Man, City, Water: Health and Environment in the Moskva-Volga River System (1860s to 1941)

该项目解决了克里米亚战争和二战期间莫斯科公共卫生、供水和水污染的因果关系。19世纪末，莫斯科的水供应不足以满足不断增长的人口和不断扩大的工业的需求。当时，改变河道或向莫斯科供水的项目已经在讨论之中。然而，莫斯科的污水处理仍然不足。莫斯科河冲走了这些问题，把它们转移到奥卡河，这条河在下诺夫哥罗德流入伏尔加河。本文采用的视角一方面关注话语引用，另一方面关注科学与个人的相互联系、互动和失败的转移。它们在四个领域被处理。第一个领域考察了莫斯科供水和污水处理的基础设施历史。第二个领域探讨专家的作用、他们在网络、协会、（国际）国家大会和卫生立法中的科学联系和公共活动。此外，必须对立法程序进行分析，考虑到各利益攸关方、地方自治机构、各部委、工业及其游说机构的不同利益。第三，重要的是讨论法院如何在不同法律情况的背景下处理环境犯罪。冲突各方采取了什么策略？科学专家是如何影响诉讼的？冲突是如何影响社会和公共领域的？第四，该项目关注莫斯科的供水和伏尔加河上游水电站的建设。因此，它分析了生态方面，并询问这些研究在多大程度上不仅涉及技术可行性，而且还涉及人为行动方式的环境后果的成本。这项研究考虑了环境、医学、政治、社会和经济史、技术史、知识和科学史等问题。分析框架是由“风险社会”和“灾难文化”的概念形成的。它防止了任何目的论的或以环境灾难为出发点的倒退叙事，比如1986年的切尔诺贝利反应堆事故，这被认为是苏联后期的特征。相反，该项目调查了二战前主要参与者的行为在多大程度上已经具有“生态灭绝”或“灾难”的特征。这一观点旨在强调长期行动和结构条件的潜在（非）连续性，因为最近的研究将“灾难”等术语仅与苏联后期的环境条件联系起来。因此，我们可以问，日益增加的生态问题是否被证明是“偶然的”、偶然的、“看不见的”或“潜在的”副作用。还是有意识地“由社会和统治者自己产生”？

This project addresses the causal nexus of public health, water supply and water pollution in Moscow between the Crimean War and WWII. At the end of the 19th century the Moscow water supply was insufficient to quench the thirst of the growing population and the needs of the expanding industry. Already at that time, projects to change river courses or to supply Moscow with their water were being discussed. However, the treatment of Moscow’s sewage remained inadequate. The Moskva washed away the problems, shifting them to the Oka, which flows into the Volga at Nizhnii Novgorod.The perspective adopted here focuses on discursive references on the one hand and scientific and personal interconnections, interactions and failed transfers on the other. They are dealt with in four fields. The first field examines the infrastructural history of Moscow's water supply and sewage disposal. The second area explores the role of experts, their scientific contacts and public activities in networks, associations, (inter)national congresses and hygiene legislation. In addition, the legislative process must be analysed regarding the differing interests of various stakeholders, of local self-government bodies, the various ministries to industry and its lobbying institutions. Thirdly, it is important to discuss how courts dealt with environmental offences against the background of a disparate legal situation. What strategies did the conflict parties pursue? How did scientific experts influence the lawsuits? How did conflicts impact on the society and the public sphere? Fourthly, the project pays attention to Moscow's water supply and the construction of hydropower plants in the upper reaches of the Volga. Therefore, it analyses ecological aspects and asks to what extent the studies addressed not only the technical feasibility but also the costs of the environmental consequences of anthropogenic modes of action.The study considers questions of environmental, medical, political, social and economic history, the history of technology, knowledge and science. The analytical framework is shaped by the concepts of “risk society” and “cultures of catastrophe”. It prevents any teleological or backwards narratives taking its starting point from environmental catastrophes such as the reactor accident at Chernobyl' in 1986 which are considered characteristic of the late Soviet Union. Rather, the project investigates the extent to which the actions of key actors have already been characterised by aspects of “ecocide” or “catastroika” prior to WWII. This perspective aims to highlight potential (dis)continuities of actions and structural conditions in the long run, as recent research relates terms like “catastroika” only to the environmental conditions of the late Soviet Union. Thus, we could ask if the increasing ecological problems proved to be “accidental”, contingent, as ”unseen” or “latent” side-effects”. Or were they consciously “produced by societies and rulers themselves”?