Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paine, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

`Chernobyl' reaches Norway: the accident, science, and the threat to cultural knowledge

Robert Paine

Memorial University of Newfoundland

This report is interested in the transitions that `Chernobyl' underwent in Norway. It `arrived' as a ghastly accident: important cultural routines were disturbed, apprehension ran high, and the country waited for scientists to `repair' the accident. By the following year, `Chernobyl' was but a memory for most of the population. The scourge of radiation, however, still covered much of the countryside of central Norway. Reindeer pastures were heavily polluted, and among Saami (Lapp) groups there arose a cognitive sense of disruption to a way of life. Ambivalent relations—at times cooperative, more often adversarial—developed among the Saami in respect to the outside experts who strove to bring the radiation problem under control. The report (with anthropological fieldwork) strives to show how much of the problem of `Chernobyl', in this later phase, had to do with the different nature of the claims of two kinds of knowledge: the outside scientists' and the Saami pastoralists'.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 261-280 (1992)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/003


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Science Technology Human ValuesHome page
S. D. Schmid
Transformation Discourse: Nuclear Risk as a Strategic Tool in Late Soviet Politics of Expertise
Science Technology Human Values, July 1, 2004; 29(3): 353 - 376.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
S. Wallman
Ordinary women and shapes of knowledge: perspectives on the context of STD and AIDS
Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 1998; 7(2): 169 - 185.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
S. Locke
The use of scientific discourse by creation scientists: some preliminary findings
Public Understanding of Science, October 1, 1994; 3(4): 403 - 424.
[Abstract] [PDF]