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

该项目探讨了克里米亚战争和第二次世界大战之间莫斯科的公共卫生、供水和水污染的因果关系。世纪末，莫斯科的供水不足以满足日益增长的人口和不断扩大的工业的需求。当时已经在讨论改变河道或向莫斯科供水的项目。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，将它们转移到奥卡河，奥卡河在下诺夫哥罗德流入伏尔加。这里采用的视角一方面关注话语参考，另一方面关注科学和个人的相互联系，相互作用和失败的转移。在四个领域处理这些问题。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。第二个领域探讨了专家的作用、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，还必须根据各利益攸关方、地方自治机构、各工业部及其游说机构的不同利益，对立法进程进行分析。第三，必须讨论法院如何在不同的法律的情况下处理环境犯罪。冲突各方采取了哪些战略？科学专家如何影响诉讼？ 冲突如何影响社会和公共领域？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，并询问在何种程度上的研究不仅解决了技术的可行性，但也人为的行动模式的环境后果的成本，该研究考虑的问题，环境，医学，政治，社会和经济的历史，技术，知识和科学的历史。分析框架是由“风险社会”和“灾难文化”的概念形成的。它防止任何目的论或倒退的叙述从环境灾难出发，如1986年切尔诺贝利的反应堆事故，这被认为是苏联后期的特点。相反，该项目调查的是关键行为者的行动在多大程度上已经具有二战前“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（不）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，日益严重的生态问题是否被证明是“偶然的”、偶然的，是“看不见的”或“潜在的”副作用”。或者它们是“由社会和统治者自己有意识地产生的”？

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”?