Fifteen years after Chernobyl, the scientific world, as well as the United Nations, are profoundly divided on the health consequences of the Chernobyl disaster.
According to UNSCEAR, there are “so far, no increase in congenital malformations, stillbirths, or premature births that can be attributed to radiation exposures caused by the accident; no overall increase in the incidence of cancer that can be attributed to radiation has been observed; the risk of leukaemia, one of the most sensitive indicators of radiation exposure, has not increased, even in the workers responsible for the clean up (liquidators) or in children…
From the radiological point of view and based on the assessments of this Annex, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail…”174
174 2000 Report to the General Assembly, annexe J, “Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident”, paragraphs 383, 413, 421, United Nations, New York, 2000.
In contrast, according to the OCHA report on Chernobyl, a report described by UNSCEAR as “lacking any scientific basis” and liable to provoke “unnecessary panic”, the situation is extremely serious and requires immediate help from the international community. In his preface, Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, writes: “[…] The exact number of victims may never be known. But three million children require physical treatment, and not until 2016, at the earliest, will we know the true number of those likely to develop serious medical conditions. The most vulnerable victims were, in fact, young children and babies, unborn at the moment when the reactor exploded. Their adulthood—now fast approaching—is likely to be blighted by that moment, as their childhood has been. Many will die prematurely. Are we to let them live and die, believing the world indifferent to their plight?”
The UNSCEAR report was severely criticised by the delegates from Ukraine and Belarus, during the United Nations General Assembly. Nevertheless, it was adopted without a vote on 8th December 2000.
The UNSCEAR delegate, Dr Gentner, has explained that his organisation only employs reputable, “peer reviewed” studies, which means “validated by their peers” All other research is dismissed. According to its own terms, these “peers” are scientists from the Los Alamos laboratories and from the French Atomic Energy Commission.
This shows clearly that the scientific research is dominated by conflicts of interest. No-one is allowed to question the dogma according to which ionising radiation is harmless. It is pronuclear groups of researchers, those who develop the bomb or those with commercial interests in nuclear energy, who decide on behalf of the international community, and against all the evidence to the contrary, that Chernobyl offers “a generally positive outcome from a radiological point of view”.
This has serious socio-political consequences for decision makers, for doctors, for the future of patients, and for researchers.
How can we stop the “donor fatigue”, deplored by the UN representative, as long as UNSCEAR continues to insist that the only consequences have been 1,800 thyroid cancers in children and adolescents, and nothing more? If the future should be considered as “generally positive”, why spend contributors’ money mitigating non-existent illness and risk? How dare Belarus, Ukraine and Russia continue to solicit funds from donor countries? This was the question posed by Dr L.E. Holm (UNSCEAR) to Kofi Annan, in a letter in which he said that their complaints had no scientific basis and were motivated by economic considerations. This reversal of the facts and blaming of the victims, for claiming unnecessary financial aid, is at the very least, surprising.
Thankfully, there are devoted scientists and doctors who ignore UNSCEAR’s claims and work for the victims’ radioprotection in the three worst affected countries, and elsewhere in the world. These researchers devote their lives to mitigating the painful consequences of radiation. However, they find it impossible to publish material about what they see on a daily basis, and inform public opinion about it.
Professor Bandazhevsky, who has presented five abstracts to this conference, has undertaken hundreds of autopsies of children and adults who had lived in the contaminated territories. Using direct radiometric measurements, he has shown that different organs of the body have different concentrations of caesium-137. He has demonstrated a correlation between tissue concentration and organic damage. He has described, following experiments in animals and humans, anatomic and histological lesions in the organs where caesium-137 accumulates.
In 1997, when I visited his Institute of Pathology, he had prepared, for a Parliamentary Commission from Minsk, a collection of foetal malformations and still births, collected over the two preceding weeks. The number corresponded to what one would normally have observed over a whole year.
Quite obviously, these results were completely incompatible with the dogma propagated by UNSCEAR: “So far, no increase in birth defects, congenital malformations, stillbirths, or premature births could be associated with radiation exposure following the accident. (paragraph 383) ”
Bandazhevsky’s research needed urgently to be stopped. Like Galileo, he needed to recant or be silenced. Given his refusal to conform to UNSCEARS’s dogma, his imprisonment was the next logical step.
As Bandazhevsky had proved, no organ or system in the body is exempt from caesium-137. That means that the nervous, digestive, immune, hormonal, reproductive, excretory, cardiovascular systems all need to be studied, in relation to concentration of caesium-137, and the results published.
This will inevitably change not only our view of the dominant risk model based on Hiroshima, which has no relevance for Chernobyl, but also the international radioprotection norms. On 26th April 2001, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on Chernobyl, “calling on the international organisations to re-examine the risk model”.
We need to provide clean food and a clean environment to the populations concerned, in particular the children, and give them adsorbent food additives to reduce the concentration of caesium-137 in their organisms.
Theoretical calculations based on reconstructions, incorrect dose and inadequate risk models (Hiroshima) are no longer acceptable.
The era in which the Holy Inquisition persecuted Galileo for his scientific discoveries is in the past. The truth about the health consequences of Chernobyl can no longer be covered up, as was the fact that the earth revolved round the sun during the Renaissance. Science should no longer be muzzled by the commercial interests of the promoters of nuclear electricity. As citizens of the 21st century, it is our responsibility.
We owe it to the victims of the disaster to prevent another Chernobyl.
Artificial sources of radiation need to be isolated and the whole nuclear cycle, including nuclear power stations should be stopped if we want life on earth to continue.
Chris Busby, the next speaker, is a member of the British government committee researching the risks of incorporated radionuclides. Scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), he has coordinated the publication of recommendations on “The Health Effects of Exposure to Low Doses of Ionising Radiation”175
175 ECRR 2010, Regulators’ Edition at http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf. See page 60
Chris Busby.—I must say that I am a bit confused by what I have learned so far at this conference, because it seems to me that the outcome of the Chernobyl accident in Belarus and the Ukraine is actually very little, and seems to me that there has been a much worse situation in my own country Wales and Scotland and also in other parts of the world where the doses were much less.
If you look at the increase in cases of leukaemia and cancers near nuclear sites, this is called inductive philosophy, and what this suggests is that you try to see what is common between all of these situations and what is common is low level radiation exposure, from internal radiation, not external, internal radiation. In order to try to tease out what the real answer is, we decided to look at some results that w
ere produced in a number of countries relating to infant leukaemia, these were leukaemias of children who were in the womb at the time of the Chernobyl fallout. You can see that in Scotland, in Greece, in America, in Germany and also our own result from the United Kingdom that there was a sharp increase, a statistically significant increase in infant leukaemia of those children who were in the womb […].
We can say without a shadow of a doubt that this is a real effect, it could not have occurred by chance. Because it occurred in a category of people, a group of people who were in the womb at the time of Chernobyl, we also believe that it could not have occurred by any other reason, because you cannot have population mixing in the womb and chemical effects are unlikely to have occurred in that period that would have been different from periods before and afterward it […] I myself presented a paper with Molly Scott relating to an increase in infant leukaemia in 5 different countries of Europe and also the United States and this was certainly and unambiguously an effect of Chernobyl[…]
Professor Rose Goncharova, member of the Institute of Genetics at the Academy of Sciences of Belarus, has studied genetic anomalies, in fish and rodents, that are worsening from generation to generation in areas with relatively low levels of caesium-137 contamination, 200 km from Chernobyl.
Rose Goncharova.—Nobody will contest what our esteemed Professor Yarmonenko says about the intangibility of the postulates and foundations of a certain scientific discipline. I am talking about the field of radiobiology. But there is another side of the coin, and that is the acquisition of new knowledge. As we know, there have not been any major problems in genetics since the central tenet of genetics, the transmission of DNA information in protein, was refuted. Put simply, new knowledge, completely new knowledge, was acquired and genetics continued to develop. In this context, radiobiology, radiological genetics, is no different from other sciences. Completely new data, published today by scientists from the Research Foundation on the Effects of Radiation in Japan, are now available176. It is a first publication, in 1999, about the existence of somatic morbidity caused by radiation.
176 Y. Shimitsu, D.A. Pierce, D.I. Preston, K. Mabuchi, “Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors, report 12, part II. Non cancer mortality: 1950–1990”, Radiat. Res., 1999, 152 (4), p.374–389.
So, one of the previously uncontested paradigms of biological radiology has been refuted. Of course, you need to understand…
Yarmonenko.—What paradigm has been refuted?
Goncharova.—That there is no radiation-induced somatic morbidity.
The chairperson.—Please, Professor Goncharova, if you don’t mind, we are not discussing the paradigms of molecular biology of genetics, we are discussing socio-psychological consequences.
Goncharova.—I’m talking precisely about the socio-psychological aspects of the acquisition of new knowledge to find out to what extent it is understood by scientists. It is clear that if it is hard to understand and if the new knowledge is not taken into consideration when analysing this or that effect of Chernobyl, this will have social consequences. It will also have very particular consequences for scientific researchers. And then, I need only mention that the last publication of Peers and Preston177—anyone who works in radioprotection well be completely familiar with these two names—shows that there are statistically significant effects within the 0–100 mSv range.
177 Ibid.
Yarmonenko.—It’s appalling!
Chairperson.—Would you be so kind…
Goncharova.—I’ve nearly finished, please allow me. Don’t interrupt me!
Voice from the hall.—Let her carry on! Let her speak!
Goncharova.—Dear Roxana Garnets, I will finish my last sentence. Thus I think that Yarmonenko and his supporters sooner or later we will accept this new information that we have, and then we will be able to draw new conclusions and disseminate this new teaching material. Thank you for your attention.
Rose Goncharova passes in front of Yarmonenko who looks at her and says furiously:
Yarmonenko.—It isn’t new information. Aren’t you ashamed? This is rubbish. (He demands the microphone) Today, fifteen years after the accident, it is perfectly clear that the factor of radiation that occurred and still persists is nevertheless not the predominant factor. Whatever caused the acute effects is over. It still plays a part, not by itself, but in combination with a large number of other social factors. In this connection, the socio-psychologists have suggested that we replace this ridiculous term “radiophobia” with “radiological anxiety”, which is excellent. The existence of radiation in itself causes anxiety to humanity and to the victims. But more important, obviously, is its combination with this enormous quantity of other social factors. This is the correct starting point for rehabilitation measures. There is no need today, when everything is over, to be thinking about eliminating this or that isotope, battling against this or that illness, caused by radiation. No!
Preobrazhenskaya (addressing A. Guskova).—You are a highly qualified specialist and you know the effects of radiation, don’t you think that society, the planet, all countries, all of us doctors, should say no to nuclear energy, because it will be the end of life on earth? We won’t have anywhere to bury radioactive waste.
Guskova.—I feel sorry for you. I am very worried about you. New reactors should have been built here, where the environment has already deteriorated ecologically. You have such an urgent need for energy in Ukraine, your lives are so difficult, I worry enormously about you. This should not prevent this technology from being managed with enormous caution, with appropriately trained staff, responsible, prepared, because they hold in their hands not only their own destiny but also that of the people. I firmly believe that humanity will not turn its back on atomic energy. It will simply make it safer.
Preobrazhenskaya.—It’s against nature.
The chair of the session, Roxana Garnetz (UN Chernobyl programme) announces a fifteen minute break and makes a promise.
“The discussion has been recorded. We will include the material from this round table in the conference materials and we will publish them”.
This promise was not kept: neither the round table discussion nor the proceedings of the conference were published. The same scenario as 1995.
BREAK
I ask Norman Gentner from UNSCEAR if we can film his conversation with Professor Michel Fernex. He agrees.
Fernex.—We have followed the conference and we see that according to your organisation there were 31 deaths, of which 28 were due to radiation, 200 irradiated people and 1,800 thyroid tumours attributable to Chernobyl. Is this still your opinion?
Gentner.—That’s what comes out of the data. I am upset that more thyroid cancers are predicted; fortunately the percentage who survive is high. We expect some increase in the incidence of cancer, among certain categories who received the highest dose, and that could be statistically demonstrable.
—You continue to confirm only the figures provided for acute radiation. You have not been influenced for example, by what has been said today?
—If you look at the symptoms and the internationally established progression of the illnesses, these are the figures on which all the international organisations are in agreement and that are supported by the data. Claims have been made by people who have suffered ill effects or believe they have suffered ill effects, but the sources to which we refer are the health services of the Member States. We try to collect the most complete and the most validated data possible. Whatever the result of this data indicates, if it is scientifically supported, we will make sure it is given the widest possible distribution.
—We are very concerned about the fact that nobody in your group is working on the effects of other radionuclides.
—They are always a concern. We are convinced that the unifying principle is the dose, so we look for what the dose is and where it comes fr
om. The majority of the dose comes from radiocaesium. Other particularly poisonous radionuclides, or acting on particular people, have in certain circumstances, the potential to cause serious irradiation.
—In your opinion, where, in which pathology, is caesium concentrated at the highest levels?
—The major problem with caesium is with external radiation. Caesium is also absorbed by vegetables and Annex J of the UNSCEAR report contains some discussions on this subject.
—Don’t you think that during the last 15 years the majority of caesium is internal?
—No, it’s not internal, are you talking about the external exposure that people receive?
—I am speaking of the internal one, which they receive through food in very large populations. In regions following the absorption of food they are cultivating or even through products from the forest.
—The models that were used at that time to measure the exposure, in that early period, suggested that internal and external exposures were more or less equal in importance.
—Don’t you think that today it’s 90% internal and 10% external?
—I am not a specialist in dosimetry.
—Don’t you have whole body measurements of people?
—We have these measurements and they suggest that levels of exposure for the majority of people are very low. But in the case of caesium, the way the exposure has taken place has no importance.
—In the Gomel region, it is still very low in children, isn’t it?
—Do you want to see the validated data? You can look at it.
—Who has the validated data? In whose possession is this validated data? Where are the validated data?
The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag Page 60
