I’m going to give you a summary of what is really happening to people’s health in the Chernobyl territories. Increase in miscarriages. Increase in infant mortality. Increase in the number of babies born weak and ill. Increase in the number of genetic alterations and in congenital malformations. Increase in cancer. Retarded mental development, increase in psychiatric illness, changes in the immune system and hormonal imbalance, diseases of the circulatory system, etc. Abnormally slow growth in children, abnormal levels of exhaustion, delayed recovery from illness and accelerated ageing. Surely this list of illnesses has to be recognised at least!
I began by quoting Blix, the director of the IAEA, who said that we could have an accident like Chernobyl “every year”. Now think about the particular breed of “specialist” who defines radiation safety norms. “Effects such as the temporary weakening of haematopoiesis, minor burns to the skin, a temporary decrease in libido, are not too serious, given that these effects do not last long and have no further consequences. Cataracts that cloud the normally transparent crystalline lens of the eye do not affect visual acuity”. This was written by Professor Kiril Markus, one of the nuclear ministry’s ideologues and one of those responsible for the material published by the Ministry. Well, I don’t want my grandchildren’s libido to decrease. I don’t want my great grand children to lose their sight, even if it is only temporarily… We need to talk to these people. The people who work at the IAEA and the WHO are intelligent, talented people. Let’s start a dialogue. They are stewing in their own juices. They don’t understand what’s going on, they are under pressure from the government, which… Of course, I understand quite well, if I was Minister of Health in Belarus, I would certainly be worried. Ukraine has run out of money, it’s already spending 8% of its budget on the consequences of Chernobyl. Belarus spends 20%. It’s clear that no-one, no government has any interest in spending any more money. It’s obvious. But the rest of us, the scientists among us, need to say: “You must spend more!” If we don’t say it, they will always spend less and we will all be worse off. Thank you!
Adopting an expression of deep outrage, Professor Yarmonenko moves onto the stage and takes the microphone.
Samuil Yarmonenko.—On behalf of the radiological community in Russia, I would like to apologise to the international organisations whose contributions towards helping us to mitigate the health effects of the disaster at Chernobyl have already been described in many previous presentations. I would like to respond to the completely unprofessional statements made by Yablokov, given that he is neither a radiologist nor a radiobiologist and has no expertise in the matter. We are very appreciative of the work…
Preobrazhenskaya (from the hall).—Who has authorised you to say this?
Yarmonenko.—… we appreciate the work being done by the international organisations and hope that it will continue with the same success in the future.
Yablokov.—I can’t let that go without responding. I am not against the international organisations.
I want them to work. I know that they can do good work. There are some excellent people working there, I know many of them. I hope that they will take notice of what I have said here, and that they won’t close their eyes to the real consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.
Author of a manual on human and animal radiobiology, Professor Samuil Yarmonenko is part of Professor Ilyin’s team, that prevented the evacuation of a large part of the contaminated territories with his famous theory of 35 rem as an acceptable level of radiation for all: children, pregnant women, the old and the ill. In reality, the level accepted by the international authorities on radioprotection for members of the public is five times lower.
S. Yarmonenko.—I have to say that I support the objective view about the development of atomic energy, to which there are no alternatives in particular for Russia, because we cannot squander our mineral deposits forever. Can I remind you that Dimitri Mendeleev, in the notes he wrote for posterity, said that using oil for heating is like burning bank notes.
As for coal, our second most important energy resource, you must know that, leaving aside the terrible work of a miner, whose life differs little from that of a serf in bygone days, in the fifteen years that have passed since the accident at Chernobyl, there have been five times as many deaths in mining than in the nuclear industry.
The following diagram presents the estimate of the medical consequences of the Chernobyl accident, by experts from the UNSCEAR 2000 report, a document of the highest international competence. These estimates make a distinction, naturally, between, on the one hand, those somatic health effects167 that are independent of radiation, and caused by a number of harmful factors such as socioeconomic and psychological conditions, and stress, and on the other hand, truly radiological medical effects, caused by the radiation itself. What are these effects, according to UNSCEAR’s data? Above all, there are no deterministic effects168 at low levels of radiation. The only effect is radiation sickness in 134 people who took part in liquidation work in the first few days after the accident. The prognosis for all other conditions categorized according to deterministic effects is very favourable. As regards long term stochastic effects169, we have, unfortunately, cases of thyroid cancer here. We are no longer talking about 1800 cases, but many more. According to this prognosis, the possibility of an increase in thyroid cancer is very small, but the probability of other cancers exists, and it is even smaller for hereditary illnesses.
167 Somatic: concerning the body (rather than the mind). Used here to designate physical illnesses, other than cancer. All the illnesses described by Bandazhevsky resulting from low level internal contamination by Cs-137 are somatic illnesses. The official doctrine, based on the Hiroshima experience, where the victims studied had been exposed to very high levels of external radiation, does not recognise radiation among the causes of these somatic illnesses, that have appeared in large numbers in the areas contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster.
168 Deterministic effects: early damaging effects of radiation on living tissue (the death of an organism, damage to organs or tissue, cataracts…) that appear in general above a certain dose threshold and whose severity depends on the level of absorbed dose (definition of the IRSN report DRPH/2005–20). The correlations established by Y. Bandazhevsky between observed somatic effects and the concentration of the radionuclide caesium 137 incorporated into the body show deterministic effects of low level radioactivity. The prognosis for all categories, according to these effects, is extremely unfavourable.
169 Stochastic effects: long-term or delayed damage from radiation (leukaemia, tumours, for example) whose severity is independent of dose and where the probability of its appearance is proportional to the dose received. It is assumed that there is no threshold below which stochastic effects appear. Stochastic effects therefore appear at lower dose levels than the levels that produce deterministic effects and can appear after a long delay (years, decades) following exposure to radiation. (Definition IRSN) If Bandazhevsky’s research constitutes an advance in scientific knowledge and establishes a law concerning the effects of low dose radiation on vital organs and systems, the final proposition of the IRSN where it says “stochastic effects therefore appear at lower dose levels than the levels that produce deterministic effects” is no longer accurate.
Our society is not only waiting anxiously to see what serious consequences arise from the accident at Chernobyl, but finds itself, still today, fearing the supposedly extremely damaging health effects of low-level radiation. This is the counterpoint to my communication. There are three ways in which society’s objective understanding of the effects of radiation on human health has been distorted. What are these three ways? First: we are forgetting our classical heritage, intangible truths about quantitative radiobiology including human radiobiology, in which our fellow countrymen were the pioneers, and ignoring the experience from all over the world in radiological medicine. Se
condly: the dissemination in society, by journalists seeking to cause a sensation, of rumours that make people anxious, and are based on pseudo-scientific “theories” and “discoveries”—I use quotation marks, because neither one nor the other exist in reality. Not to mention the various propaganda techniques used by populists and politicians, with pseudo-humanitarian aims. Finally, thirdly: incorrect information communicated between the scientific world, government administration and society about the medical effects of the radiological accident, and consequently—this is very important—the way to alleviate them.
There are four errors in the way low dose radiation is estimated.
The first is the overestimation of different events at the molecular, biochemical and even cellular level170. I would like it to be noted straight away that I have never wanted nor want now, in any way, to diminish the significance of this research. It is very important. It may be useful at some time in the future. But today, there are insufficient grounds on which to work and they cannot be used in the field of human health.
170 See “2. Effects of proximity”, Part One, Chapter V, p. 54.
The second: when the consequences of hypothetical and unfounded deductions are substituted for facts.
The third: these are deductions made on the basis of research undertaken in uncontrolled or inadequately controlled conditions that support results that contradict the findings elsewhere in the world. We need to understand quite simply that radiobiology is an experimental science. If there is no data, nothing can be affirmed. If the data obtained does not correspond with classical data, there is an obligation to explain it. If you find the cause, then this constitutes data. Tangible data. This corresponds perfectly with Pavlov’s testament that “Facts are the air of the scientists”.
And finally, the fourth: information that is notoriously false or from unqualified sources. All information supplied to governments, to the media and to the public, should come from scientists, professionals. If instead of scientists, we have pseudo-scientists giving out whatever information, wherever and however, it will give rise to rumours that create panic. This even applies to governments, who, understanding nothing of the subject, then take the wrong decision.
Here is an example of this kind of absurd tittle-tattle: “In the years that have passed since the Chernobyl accident, more than 16,000 liquidators have died”. This is what Sergei Chaigou said, standing in a cemetery. He knows nothing, of course, someone just handed him these figures, but even so, he is the Minister for Emergency Situations.
One can understand, in this situation, people’s terror. They believe neither the government, the scientists, the doctors nor any other experts so they fall prey to rumours about the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people through radiation sickness, and widespread epidemics of cancer and hereditary diseases.
To ask scientists to demonstrate the absence of these effects is not justified, because fundamentally science cannot prove a negative, whatever it might be, even if it can be postulated. The problem is the reverse. It is a question exclusively of demonstrating the presence of effects. Until it has been demonstrated, the effect cannot be recognised.
It has been demonstrated171. The demonstration exists, but the national and international bodies with responsibility for people’s health are doing everything they can to prevent the demonstration being presented. And when it is presented—Bandazhevsky’s research was presented at the conference in Kiev—they refuse to discuss it. Barricaded behind this thick wall of deceit by omission and censorship, Professor Yarmonenko allows himself the luxury of haughty pronouncements like the truism in the sentence above.
171 Y.I. Bandazhevsky, Swiss Medical Weekly, 2003, No 133, p.488–490; G.S. Bandazhevskaya et al., Swiss Medical Weekly, 2003, No 134, p.725–729; Y.I. Bandazhevsky and G.S. Bandazhevskaya, Cardiomyopathy of caesium-137, Cardinale, Tome XV, No 8, October 2003.
Buzunov.—(Scientific Centre of Radiological Medicine, Kiev) (He addresses Professor Yarmonenko)—Samuil Petrovitch, can I tell you what I think of your observations? In 1988, mortality among the liquidators was 0.95‰. Please note 0.95‰, one in a thousand. In 1998, 10.5‰...more than 10‰. In other words an enormous rate of increase over that short period. Here, the comparison with the rest of the population is not justified; 80% of the liquidators in 1986 were young lads in good health! How many of them are in good health and able to work now? You tell me. People in perfect health were dead within ten years. That’s what we should be investigating.
Ivanov (Chief Medical Officer of the Russian Federation) .—More than 200,000 Russians were involved in the liquidation work following the accident, and most of them received doses of radiation from 50 mSv up to 250 mSv. Today, this register brings together information about more than 570,000 people, of whom 184,175 are liquidators and 336,309 are inhabitants of Bryansk, Kaluga, Tula and Orel, living in territories that are contaminated at levels above 5 Ci/Km2. What does an analysis of the basic health indicators of the liquidators reveal? The proportion of liquidators in good health has changed over a period of fifteen years from 95% in 1986 to 4% in 1998–1999. Almost 75% of the liquidators suffer from several chronic illnesses. The total number of invalids among the cohort of 184,175 registered Russian liquidators is over 50,000 people: nearly 30% of the total. The total number of deaths among the liquidators is 15,000 people, nearly 10% of the total number of liquidators registered in Russia. Among the liquidators, we note a predominance of respiratory tract diseases, diseases of the nervous system and sense organs, diseases of the circulatory system, digestive system, the muscles, the bones, conjunctive tissue, diseases of the endocrine system and metabolic alterations.
Babadzhanov (Tashkent, Uzbekistan).—Here are the changes in rates of illness among the liquidators ten years after they received the excess radiation in comparison with five years after. Firstly, there is a statistically significant increase in morbidity between the fifth year and the tenth. Secondly, the clinical progression of illnesses becomes more intensive. Functional illness diagnosed in the fifth year, has become organic disease during the course of the second decade. Neurocirculatory dystonia has become hypertonic illness, cardiac ischemia, circulatory encephalopathy: duodenal and chronic gastritis have transformed into duodenal and gastric ulcers. As our research shows, the liquidators suffer a series of different illnesses, or polymorbidity, long after the excess radiation received. Thus 69% of the liquidators suffer from four or five illnesses. Naturally, this leads to the loss of the ability to work and their invalidity.
All in all, ten years after radiological exposure, nearly three quarters of the 10,000 liquidators living in Uzbekistan were invalids and 500 had died. We can predict with a high level of probability that the same progression towards increasing ill health and that the same evolution towards a nosological spectrum in their illnesses will continue into the future.
Alarm bells about Chernobyl have been ringing for fifteen years across the planet. It is not only a requiem for the victims of the disaster who have already lost their lives there. It is a reminder to learn the lessons from Chernobyl, the sign that Chernobyl is continuing. We must not forget it, if we want to protect people from the nuclear nightmare. The most important lesson, in our opinion, is that the effects of low dose radiation represent a much more real and present threat than the larger atomic cataclysms.
It is essential that we take new measures to prevent the progression of the consequences to the additional radiation exposure to which people have already been subjected.
G. Rumiantseva (Centre for Social and Judicial Psychiatry, in Serbsky, Moscow).—I would like to move away a little from the problem that we have been discussing here for two days and focus on two postulates.
The accident at Chernobyl has been called a catastrophe. A radiological catastrophe in terms of its biological content, but also, a “catastrophe” with the same factors as the war in Chechnya, or in the Afghanistan syndrome, th
e Vietnam war, or the inhabitants of areas that have been victim to an enormous ecological catastrophe like Bhopal. All these catastrophes have one thing in common: the catastrophe itself. Human beings are not only enduring the fact of being subjected to the effects of the radiation, but they endure the whole catastrophe in its entirety. It is simply impossible to divide the effects into different categories, psychological, chemical and physical. We need to study the consequences of the catastrophe as a whole. The second factor, which is fundamental, is that man is a being equipped with a cerebral cortex. He cannot be considered simply as an amalgamation of radiosensitive organs. He does not simply suffer the effects of radiation, he assimilates it into his conscious mind and thinks about it. Without the conscious mind, the consequences appearing today would not be there.
As for the liquidators, they can exhibit a range of symptoms with varying degrees of severity. The fundamental characteristic appears to be an underlying asthenia.172 Changes in the behaviour of the liquidators often manifest themselves in the so-called “autistic asthenia”.
172 Asthenia: lack of strength, of physical and mental vitality; a state of depression, of weakness.
In the end, we cannot absolutely deny the emergence among a majority of the liquidators of overestimation. It is even perhaps a collective symptom. Overestimation as a form of hypochondria, in fighting for one’s rights. You must be aware of the number of court cases, of deviant behaviour in the form of demonstrations, hunger strikes… This sort of behaviour is widespread among the liquidators. Also the accident itself has become mythologised which equally has an effect on the psyche.
G. Sushkevich (WHO, Geneva, Vice-President of the Conference Organisation Committee).—These questions are linked to the psychological rehabilitation of the liquidators. It is just one aspect of the work undertaken by psychologists with the liquidators. I think we need to work with society as well and change people’s perceptions a little, so that they begin to see the liquidators not as victims but as heroes. So that, the children of liquidators will feel, right from childhood, that they are the children of heroes and not of victims. In this psychological work on society and in the healing of society and of the liquidators, psychologists and the media could play an important role. Fifteen years have gone by since the accident. The liquidators should be regarded as heroes, heroes of a patriotic war. The children of war heroes were always taught to feel proud and to have a sense of dignity. We need to remember the words of Pirogov, when he said that the wounds of the victors heal quicker than the wounds of the vanquished. This principle could be adapted to the psychological rehabilitation of the liquidators.
The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag Page 58
