Kate Browns argument in Plutopia

Summary of Kate Browns argument in Plutopia
Kate Brown’s book, titled “Plutopia: Nuclear families, atomic cities, and the great Soviet and American plutonium disasters” discusses the first nuclear disaster in history to have happened locally. Kate relates factors such as urban planning, scientific research, labor history and public health. According to her, the Soviet and American societies were largely transformed following the production of nuclear weapons. She claims it created a whole new kind of society with newly defined safety risks. This essay seeks to critically analyze Brown’s book. The term plutopia refers to those unique, aspirational communities that satisfied postwar societal desires in the Americas and the Soviet Union. Prosperity then was at such an enticing level that many citizens ignored the piles of radioactive waste accumulating around them (p. 4). Brown goes on to analyze the state policies in the U.S.S.R and U.S.A that influenced the creation of the nuclear cities of Ozersk and Richland, the resultant societies from those areas, and the differences between the histories of American and Soviet Plutopia.
State Policy
Brown demonstrated severally how the two nuclear cities of Ozersk and Richland initiated the simple categories of totalitarian, communist, capitalist and democratic. It should be noted that Richland had no private property nor civic authority. The plant workers would lease their homes from the government and they would get their salaries from the companies running the plant. These companies also paid the policemen and the mayor. The Russian leaders in Ozersk came to find out that introducing Western consumer goods was one sure way of keeping skilled workers satisfied. Brown keeps shifting between Richland and Ozersk, giving detailed accounts of the two, and this makes it a bit hard to follow the book. But this is understandable because the history of the towns is itself complicated, and thus can only be narrated that way.
The two plutonium plants closely resembled each other in operations and worked hand in hand. For instance, when one of the plants risked a budget cut, the other one would make efforts to increase production. This perceived rivalry went a long way to stabilizing the two plants for continued existence. It is recorded that the two plants resorted to risky shortcuts in their operations due to the prevailing atmosphere of fear and pressure, so they could meet their production goals.
Brown details the years when the two plants reached a life time peak in production. They produced plutonium in great quantities, which actually brought about the fast growth of American and Soviet stockpiles. Meanwhile, the plants managed to cover up accidents, over expenditure and the dangerous exposure on the part of the workers and dwellers in the vicinity. Brown further details the environmental and social implications of plutonium production. Some plutopia dwellers in fact questioned the safety of the citizens, as regards health. Others showed loyalty and nationalism by supporting the plutonium production.
Societies that emerged
The plutonium production in both Richland and Ozersk depended on how much space a particular group was allocated. The more superior one’s class and race was, the better was his chance to acquire a larger space. High class residents like scientists, engineers and military were allocated residencies in areas further away from the plant where the harmful effects of radiation were minimal, in a bid to long preserve their production expertise. These were seen as more important than the casual workers in the plants. These casual workers were not much protected from the harmful radiation emanating from the production plants and the dumped waste. For the most lethal work, the plants employed transitory labor force so as to preserve lives by protecting them from the harmful radiation. Buffer zones were created to enable secret discharge of waste into the immediate surrounding. This is one grave mistake that the plutopias made because, as we shall come to see, the negative effects of the nuclear radiation in the environment is such a regrettable act. Residents in these two cities of Richland and Ozersk yearned for affluence, since it was then viewed as the true measure of personal and national success. And as Brown puts it, the plutopia residents gradually forfeited their biological and civil rights for consumer rights (p. 5).
It is evident from these accounts how great compromises were made before and after the cold war to achieve high affluence levels. Such compromises were not only made in Richland and Ozersk. As at now, residents beyond these two localities are confronted with Superfund sites, militarized landscapes, increased rates of childhood obesity, asthma and cancer. And this is the reason why Brown claims all of us are citizens of plutopia (p. 338).
Brown’s focus is on deeper and complex history. In her own words, she won’t just stop at comparative history, but rather paired history. She argues that telling the stories of Richland and Ozersk at one go captures the complimentary characteristics of these two places. It makes it possible to reveal how plutonium manufacture influenced lives both before and after the Cold War. These two are also the first cities to produce plutonium in such quantities (p. 8). Brown’s intention is not to tell two different stories in comparison to each other. The two cities had this outcry against deterioration of national security, radioactive discharge, labor supply control, rigid organization of space, false promises to the plutopias, and so forth. Residents of both cities likewise traded their health, loyalty, discipline and silence for consumer influence (Feldman, 2014).
Difference between Soviet and American
The creators of these two seemingly healthy model communities did a lot of disservice to the residents. For instance, in Richland, democracy was abandoned in lieu of forceful control of self and housing. On the other hand, Ozersk residents who did not take part in the communist project were barred from participating in local politics. They could not cast their ballot when it came time to elect their leaders. Ozersk residents also experienced first hand the communist ideals of egalitarianism. It is in fact on record how Stalin assured Igor Kurchtov that though Russia was poor, a select few could still live in their own dachas and drive their own cars. Kurchtov was the chief physicist overseeing the Soviet atomic bomb project.
The residents interestingly appeared at peace with this situation. They proved patriotic enough by participating whole wholeheartedly in the work which was vital for national defense. It is interesting how they could forfeit their own rights for material gain. It is difficult to find such kind of sacrifice in humans, especially in the current state of affairs in the world. This lasted even beyond the collapse of the Soviet Union. Numerous Ozersk residents voted to maintain their guards and their fences. They saw it better to have security within the city other than exercise their freedom of movement.
Conclusion
Brown’s Plutopia successfully compared two atomic production facilities during the cold war era. Up till now, the effects of such militarized citizenry remains fresh in the minds of Russians and Americans. The willingness of the plutopias to forfeit their human rights for the desire of affluence resulted in an unprecedented nuclear disaster, whose negative effects are being felt up to now.


References
Brown, K. L. (2013). Plutopia: Nuclear families, atomic cities, and the great Soviet and American plutonium disasters. Oxford University Press, USA.
Feldman, J. (2014). Review of Brown, Kate, Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters. H-Environment, H-Net Reviews.