A Tundra of Sickness: the Uneasy Relationship Between Toxic Waste, TEK, and Cultural Survival Author(S): Joslyn Cassady Source: Arctic Anthropology, Vol

A Tundra of Sickness: The Uneasy Relationship between Toxic Waste, TEK, and Cultural Survival Author(s): Joslyn Cassady Source: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (2007), pp. 87-98 Published by: University of Wisconsin Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316687 . Accessed: 28/07/2014 14:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arctic Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A Tundra of Sickness: The Uneasy Relationshipbetween Toxic Waste, TEK, and Cultural Survival

Joslyn Cassady

Abstract. In 1992 an abandoned federal radioactive waste dump was discovered in Arctic Alaska. The discovery of this site, a byproduct of the Atomic Energy Commission program known as Project Chariot, sent Shockwavesthroughout Iñupiaq communities and ignited a heated controversyover the health effects of subsisting on a "tundraof sickness." Drawing on thirty months of ethnographic research in Arctic Alaska, this paper explores a host of environmental, social, and moral uncertainties sparked by toxic waste. Anthropological claims regard- ing the extent to which "traditionalecological knowledge" will empower local communities and foster self-determination are challenged. Ultimately the paper argues that TEKhas been conceived in such restrictive terms that it misrepresents the dynamic, emerging, and at times contradictoryresponses to toxic waste in the Arctic today. Moreover,there is dire need for a more materialist, as opposed to discourse-based, approach that acknowledges the very real threat of toxic waste to physical, and therefore, cultural reproduction.

Introduction This discovery sent Shockwavesthroughout Iñupiaq communities and sparked a heated con- On September 2, 1992, the headlines of Alaska's troversy over the biological implications of sub- largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, de- sisting on, in the words of one elderly Iñupiaq clared: "NUCLEARWASTE DUMP DISCOVERED: man, a "tundraof sickness" (Francis and Richard- ARCHIVESREVEAL '60s CHUKCHITEST SITE; son 1992:1, Kay and Dollar 1992:1; Oenga 1992:8; OFFICIALSHUSTLE TO DETERMINEHAZARD" Richardson 1992:1). Environmental groups, health (Blucher 1992:1). The article reported that a Uni- officials, and tribal councils argued over whether versity of Alaska professor, while writing a book this exposure was contributing to the elevated in- about the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)plan cidence of certain types of cancer among Alaska known as Project Chariot,uncovered documenta- Natives (Baquet 1996:1540-1541; Valway 1991:18). tion of a series of secret experiments involving The Alaska Departmentof Health and Social Ser- the spread of radiation in the OgotorukCreek val- vices attributedcancer rates largely to "high risk" ley. On that September morning, the 6,700 Iñupiat lifestyles and maintained that the levels of radi- residing in northwest Arctic Alaska learned that ation from the Project Chariot site posed no risk they had been hunting caribou that migrated over to human health (Lanieret al. 1994:9; Middaugh this AEC site for the last thirty years. 1994:382).

Joslyn Cassady, Drew University 36 Madison Avenue, Madison, New Jersey 07940

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 88 Arctic An thropology44:1

Significantly, despite the fact that radioactive This issue is timely not only for anthropol- waste has been present in northern Alaska since ogists but for activists, journalists, biologists, re- the dawn of the Cold War,Iñupiaq sensibilities source managers, and health departmentworkers about radiation were largely unknown (Doubleday who are concerned with food security and social 1996:169-179; Hild 1994:372-375). How did Iñ- justice. Reports of Arctic haze, global warming, upiat incorporatethe sensationalist news reports, uncontrolled resource extraction, and the trans- state discourse, and risk assessments into their ev- national flow of toxins have brought international eryday lives? In what ways did people attempt to attention to the Arctic (Webster2003, 2005; Zetter- minimize exposure to this invisible toxin? Did strom 2003). A growing body of evidence docu- people feed their children niqipaq (Eskimo food) ments the adverse health effects of exposure to en- or depend more on nulakmee [white person] foods vironmental contaminants, ranging from the de- after the discovery? velopment of ear infections to diabetes type 2 and Drawing on thirty months of fieldwork in cardiovasculardiseases (Hansen 2006:367; Johan- Arctic Alaska between 1993 and 1996, this paper sen 2002). Controlling Arctic pollution is an ur- explores a host of environmental, social, and moral gent challenge to the international community and uncertainties sparked by the discovery of the Proj- the well-being of 3.8 million Arctic citizens, in- ect Chariotwaste dump. It documents Iñupiaq un- cluding 650,000 indigenous people, is at stake derstandings of radiation, the vector of its trans- (AMAP 2002). mission, and the extent to which its spread is The current work concerning Inuit sensibili- within human control. In the process, it takes a ties regardingtoxic waste may be found in various fresh look at a popular theoretical concept within sources, including scientific and social scientific applied anthropology and Arctic studies to- journals, the popular press, and activist publica- day, that of "traditionalecological knowledge" tions1 (Cone 2005; Hild 1998). Not surprisingly, (TEK)(seeFreeman 1992; Stevenson 1996). Inuit experiences with toxic waste have been por- Numerous academic endeavors have docu- trayed in a spectrum of ways. Journaliststend to mented the local, practical, symbolic, historically represent Inuit as both victims of an ecosystem un- contingent, and orally transmitted ecological sen- der siege and agents of social change as they de- sibilities of indigenous communities (Ellen and mand information on "how much contamination Harris 2000). Studying indigenous environmen- is too much" (Dobbyn 2000:2). Emotionally speak- tal knowledge is especially popular among Arctic ing, Inuit quoted in the media tend to be worried, scholars who feel there has been a sustained de- vulnerable, and open to scientific information (Jo- valuation of Inuit knowledge in government ini- hansen 2000; NPR 2003). tiatives, including resource management and en- Within many anthropological writings, tra- vironmental conservation projects, land claims, ditional ecological knowledge is celebrated as climate change studies, and environmental im- trustworthy wisdom that hunters use to evaluate pact assessments (Nuttall 1998:71; Usher 2000). whether their harvest is fit for consumption. Such In the face of scientific hegemony, some scholars knowledge is portrayedas resistant to sensation- maintain, the study of traditional knowledge le- alist news reports and scientific discourse on con- gitimizes and systematizes the cognitive ways in taminants and confident in the health-sustaining which indigenous people make sense of the world properties of country foods (O'Neil et al. 1997; Po- (Bielawski 1996:217). Such studies resist domi- irier and Brooke 2000). Inuit are represented as re- nant ideological formulations by asserting an al- silient and confident in their ability to avoid the ternative way of experiencing the environment consumption of toxins. (Berkes 1999). At its best, TEKoffers a key to cul- In the biological sciences, traditional ecolog- tural survival (Nuttall 1998; Thorpe 2004:57). As ical knowledge is generally viewed as a collection a CanadianInuit activist working to halt the proof safety measures that Inuit rely upon to avoid liferation of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) diseases such as botulism and trichinosis. These stated, 'Traditional Inuit wisdom, the teachings of include "practical"strategies of food handling and the land, the power of the hunt, and the consump- visual cues that indicate physical or behavioral tion of our country food all contain answers to the anomalies in animals (Pellerin and Grondin 1998). we are problems facing" (Watt-Cloutier2003:258). The value of traditional knowledge is certainly ap- In this era of optimism regardingthe ability preciated in these works, but is not considered of TEKto empower local communities and foster absolute or necessarily "protective"against toxic self-determination, it is important to question exposure. It seems that traditional in whether actual knowledge applications of TEKlive up to this biologically inclined journals is seen as practi- potential. What is the benefit of TEKin the context cal, open to outside information, and sometimes of exposure to toxic waste? How might TEKmedi- mistaken. ate the potential deleterious effects of toxic waste Representations of traditional to Inuit bodies? knowledge are important to understand, in part because they

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Cassady: Toxic Waste, TEK,and CulturalSurvival 89 reveal the underlying assumptions that drive pub- Alaska in the 1950s (O'Neill 1994:278). The Point lic health advisories regardingthe consumption Hope Village Corporationreceived these documents of "country foods." These representations also un- from O'Neill in August 1992, and soon thereafter derscore the challenges of cross-cultural collabo- the news made headlines around the world, includ- rations and interdisciplinary research, so vital to ing in Japan,Britain, Canada, and New York.3 Arctic scholarship, as the seemingly irreconcil- The discovery reinforced suspicions among able differences between a "positivist science" and Iñupiat that radiation was a primary culprit in the "relativisthumanism" are illuminated (Whitehead rising cancer rates. The Anchorage Daily News 1998:38). published weekly articles on the waste dump, and This paper maintains that TEK- both as a editorial letters provided a revealing commentary methodological approach and as a policy-relevant on the political stakes, government directives, and tool - has been conceived in such restrictive terms psychological upheaval from this discovery (Blucher that it misrepresents the dilemmas of daily Inuit 1992b; Dollar and Humphrey 1992; Oenga 1992; life.2 One wonders whether, in the words of David Richardson 1992). Resentment towards federal and Riches, "anthropologistshave not distanced them- state officials was at a fever pitch, and the feeling selves from the ideology [of their informants], and of "what'snext?" permeated Iñupiaq communities. have therefore failed to penetrate the highly con- For years the Alaska Departmentof Health and So- temporarycircumstances in which what is deemed cial Services had emphasized the role of lifestyle to be 'tradition'is generated"(Riches 1990:86). Fur- in cancer causation, and locals began to see public ther research needs to be conducted on how pol- health and modern medicine as a repressive regime lution may be transformingfood choices, hunting of secrecy and corruption.4 strategies, kinship relations, notions of hospitality, Studying Iñupiaq perspectives on environ- political strategies, attitudes toward "science," and mental pollution in the mid-1990s was challeng- gender relations. Moreover,there is dire need for a ing. People's responses to my initial inquiries more materialist approach that acknowledges the about radiation were emotional, reserved, contra- very real threat of toxic waste to both physical and dictory, and often inconclusive. Responses ranged cultural reproduction (Stephens 1995). from a sincere, "Wedon't know about that one," This paper is based on ethnographic field- to turning my interview around and asking my work conducted in northwest Arctic Alaska be- "expert"opinion about whether the levels of radi- tween 1993 and 1996. In Januaryof 1993, several ation were dangerous to their health. "You'rethe months after the discovery of the Project Chariot one that comes from a place with big doctors," one waste dump, I spent a month working with epide- man glibly remarked. miologists on cancer incidence at the Alaska Area It was impossible to predict the spectrum of Native Medical Center in Anchorage. Upon re- expectations, social prescriptions, and even reli- turning to the Arctic in August 1993, 1 lived and gious experiences that people incorporated into worked in the regional hub of Kotzebue for a total their sensibilities about toxic waste. For instance, of 17 months. I also accompanied an Iñupiaq fam- expressing "worry"over radiation was considered ily on their seasonal rounds to hunting and fish- to be not religiously astute, especially for men.5 To ing camps for 8 months (including several seasons be unnecessarily worried over things over which with their extended family in the small communi- you have no control is seen as being dangerous, as ties of Evik and Seshaulik) and embarkedon nu- it serves to court the evil spirits and may make one merous week-long trips to interview people in the kinnaq [crazy]. Worrycan also index a lack of trust con- villages of Point Hope, Ambler, Kiana, and Shun- in God, which is no small matter for a culture re- gnak. Over these months, I also interviewed hos- sidered to be almost entirely Christian. I still in fi- pital and public health personnel, attended health call when my host father approached me my and environment-relatedconferences outside of nal weeks of fieldwork and retracted a statement the region, and conducted archival research at the he made two full years earlier. "I got to thinking," University of Alaska Anchorage and the University he said, "thatGod wouldn't let Alaska be polluted of Alaska Fairbanks. for Eskimos. He knows we live off the land for our food." By its very nature, TEKprivileges human Project Chariot as a knowledge and social action dictated by the past Health Event (Riches 1990). But how clear are the distinctions Public between local and global, traditional and contem- Dan O' Neill, while conducting research on the porary, or natural and synthetic in the Arctic? Any AEC'sProject Chariot proposal, stumbled upon attempt to make hard distinctions between indige- documentationof a radioactivewaste dump, "with nous and non-indigenous knowledge, or tradi- certain radioisotopes 1,000 times in excess of fed- tional and contemporaryknowledge, is problem- eral regulations,"that was abandonedin northwest atic at best (Buglioli 2004:128-154). As Neil White-

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 90 Arctic Anthropology44:1 head commented about historical ecology in Ama- string of federal dealings with radiation (Hunting- zonia, "In short, one can now appreciate that such ton and Sparck 2003:217). Between 1945 and 1967, native understandings themselves are a product for instance, five countries with nuclear power det- of mutual historic forces, and that the characterof onated hundreds of "high-yield" atmospheric nu- these historical forces is such as to have often pro- clear weapons in the northern latitudes, releasing duced radical disjunctures between past and pres- over 200 different radionuclides into the Arctic ent practices" (Whitehead 1998:34). stratospherewith each explosion (Chandlerand While traveling to camps and interviewing Wieder 1963; Hanson 1968:639, 1982:437). For de- hunters, I was included in a number of conver- cades, Iñupiat suspected that their cancer may be sations in which Iñupiat were discussing how attributedto this exposure and, well before the dis- animals experienced contaminants in the land. covery of the Project Chariotwaste site, the State Could the seals tell if something was "funny"in was forced to confront these lingering concerns. the ocean? Were the animals that "migratedout" Epidemiologists maintained that Alaska Natives more susceptible to "radiationsickness"? Did the did not exhibit excessive rates of cancers in tissues caribou worry about their health? One hunter sur- that one would expect to develop from high-dose, mised that the caribou should be able to detect acute exposure to radiation, namely leukemia, toxins in the tundra, perhaps even smell and taste breast cancer, bone cancer, and thyroid cancer the pollution. Another Iñupiaq man in his early (Lanier,Williams and Stuzman 1985:86; Stutzman, 20s admired the caribou for their tenacity to live Nelson, and Lanier 1986:76). Their concluding rec- in such a toxic world and thought that people ommendation to Alaska Natives and public health should take a lesson from them, "Justlike how workers has been consistent over the years and the animals do it," he told me. "I don't think they is articulated in the following statement:"Atten- sit around worrying about their health, or when tion on cancer in the Arctic must be redirected to- they are going to die." ward preventing the cancers for which the cause is The truth of the matter is that no one really known- namely, cancer of the lung and other sites knew if the Project Chariotwaste was some- caused (Lanier,Williams, dump by cigarette smoking"7 thing to worry about. No tests were conducted and Stutzman 1985:86). on the flora and fauna in the mid-1990s, and the Needless to say, the Project Chariotdump State took a strong stand regardingthe negligible was considered a set-back in the State's lifestyle role that pollution was playing in poor health out- campaign and appeared to validate local Iñupiaq comes. The Alaska State Epidemiologist asserted: suspicions about the cancer-radiationassocia- "Wemust realize that no death, illness, cancer, tion. The public health logic that lifestyle caused birth defect, or other adverse toxicological effect cancer did not ring true to many people's experi- ever has been found in an Alaskan caused by PCBs, ences about maintaining a healthy body. In small, dioxin, DDT,DDE, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, intimate villages, people were well aware of both ozone, arctic haze, radionuclides, or radon" (Mid- friends and family members who died of cancer daugh 1994:383). and never smoked or drank. Contraryto the State's The 1986 Chernobyl disaster revealed, how- position that exposure from the Project Chariot ever, that the long-termphysiological consequences dump posed no immediate dangerto human health, from chronic low-dose exposure to radioactive many Iñupiaq hunters discovered an increase in waste are not well understood. The obstacles to sores, immak [pus], and tumors in the caribou, studying, measuring, and establishing acceptable whales, and fish in recent years. limits of exposure from Chernobylfallout were sub- A further strain in Inuit-governmentrelations stantial, and anthropologist Hugh Beach empha- occurred in 1995 during a die-off of more than a sized in his work on fallout in Swedish Lapland thousand caribou near Point Hope, Alaska. Ten- that "Lackof conclusive proof of health damage sions were high when headlines of the local news- should not support the conclusion that [health paper read, "Over1,100 Dead CaribouFound Near damage]is nonexistent" (Beach 1990:729). In ef- Point Hope" (Paulin 1995:1). The article recounted fect, the scientific community has no universal a heated debate between locals and Fish and Game criteria for "acceptable"levels of ingestión of ra- biologists who attributedthe die-off to a particu- dio-active waste and, despite the State's claim, larly harsh winter of thirteen majorblizzards cou- it was entirely unclear how the Project Chariot pled with large caribou herds trampling the tun- waste dump may have affected Iñupiaq health and dra upon which they depend. They reminded the well-being.6 alarmed communities that this die-off represented While it is beyond the scope of this paper to less than 1% of the overall caribou herd of 600,000 chronicle the tug of war between Alaska Natives in Alaska. Three elders accompanied the game bi- and the State regardingthe health consequences ologists in an aerial view, and they said that they of environmental pollution, it merits mentioning had never seen such a large die-off of caribou. that Project Chariotwas the most recent event in a Not surprisingly, they implicated the exposure

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Cassady:Toxic Waste, TEK,and CulturalSurvival 91 from Project Chariot'snuclear waste dump (Paulin "pustules," "pus pockets," "green pus," and "black 1995:1). and white spots on the meat" that they discovered These incidents created long-lasting tensions while skinning the animals. "The caribou were so between Iñupiat and both state and federal gov- bad these days," a middle-aged friend once told ernments. One could hardly say that there was no me, "thatthey aren'teven fit to feed our dogs." working relationship between the two, however, or While there was a great deal of variation that Iñupiat were only clinging to some "authen- in how Iñupiat conceptualized the risk of eating tic" ecological orientation in dealing with the en- "countryfoods," and opinions varied depending vironmental crisis. Pollution was a topic of lo- upon how far people resided from the dump, con- cal and state interest and Iñupiat were listening to cerns with pollution tended to follow the seasonal talk radio shows, dealing with game biologists, at- cycles of hunting and harvestinggame. Duringthe tending town meetings, sharing information with fall caribou season, stories circulated within fami- friends and family, and reading newspapers. lies about the quality of the caribou meat that they were harvesting.Resentment was high when hunt- The "Germs" of Cancer ers would kill a caribou and find it infested with the pus of kiansagga [cancer].While living at spring The concept of radiation seemed simultaneously fishing camps, centered around setting nets and familiar and foreign to Iñupiat. People tended to drying hundreds of pounds of fish, women would agree, however, on a couple different "facts"about often talk about finding cancer while cleaning fish. radiation. For one, people shared the idea the Family members occasionally wondered whether most viable means of becoming contaminated was this outbreakof cancer in the fish population would through the lichen-caribou-humanfood chain. For foreshadow an outbreakof disease in people. Iñupiat, cancer was first and foremost a zoonotic It was evident from living in northwest disease, the perception being that cancer could be Alaska in the mid-1990s that people were on edge, passed to people who came in contact with, or in- and the discovery threatened Iñupiaq well-being gested, a "diseased" animal. Iñupiat also held the and livelihood in a number of ways. In fact, it is idea that certain regions of the animal's body accu- impossible to express the magnitude of the vul- mulated toxins at a higher rate than others, and el- nerability, resentment, and confusion that circu- ders often emphasized that they did not kipchuq lated in the months after the discovery. It appeared [suck] the marrowfrom bones, eat caribou liver, or that the Project Chariot dump affected nearly ev- boil fish heads ever since the era of atmospheric ery aspect of society, as people questioned the na- nuclear weapons testing. ture of their relationship with nulakmee [white While people talked about radiation as a people], the animals in their midst, and even with "fume,""stink," "dust," and "cloud," a "germ"was each other. The gravity of the situation, however, the most common model through which Iñupiat was not felt equally among the community mem- conceptualized radiation. It was clear that the 150- bers. For instance single mothers voiced more con- year legacy of Old World infectious diseases had cern about feeding their children niqipaq than any a profound impact on Iñupiaq sensibilities about other group with whom I spoke. Clearly the threat health and illness, including cancer. For instance, of contamination influenced exchange patterns people tended to talk about radiation in terms of with kin and non-kin, and single mothers may "germs"or parasites that literally infested the an- have felt particularly vulnerable in their ability to imals and made them rot. People conceived of the acquire "disease-free"meat. "germs"of radiation causing microscopic splinters One incident involving the distribution of or abrasions in the interior folds of the body that meat occurred during my 9-month employment eventually begin to immak [rot] and "spread."As as a counselor at the Maniilaq Women'sShelter. one elderly woman explained, In order to have niqipaq available to clients while the we Thattime in somewherein residing at shelter, occasionally placed 1947,1948, 1949, an announcement on the radio for a cari- there,we heardRussians let a diseasefly up in asking the air,and cloudsand wind carryit this way and bou donation. One spring a hunter anonymously it spreadall overAlaska. That is cancer.When left a caribou carcass on the back stairs. It was flowersgrow they carrythat dust fromRussia, skinny with a scruffy coat and I was surprised thatgerm. It falls in ourrivers, fishes eat it, and when the director draggedthe animal inside to thenpeople that eat fish mighthave cancer. The clean it. Overlooking a host of white worms spread grass,the greens,the berriescarry it too. People throughout the flesh, we worked together packag- warn andhere we have talkabout it then,they us, ing the meat in zip lock bags. This contradicted cancernow. fieldnotes) (Cassady the strategies that I had been told about to prevent There was a general consensus that the car- contracting cancer from animals, as I will discuss ibou were more unhealthy in recent years, and below, and I wondered whether the director would hunters often recalled lengthy stories about the have fed this meat to her own family.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 92 Arctic An thropology44:1

Serving That Sickness were avoided, as were animals that lagged behind the herd. Iñupiaq hunters often emphasized to me Long-termrelationships with several families, and that they left sickly animals in the land. In large over 50 interviews with Iñupiat, provided me with part, visually detecting if an animal has been con- a more nuanced perspective on local understand- sumed by the germs or worms of cancer was con- ings of toxic waste. While Iñupiat were undoubt- sidered one of the most effective lines of defense edly stunned by the deception involved in Proj- against spreading cancer.8 ect Chariotand felt strongly that radiation could There was also a gendered division of labor and did cause cancer, it also appeared that radi- in protecting the family from cancer. Men were ation was not on the forefront of people's minds generally the keepers of the community borders when eating niqipaq. Although reliable data on the by leaving diseased animals out in the country changing consumption patterns of niqipaq during and monitoring the outbreakof cancer in caribou. this time period is unavailable, many families in Women, one could say, guarded the entry of the the mid-1990s continued to supplement their meals mouth by avoiding serving raw, tough, or spoiled with seal oil, whale blubber, caribou, ducks, geese, food to their families. As one elderly woman said, and a variety of berries from the tundra. This ob- "Wedon't eat raw meat, even frozen fish. Some servation resonates with other ethnographic obser- meats have little white pus. When a carcass has vations suggesting that, despite concerns about en- too much pus, we don't eat it. It may carry germs. vironmental pollution, Inuit are not making major We watch our meats and fish. Young people don't modifications in their harvesting or consumption know those things" (Cassadyfieldnotes). of wild game (O'Neil, Elias, and Yassi 1997; Poirier Cooking radiation "out of food" was also an and Brooke 2000). important strategy,as Iñupiat with whom I spoke Moreover,people emphasized that niqipaq agreed that germs were killed throughthe process was still the most nourishing and healthy food of food preparation,especially boiling. I once available to them. One elderly man spoke of his asked a young Iñupiaq hunter if he felt it was safe confidence in country foods in terms of his body's to eat the animals from the land, and he replied, "memory"for black meat [seal meat], seal oil, caribou, and fish. "Fromthe beginning, Eskimos eat Yes, because we are pretty good with how we eat seal oil," he told me. "Ourstomachs are built for our food. We cook it good. We age it. It will cook that. You on what records from itself in its own heat, it will render and the sick- depend your body ness will die. Even when we eat it raw, we let it your early years." until it's old and It's cooked in The lack of trust in the age smelly. already palpable government its oldness. (Cassadyfieldnotes) was accompanied, at least in the mid 1990s, by a certain confidence that Iñupiat could protect them- This sentiment was echoed by another hunter selves from the "germs"of radiation. The sense of whom I interviewed: confidence was based not on their only enduring I'm not worried about pollution. When an animal trust in the life-sustaining properties of niqipaqf has something wrong with it, we can tell one-shot. but also in their ability to visually detect sickness Sometimes they look so bad we won't let the dogs in an animal. This distinction was an important eat it. But it's hard to tell when an animal eats one. Many Iñupiat maintained that the landscape sickly food, until pollution gets its way through was indeed polluted, and the animals were less the animal. That'sthe tricky part. We just cook it healthy now than in the but that took harder.Our family can't eat animals where you see past, they the it. precautions to prevent spreading cancer to their pollution's already got (Cassadyfieldnotes) families. They had strategies to avoid, in the words Nevertheless, Iñupiat were also quick to point of one informant, "serving that sickness." This out that these strategieswere not fool-proof.People sense of confidence was described by a hunter in acknowledged that despite taking precautionary his mid-50s in this way: measures in hunting and cooking, there was a time when humans were unable to detect when radia- I with moose providemy family meat,caribou, tion its the animal, as the in- ducks,geese, shee fish, salmon.That is our choice, "gets way" through our decision.We know it is more to eat formant above stated. Iñupiat explained that there healthy was a time between when an animal eats Nativefoods. There is a chanceit mighthave dis- radiation ease,but I can controlit. I can decidewhich meat and it "works its way through the body." The only to feed my family.If you purchasejunk food, you solution to this problem was to be vigilant, dili- haveno idea whatkind of preservativesare in it. gent, and cook the flesh "harder."And even with (Cassadyfieldnotes) the best of intentions, some families were afflicted. It was clear that Iñupiaq strategies for pro- One of the most widely discussed criteria by tecting themselves from cancer were varied, and which hunters visually assessed the health of an it would be an oversimplification to say that vi- animal was whether it was fat. "Skinny" caribou sual strategies and culinary techniques were their

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Cassady:Toxic Waste, TEK,and CulturalSurvival 93

only lines of defense. Even with confidence in the His group discovered that Inuit had confidence in ability of heat to kill germs, many Iñupiat were in- their knowledge of the land and ability to visually creasingly desperate for, and reliant upon, news, detect the symptoms of contamination in their ani- environmental assessments, nutritional informa- mals. Both the animals' appearance and parasites tion, medical technology, and clinical treatment in the meat were indicators of a potentially poi- to cope with cancer and environmental pollution. soned animal, and Inuit felt that "just seeing the One strategydid not preclude the other. meat they can know that the animal is sick" (O'Neil, Elias, and Yassi 1997:32). Towards a More Material Despite the realization that contaminants Approach may be an issue, the Inuit in Nunavik did not ap- It is imperativeto consider the social consequences pear to be altering their diet to accommodate the of visualizing radiation as a germ that may be de- "scientific discourse," and in fact, the authors re- tected in meat and cooked out of food. How are port an alternative contaminants discourse that re- these sensibilities played out in day-to-day and asserted the life-sustaining properties of country community life? In northwest arctic Alaska, for in- foods. O'Neil's group claims that, "Inuitknowledge stance, some Iñupiat viewed cancer causation as creates a form of bio-power resilience to the "poi- a family affairby holding hunters and cooks ac- soned food" discourse produced by science and countable for mismanaging country foods. Several perpetuates instead the belief that country food is women braggedto me that their husbands or chil- both a curative and preventive agent in Inuit con- dren never "caught"cancer. One woman pointed ceptions of health and well-being" (O'Neil, Elias, out that none of her twelve children had been di- and Yassi 1997:31). Moreover,they hope their re- agnosed with cancer, and she attributedthis tri- search "speaks to this appeal for Inuit not to be- umph in this polluted world to her own skills as a come overly anxious by acknowledging the resil- cook. "The Noatakershave raw meat. I think they iency that Inuit knowledge provides in limiting eat too much raw meat," she explained. "Weboil impacts on their food" (O'Neil, Elias, and Yassi our meat, boil our ducks until they are soft. So far 1997:31). we never have cancer. Our children never have In the context of environmental pollution, cancer."In comparing her cooking style to those viewing TEKprimarily as resistance to scientific living in a village renowned for their high cancer hegemony is problematic. In emphasizing the re- rates, that of Noatak, she implied that the "Noatak- siliency of indigenous knowledge and its ability ers" brought it upon themselves through their poor to shield people from the power of the dominants, culinary techniques. O'Neil's group is overlooking the vital fact that in- Conceptions of radiation as a living entity, a dustrial toxins are not visually detectable in wild germ-like agent, may have serious consequences game. Toxins are not only played out in discourse; not only for Inuit social lives but also for Inuit they are played out, often tragically, in human health. These strategies raise some vexing issues bodies. If Inuit resist risk assessments and adviso- about whether people may be further exposing ries in ways that maintain their connection to the themselves to toxins while attempting to mitigate land, but potentially expose them to toxic waste, their exposure. From a biological point of view, are they effectively challenging the inequity of the there is no scientific evidence to support the idea social order? that radiation, organochlorines, or heavy metals Without a doubt, taking a stand on the food are visually detectable in animals or that they can security debate is troubling, especially when one be washed or cooked out of meat. There may be an is aware of both the historical lack of coordina- association, however, between contamination and tion within and between the agencies that generate a depressed immune system that may account for advisories and the dismal communication of re- the high parasite loads that Inuit communities are search results on contaminants to the general pub- reporting in caribou and fish populations (Pellerin lic (Huntington and Sparck 2003). On numerous and Grondin 1998:243). Given the potential health occasions, public health officials have failed to ef- consequences of ingesting toxic waste, how is one fectively or adequately communicate findings and, to generate meaningful data that "integrates"sci- more often than not, Inuit hear results of studies entific understandings with traditional ecological (at times conducted on their own blood or breast knowledge (Nadasdy 1999)? milk) on the radio or in the newspaper. It is hard The prominent arctic anthropologist, John to appreciate the extent to which sensationalist O'Neil, has written widely on the political econ- news stories reporting near lethal levels of PCBs in omy of health care among northern Canadian In- arctic communities have shaped Inuit life. It is no uit. In the late 1990s, he and his colleagues set out wonder that anthropologists with an eye to poli- to examine the "traditionalknowledge of the Inuit tics and power have applauded the resilience of In- concerning food risks and benefits" in several vil- uit to continue hunting and harvesting wild game lages in Nunavik, Quebec (O'Neil et al. 1997:31). in spite of alarming reports and changing risk as-

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 94 Arctic Anthropology44:1 sessments. Nevertheless, interpretation of TEKas dition of the animals they harvested, and women resistance to biopower, at least in this case, misses spoke of their strategies in avoiding raw meat and a particularkind of suffering and social oppression cooking meat "harder"in order to avoid "serving that comes with living in a potentially toxic land- that sickness." scape. In fact, it may be making them sick. The anthropological literature on contami- Perhaps in anticipation of this critique, the nants generally focuses on the ways in which In- final three sentences of O'Neil, Elias, and Yassi's uit determine whether animals are fit for con- paper provides an interpretativeroadmap for the sumption, for example by relying on visual signs reader on the relative equality of Inuit and scien- of abnormality in animals, such as wasting, pus tific discourses of contaminants:9 pockets, and parasites. Scholars maintain that In- uit have extended these long-held ecological sen- Inuit traditional knowledge related to the recogni- tion of the risks and benefits of food sibilities about zoonoses to signs of toxic waste eating country and feel confident in their to rec- is not right or wrong. Awareness of this knowledge generally ability also does not mean it can be easily assimilated ognize the signs and symptoms of toxic exposure. into a risk information scenario. Communicating My research in Alaska corroboratedthis observa- about contaminants in Nunavik communities must tion, as this paper documents, although these strat- be seen as the engagement of two discursive for- egies allow only a partial understanding of the mations, each grounded in normativeunderstand- "ecological praxis" (Whitehead 1998) of Iñupiat in ings of human-animal-environmentrelationships. dealing with toxic waste in the 1990s. (O'Neil et al. 1997:39) Traditionalecological knowledge is an unsat- Certainly the collaboration between Inuit and isfying lens through which to view the dynamic, scientists must be grounded in a healthy appre- emerging, and at times contradictoryresponses to ciation of the ways in which science is mediated toxic waste in the Arctic today. "Traditionaleco- through social, political, and historical lenses. The logical knowledge" is defined in such restrictive Chernobyl disaster has demonstrated that risk as- terms that scholars are making apriori decisions sessments and advisories are not purely "scien- about what is and is not relevant to Inuit experi- tific" and must also be appreciated as culturally ences of toxic waste. By clinging to a narrow def- constructed, historically situated, and politically inition of what constitutes "tradition,"and what charged (Petryna2002). Nevertheless, mealtime in constitutes "knowledge,"we have failed to de- the Arctic must not be purely about, or can not be velop a rich, culturally informed, and historically exclusively represented as, competing "discursive specific understanding of contemporaryInuit lives formations."As scientific evidence mounts indi- and families. cating that exposure to toxic waste is deleterious Far from being sequestered in sub-disciplin- to health, we must acknowledge that there are ma- ary journals, anthropological research on Inuit eco- terial, as well as cultural, consequences to what In- logical understandings of toxic waste are digested uit eat today. In our attempts to chronicle the var- by a broad interdisciplinary audience. Social sci- ious ways in which environmental pollution, or entists, biologists, state officials, and activists are threats of environmental pollution, shape everyday reading our work, utilizing our methodology, and Inuit lives, the inextricable link between physical engaging our interpretations.Anthropological rep- and cultural survival must be appreciated. resentations of traditional knowledge may shape international debates in unanticipated ways and the remainder of this paper will discuss the poten- Conclusion tial stakes involved in these representations. For one, public health officials are in the busi- This paper focuses on Iñupiaq experiences with ness of sifting through scientific assessments and radioactive waste in the years following the dis- epidemiologie studies and determining "accept- covery of the Project Chariotwaste dump. Far from able" levels of risk to human health (which invari- relying solely on "traditionalecological knowl- ably includes an eye to cultural identity for the edge," Iñupiat were engaging in a range of activi- Inuit). This challenge, often called the "Arcticdi- ties to understand conflicting representations and lemma," is reminiscent of a cost-benefit analysis: limit their exposure to toxic waste. Iñupiat were do the physical benefits of a "countrydiet," as well avid consumers of "outside" news and informa- as the cultural benefits of a subsistence lifestyle, tion about the waste dump and leading the charge outweigh the potential health effects of exposure on implementation of a federally subsidized waste to environmental toxins (Hansen 2006; Kuhnlein removal plan.10They were anxious for "expert et al. 2003)? Health officials are cast as arbitersof knowledge" and technical expertise, yet skepti- cultural survival, and recommendationsto alter tra- cal that the government would provide credible in- ditional food consumption patterns are generally formationto them. Hunters were avoiding certain avoided, even when greaterthan acceptable levels hunting grounds and carefully monitoring the con- of contaminants have been found in Inuit blood

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Cassady:Toxic Waste, TEK,and CulturalSurvival 95 and breastmilk (Kuhnlein et al. 1995). The follow- historically informed understandingof contempo- ing advisory serves as an example of the sort of porary Inuit livelihood, as well as integratingscientific litical currency that "tradition"has today: data and Inuit knowledge in fresh ways. The consumptionof traditionalfoods in the North certainbenefits and certainrisks. Inuit Acknowledgments. I wish to acknowledge the presents Science knowthe role thatthese foodsplay in theirdaily Wenner Gren Foundation, the National lives andthat traditional food is centralto the Foundation, and the National Institute of Mental social,mental, and spiritualhealth of individu- Health for doctoral support of this research. In als andcommunities throughout the circumpolar addition, my work has greatly benefited from nu- North.For these reasons, we still believethat Inuit merous discussions with Marc Buglioli. I am grate- shouldcontinue to eattraditional foods as much ful to Sharon Hutchinson and Peter Nabokov for as they desire,and thus benefit from the enormous mentorship, as well as to Susan Kaplan and three advantagesprovided by these giftsfrom the land reviewers for their com- andthe sea. and 2003:18) anonymous insightful (Dewailly Furgal ments on an earlier draft of this paper. Lastly, I am These recommendations are commonplace indebted to many Iñupiat families, and especially even as evidence mounts that contaminants in Charlie and Lena Jones, for keeping me safe, warm, some Arctic regions are now linked to physical, and full while living in northwest Alaska. developmental, and neurological defects, especially in children (see Webster2005, Zetterstrom 2003). Certainlythere are formidable challenges to End Notes understandingthe threat posed by contaminants 1. See also the Alaska Native Science Commis- to human health. Nevertheless, the persistent im- sion website on Native reactions to contaminants. age of Inuit leading exclusively "traditional"lives http://nativeknowledge.org may influence public policy and limit the re- that are envisioned to deal with toxic 2. Morrow and HenseFs (1992) insightful discus- sponses the waste, such as local education campaigns and ad- sion of "tradition"has shaped my thinking on an of envi- visories targetedto the most vulnerable popula- application of TEKto understanding tions.11Portrayals of Inuit guided by ancient wis- ronmental pollution. dom may reinforce paternalistic tendencies in the 3. See O'Neill 1994:280-281 for a list of these public health arena and undermine the need to un- national and international headlines. derstandingthe cultural variations between, and within, Inuit communities upon which advisories 4. An Iñupiaq health worker for the North Slope should be built. Borough, for instance, wrote an emotional edito- For two, the valorization of traditional knowl- rial in the Anchorage Daily News shortly after edge may mean that Inuit have to uphold their the discovery of the Project Chariotwaste dump. "authentic"lifestyle publicly in order to obtain While employed as a health worker in the region, sympathy and political support from the outside Elsie Patkotaksided with the Centers for Disease world. The halting of transnationaltoxins is pred- Control and Prevention (CDC)in their rationale icated upon global political will. Presently, po- that smoking rates and longevity issues largely litical will may be linked to romanticized images accounted for heightened cancer incidence. When of Inuit who are desperately clinging to tradition news of Project Chariotbroke, she regrettedher al- in spite of globalization. What will happen when legiance to the CDCand wrote, "I want to person- contradictory,and some may argue, more realistic ally apologize to all the residents of Point Hope. I portrayalsof Inuit meals of fried chicken and fro- I made the mistake of believing my government. zen pizza hit the press?12Are there not social and won't make that mistake again" (Patkotak1992). environmental justice issues at stake in the Arc- 5. was a characteristicthat O'Neil noted whether Inuit eat caribou or for Worry tic, hamburgers among the Canadian Inuit as well (O'Neil, Elias, dinner? and Yassi 1997). The complexity of Arctic food security issues - politically, culturally,emotionally, physio- 6. It seems clear that any community-based logically- is staggering.To have thousands of peo- study on contamination must include a cultural ple threatenedby invisible toxins that they did not analysis of state constructions and international manufactureseems exceedingly unjust. Halting assessments. In Sharon Stephens' research on the transnationalflow of toxins into the Arctic re- Sami experiences in post-ChernobylNorway, she quires extensive political will, as well as produc- clarifies that this does not mean that Chernobyl tive interdisciplinaryand cross-culturalcollabora- fallout is "just socially constructed,"but rather tions. Anthropologistsare well-positioned to take a that "radioactivethreats to human organisms, like leadership role in this vital endeavor.Our success all objective, material influences on human life, is predicatedupon generatinga culturally rich and have historical consequences only as parts of the

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 96 Arctic Anthropology44:1 social worlds in which they are represented, con- References Cited tested, denied, forgotten, and reshaped" (Stephens 1995:286). Alaska Native Science Commission AMAP 7. There are at least two scientists who disagree 2002 Arctic Pollution 2002. Oslo: Arctic Monitoring with this position (see Berteli 1994 and Bowerman and Assessment Programme.http://www.native 1995). knowledge.org 8. Inuit hunting and healing lore is replete with Associated Press stories of the intentions of worms, 1993 Radioactive Dirt Returnedto Nevada from inauspicious The flies, maggots, earthworms,bugs, parasites, and Alaska. SacramentoBee, December 28, B3. inua [living spirit-beings]. These organisms were Baquet, Claudia R. often loathed for their ability to ruin a cache of 1996 Native Americans' CancerRates in Compari- meat, were feared in shamanic warfare, and even son with Other Peoples of Color. Cancer 78: implicated in epidemics (Dixon and Kirchner 1540-1541. 1982:119-120; Lantis 1959:48; 1986:15). Snyder Beach, Hugh 9. This "separatebut equal" positioning is also 1990 Perceptions of Risk, Dilemmas of Policy: Nu- witnessed in other work on Inuit perceptions of clear Fallout in Swedish Lapland. Social Sci- contamination in the Arctic. Poirier and Brooke ence and Medicine 30:729-738. begin their paper by stating that "we must seek Berkes, Fikret ways to bridge the gap between the Inuit knowl- 1999 Sacred Ecology: TraditionalEcological Knowl- edge system, and that of Western science, both edge and Resource Management.Philadelphia: knowledge systems are value-laden, both are au- Taylorand Francis. thoritative in their own cultural context, both are constructed in terms of Berteli, Rosalie their own cultural objectiv- 1994 of "Estimatesof CancerIncidence in to different and Critique ity according ontological episte- Alaska Natives Due to Exposure of Global Ra- mological principles" (2000:79). dioactive Fallout From Atmospheric Nuclear 10. one after Chariot Weapon Testing."International Institute of Con- Approximately year Project cern for Public 2. was discovered, the Federal Governmentspent 6.2 Health, August million dollars on a dirt-removalproject at the site Bielawski, Ellen (Lavrakas1994; Paulin 1994). Twenty truck loads 1996 Inuit Indigenous Knowledge and Science in of tundra soil were returned to the Nevada Test the Arctic. In Naked Science. LauraNader, ed. Site by Christmasand more dirt was removed the Pp. 216-227. New York:Routledge. (Associated Press 1993). following year Blucher, Jay 11. In the lower forty-eight states, recommended 1992a Nuclear Waste Dump Discovered. Anchorage consumption limits for harvesting natural re- Daily News. September6, 1992. sources from contaminated waters are readily 1992b North Slope Decries Nuclear Lies. Anchorage available on many state and local health depart- Daily News. September 10, 1992. ment web sites. Informationis made public on a number of issues, the levels of PCBs in Buglioli, Marc including 2004 A Matterof Life and Death:A Cultural fish species, the means to lower and rec- Analysis exposure, of Hunting in RuralVermont. Doctoral disserta- ommended ingestión limits for pregnant women and tion, Departmentof Anthropology.University of children. In the 1990s, there were surprisingly Wisconsin at Madison. few resources available to Alaskans and Alaskan Natives to make informed decisions about the po- Bowerman,Ronald tential risks of eatins wild foods. 1995 Cancerin Point Hope II:A Case-ControlStudy. Barrow:North Slope Borough Health and Social 12. In Arctic anthropology, a great deal has been Services. written on the which natives must process by Robertand Samuel in a familiar to whites, often sub- Chandler, Wieder speak language 1963 Radionuclides in the NorthwesternAlaska Food suming their own meanings into linguistic catego- ries to for their fair whether Chain, 1959-1961: A Review. Radiological fight share, dealing Health Data. 4(6):317-324. with land claims or hunting rights (Morrowand Hensel 1992; Nadasdy 1999; Nutall 1998). Cone, Maria 2005 Dozens of Wordsfor Snow, None for Pollution. MotherJones 30:60-68.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Cassady:Toxic Waste, TEK,and CulturalSurvival 97

Dewailly, Eric and ChristopherFurgal Huntington, Henry P. and Michelle Sparck 2003 POPs, the Environment,and Public Health. In 2003 POPs in Alaska:Engaging the United States. In NorthernLights against POPs:Combating Toxic NorthernLights against POPs:Combating Toxic Threatsin the Arctic. David LeonardDownie Threats in the Arctic. David LeonardDownie and TerryFenge, eds. Pp. 3-21. Montreal: and TerryFenge, eds. Pp. 214-223. Montreal: McGill-Queen'sUniversity Press. McGill-Queen'sUniversity Press. Dixon, Mim and Scott Kirchner Johansen,Bruce E. 1982 "Poking,"An Eskimo Medical Practice in 2000 Pristine No More. Progressive 64:27-30. Northwest Alaska. Etudes/Inuit /Studies 6(2):109-125. 2002 The Inuit's Struggle with Dioxins and Other OrganicPollutants. The American Indian Quar- Dobbyn, Paula terly. 26(3):479-490. 2000 ContaminatedGame Has Alaska Natives Worried. AnchorageDaily News. May 2. Kay,Leo F. and Patti Dollar 1992 Radioactive Dump Found. The Arctic Sounder Dollar, Patti and Desiree Humphrey 6(34):1. 1992 RadiationWarning: Government Posts Signs at Kuhnlein, Harriet,Olivier Receveur,D. C. G. Muir, H. M. Dump Site. The Arctic Sounder 6(1):12. Chan, and R. Soueida Doubleday,N. 1995 Arctic Indigenous Women Consume Greater 1996 Common Concerns in Search of Uncommon than Acceptable Levels of Organochlorines. Solutions: Arctic Contaminants,Catalyst of Journalof Nutrition 125(10):2501-2507. Science of the Total Environment Change. LaurieH. M. Grace 186:169-179. Kuhnlein, Harriet, Chan, Egeland, and Olivier Receveur Ellen, Roy and Holly Harris 2003 CanadianArctic Indigenous Peoples, Traditional 2000 Introduction.Indigenous EnvironmentalKnowl- Food Systems, and POPs. In NorthernLights edge and Its Transformations.Roy Ellen, Peter against POPs:Combating Toxic Threats in the Parkes,and Alan Bicker, eds. Pp. 1-33. Canter- Arctic. David LeonardDownie and TerryFenge, bury: Harwood Academic Publishers. eds. Pp. 22-40. Montreal:McGill-Queen's Uni- versity Press. Francis, Karland JeffreyR. Richardson 1992 Atomic Arrogance:Fear, Anger Run Deep in Lanier,Anne, JenniferWilliams, and Charles Stutzman Point Hope. TundraTimes 31(1):1. 1985 RadiationEffects in Alaskan Natives. Alaska Na- tive News. October 24. Freeman,Milton Ama- 1992 The Nature and Unity of TraditionalEcological Lanier,Anne, JanetKelly, Bonnie Smith, Claudette Knowledge. NorthernPerspectives 20(l):9-12. don, Annette Harpster,Hellen Peter, Harvey Tantilla, Charles Key, and Anna Marie Davidson Hansen, Jens C. 1994 Cancerin the Alaska Native Population:Eskimo, 2006 EnvironmentalMedicine in an Arctic Per- Aleut, and Indian Incidence and Trends 1969- spective: "The Arctic Dilemma"Revisited. 1988. Alaska Medicine. 36(l):3-92. InternationalJournal of CircumpolarHealth 64(4):365-368. Lantis, Margaret 1959 Folk Medicine and Hygiene Lower Kuskokwim Hanson, Wayne and Nunivak-Nelson Island Areas. University of 1968 Fallout Radionuclides in NorthernAlaskan Alaska: Anthropological Papers of the Univer- Health Ecosystems. Archives of Environmental sity of Alaska. 8:1-75. 17:639-648. Lavrakas,Dimitra 1982 Cs-137 Concentrationsin NorthernAlaskan 1994 Point Hope Residents Sound Off on Radiation Eskimos, 1962-79: Effects of Ecological, Cul- Cleanup. The Arctic Sounder. 8(41):1. tural, and Political Factors.Health Physics 42:433-447. Middaugh,John P. 1994 Implications for Human Health of Arctic Envi- Hild, Carl ronmental Contamination.Arctic Medical Re- 1994 Past RadiationIncidents in Alaska:Risk As- search 8(Spring):214-219. and Public Health. Arctic Medical sessment Morrow, and Chase Hensel Research Phyllis 53(2):372-375. 1992 Hidden Dissensions: Minority-MajorityRela- of Contested Terminol- Hild, Carl tionships and the Use Arctic 1998 CulturalConcerns RegardingContaminants in ogy. Anthropology 29(l):38-53. of Alaskan Local Foods. InternationalJournal Nadasdy, Paul CircumpolarHealth 57(l):561-566. 1999 The Politics of TEK:Power and the "Integra- tion" of Knowledge. Arctic Anthropology 36(1-2):1-18.

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 98 Arctic Anthropology44:1

National Public Radio (NPR) Conceiving the New World Order:The Global 2003 Eskimos Seek Answers to Land Contamination, Politics of Reproduction.Faye D. Ginsburgand (January19, 2005). http://www.npr.org/ RaynaRapp, eds. Pp. 270-287. Berkeley:Uni- templates/story/story.php?storyID=1523292 versity of CaliforniaPress. Nuttall, Mark Stevenson, Marc 1998 Protectingthe Arctic: Indigenous Peoples and 1996 Indigenous Knowledge in EnvironmentalAs- CulturalSurvival. Amsterdam:Harwood Aca- sessment. Arctic 49(3}:278-291. demic Publishers. Stutzman, CharlesD., Donna M. Nelson, and Anne P. Oenga, Emma Lanier 1992 U.S. GovernmentCan't Be Trusted.The Arctic 1986 Estimates of CancerIncidence in Alaskan Na- Sounder. September 24. tives Due to Exposure to Global Radioactive Fallout From Nuclear O'Neill, Dan Atmospheric Weapons Testing. Alaska Medicine: 28(3):67-77. 1994 The FirecackerBoys. New York:St. Martin's Press. Thorpe, Natasha 2004 about Caribou:The His- Brenda and Annalee Yassi Codifying Knowledge O'Neil, John D., Elias, of Inuit in the Kitikmeot 1997 Poisoned Food: CulturalResistance to the Con- tory Qaujimajatuqangit of Canada.In taminants Discourse in Nunavik. Arctic Anthro- Tergion Nunavut, Cultivating Arctic Landscapes:Knowing and Managing pology 34(l):29-40. Animals in the CircumpolarNorth. David G. Patkotak,Elise Anderson and MarkNutall, eds. Pp. 57-78. New 1992 "RadiationLies Ensnared This Health Worker" York:Berghahn Books. in the News, 13. Anchorage Daily September Usher, Peter Paulin, Jim 2000 TraditionalEcological Knowledge in Environ- 1994 Villagers Still WorryOver Project. The Arctic mental Assessment and Management.Arctic Sounder 8(41):1. 53(2):183-193. 1995 Over 1,100 Dead CaribouFound Near Point Valway,Sarah, ed. Hope. The Arctic Sounder 9:1. 1991 CancerMortality Among Native Americans in the United States: Differences in In- and Grondin Regional Pellerin, Jocelyne Jacques dian 1984-1988 and TrendsOver 1998 the State of Arctic Health, Time, Assessing Ecosystem Health: 1968-1987. MD:U.S. Inuit and Rockville, Department Bridging Viewpoints Biological of Health and Human Public Health on Fish Health. Health Services, Endpoints Ecosystem Indian Health Service. 4:236-247. Service, Sheila Adriana Watt-Cloutier, Petryna, 2003 The Inuit Towardsa POPs-freeWorld. 2002 Life Citizens after Cher- Journey Exposed: Biological In Northern POPs: Princeton: Princeton Press. Lights Against Combating nobyl. University Toxic Threatsin the Arctic. David Leonard Poirier, Sylvie and LorraineBrooke Downie and TerryFenge, eds. Pp. 256-267. 2000 Inuit Perceptions of Contaminantsand Environ- Montreal:McGill-Queen's University Press. mental in Nunavik. Arctic Knowledge Salluit, Webster,Paul Anthropology 37(2}:78-91. 2003 For PrecariousPopulations, Pollutants Present Richardson,Jeffrey New Perils. Science 299: 1642-1643. 1992 The Threatof Radiation:Where Will the Next 2005 Health in the Arctic Circle. The Lancet Shoe TundraTimes 31(1):1. Drop? 365(9461):741-742. David Riches, Neil L. 1990 The Force of Traditionin In Local- Whitehead, Eskimology. 1998 and Traditionsof Ethno- Ecological History Historical Ecology:Dia- izing Strategies:Regional chronic Versus Historical Richard Fardon,eds. 71- Modeling Explana- graphic Writing. Pp. tion. In Advances in Historical William 89. Edinburgh:Scottish Academic Press. Ecology Balee, ed. Pp. 30-41. New York:Columbia Uni- Snyder, Hazel versity Press. 1986 TribalDoctors Elders Council Meet- Transcript, Zetterstrom,Rolf ing. May 28. On file Kotzebue Courthouse. 2003 Industrialand AgriculturalPollution: A Threat Stephens, Sharon to the Health of Children Living in the Arctic 1995 Physical and CulturalReproduction in a Post- Region. Acta Pediatrica92:1238-1240. ChernobylNorwegian Sami Community.In

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:10:21 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions