular meeting of the International Scientific Committee on AeroSpace Heritage of the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) which discussed, among others, the recent listing of the sites on the Moon on the World Monuments Watch List 2025 by the World Monuments Fund (21 February 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf attended the 8th Annual Heritage Lecture of the Cambridge Heritage Research Centre on ”Changing concepts Future of the and the ’Ethics of Repair’”, given by Aleida Assmann, Professor of English Literature and General Literary Studies, Universität Konstanz (28 February 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf presented a keynote lecture on “Time Travel – More than Learning About the Past” for ca 50 listeners in the room and another 20 online, coming together for the conference Re-Action: Time Travels in a Changing Worl – Bridging Ages 20 Years in Kalmar, Sweden (4 March 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf had an informal meeting with Steven Hartman, Executive Director of the BRIDGES Sustainability Science Coalition in UNESCO’s Management of Social Transformations Programme (MOST), on ways of future collaboration (7 March 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf met with Shanti Morell-Hart of the Dept of Anthropology at Brown University in Providence, USA, for an informal conversation about seeds and heritage futures (14 March 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf met in Providence, USA, with Philip Segadika of the National Museum of Botswana in Gaborone, Botswana, for an informal conversation about collabloration on heritage futures (16 March 2025).

Cornelius Holtorf participated actively discussing heritage processes and futures literacy in the first Plenary Meeting of the Expert Group on Archiving and Awareness Preservation (EGAAP-1) of the Nuclear Energy Agency held online and at the OECD in Paris (19-20 March 2025).