Unfounded phobias are no help at all, of course. However, refusing to take the effects of radiation seriously is equally dangerous. When we are told that it is possible “to create a favourable environment” in the contaminated territories, we are being told lies. The environment there will always be unfavourable. On the other hand, even in such an unfavourable environment, it is possible to organise life so as to avoid the danger to a certain extent by adopting a whole series of rules and respecting a whole series of prohibitions (see below). But it is clear that over the centuries to come, if people are to continue living in these areas, a good number of precautionary measures will need to be taken.
Continuing to insist that it is possible to live in the contaminated territories, the authors claim that “there are various agricultural crops that can be cultivated safely on radioactively contaminated soils”. Again, we are being told a half truth. It is true that certain plant species accumulate smaller amounts of radionuclides than others. For example, there is five times less radioactive strontium in wheat cultivated on contaminated soil than in barley or peas cultivated in the same soil; half as much accumulated radionuclides in potatoes than in beetroot, etc. It is even possible to distinguish different species of tree by the amount of radionuclides that they have accumulated. However, there is no plant species that does not absorb radionuclides from the soil. This means that radiological monitoring of food products will have to continue for a long time.
The central thesis of the chapter in the report on ecology is equally false from a scientific point of view. It is proposed that we make use of “the potential” of the contaminated territories to “fulfil the international obligations of the three countries concerned in the protection of biodiversity”, and to use the ecosystems of the forest and marshes “to conserve biodiversity”. In the area contaminated by Chernobyl, it might seem that the wildlife, freed from human influence, is particularly rich but this area can in no way be considered as a normal healthy reserve for diverse life forms. Studies undertaken not only in the areas contaminated by Chernobyl but in the area to the East of the Urals and in other contaminated areas (for example the area of Orenburg following the Totsk explosion) have shown that ten generations later, living organisms that suffered radiation exhibit genetic instability. Moreover, there are health problems in animals and plants born in these areas. The fact that most of the birds that overwinter in these areas do not return, for example, shows that they are dying in huge numbers during the first winter. Alterations can be seen in the genetic apparatus of animal and plant species that have been studied in the contaminated areas. Biodiversity in these areas is a superficial illusion. In reality, the health of this environment has been seriously disturbed. These areas do not constitute a living reserve; they are, on the contrary, a sort of malignant tumour growing within the living body of nature. Scientifically speaking, the problem is not how to use this radioactive biodiversity but how to protect people from it.
But it is probably in their study of the morbidity among the population of the contaminated territories that the authors of the report distort the truth most seriously.
They claim that the increase in congenital malformation linked to excess radiation is not corroborated by statistical data. This is untrue: the data exists. Between 1986 and 1995 across the whole of Belarus there has been a 40% increase (it rose from 12% to 17% in new born babies) in significant congenital malformation (harelip, cleft palate, anomalies in limb formation, alteration in the development of the central nervous system and the circulatory system, closure of the oesophagus or the anus etc) and if we take into account the number of foetuses aborted because of malformation, it has gone up 80% (up to 22 cases in 1000). Other statistical data shows that from 1988 to 1999 the frequency of congenital malformation in Belarus has more than doubled. Statistical data confirms that there has been the same increase in congenital malformation in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia.
Number of cases of congenital malformation per 100,000 newborn babies
in the administrative regions of Bryansk and of Kaluga
(Balaïeva et al, 2001)
Region
1990
1998
Augmentation
Kaluga
104.7
352.6
x 3.4
Bryansk
32.3
404.2
x 12.5
The usual argument against statistics of this kind is that it is the result of improved screening, meaning that it has appeared through more attention being paid to these cases. But this effect could not come about when the study concerns the same area and has been undertaken by the same people using the same methods. Yet it is precisely in the contaminated areas that this significant increase in cases of congenital malformation has been observed. These figures exist for numerous areas of Belarus (Gomel, Mogilev), and Ukraine (Zhitomir), and Russia (Bryansk). Thanks to its advanced statistical services, Germany has produced similar figures. Following minutely detailed analysis of medical statistics, it has been discovered recently that in Bavaria, the region of Southern Germany that was most affected by fallout from Chernobyl, the number of cases of congenital malformation reached a maximum in November and December 1987, seven months after the peak of concentration of caesium-137 in the mother’s body. A developing foetus is at its most sensitive to the teratogenic action of radionuclides in the second month of pregnancy. In the contaminated territories in Belarus, an increase in the percentage of deaths of new born babies, following defects in the development of the nervous system, and an increase in stillbirths has been observed…
All of this shows that even relatively low doses of radiation, cause alterations in foetal development that are incompatible with life. The catastrophic deterioration in the health status of vulnerable young children with regard to all illnesses in the contaminated territories leaves no room for doubt: in 1985 more than 80% of children living in these areas enjoyed good health, but in 2000 this figure was only 20%. In the South of the country, the areas most affected in the Gomel region, there are practically no healthy children.
The claim made by the authors of this report that the increase in mortality “cannot be as a result of Chernobyl”, on the grounds that this phenomenon has been observed over the whole of the former USSR, lacks scientific rigour. It is true that mortality has risen all over the former Soviet Union but, firstly, this phenomenon appeared after 1986 and it cannot be excluded that one of the reasons could be fallout from Chernobyl, which fell on the area in which more than half of the population of the former Soviet Union lives. Secondly, the increase in mortality is particularly significant in those areas which were badly contaminated.
Mortality (per thousand) in the Bryansk region 1998–1999
(Komogortseva, 2001)
Mortality
In the whole region
In the 3 districts most heavily contaminated by radionuclides
Infants
10.2
17.2
General population
16.3
20.1–22.7
The report claims that “the structure of morbidity in the contaminated territories is similar to that of other regions of the former Soviet Union” but this is a lie. Where there are reliable statistics, it is apparent that in addition to increased mortality, after the disaster there was a significant increase in miscarriages and in stillbirths. As regards other changes in the structure of morbidity among people living
in the contaminated territories (in comparison with neighbouring areas where social and economic conditions are the same) it is apparent that there is:
• an increase in the number of babies born weak and ill;
• an increase in the number of genetic alterations and in congenital malformation;
• an increase in the number of cancers (and not only thyroid cancer);
• an increase in disorders of mental development (delayed development), neurological and psychological problems;
• an increase in psychiatric illness (including schizophrenia);
• changes in the immunity and hormonal status (endocrine);
• an increase in the number of illnesses of the organs of the circulatory, lymphatic, respiratory, urinary system, of the skin, internal secretion glands and sight organs;
• growth problems in children and abnormal weight loss;
• abnormally long recovery time following illness;
• premature ageing.
There are dozens of illnesses caused by the fallout from Chernobyl. They cannot be explained either by the effect of screening or by socio-economic factors, because the areas that have been compared differ only in their level of contamination. In the UN report, certain illnesses are indeed mentioned with an accompanying phrase such as “which is not absolutely certain” or “it is possible, it is not without foundation”, “it is not confirmed by the statistical data”. These remarks obviously cast doubt on data that is absolutely reliable. Here is a concrete example: among the consequences caused by the disaster, the authors of the report mention the appearance of cataracts among the liquidators who received high doses of radiation, but they do not say that this phenomenon has also appeared among the people living in the contaminated territories. Among those people who were evacuated from the strictly monitored zone (more than 40Ci/km2) cataracts are even more pronounced than among the liquidators.
Frequency in appearance of cataracts (per thousand)
in Belarus from 1993 to 1994. (Goncharova, 2000)
1993
1994
Average frequency in the country as a whole
In areas contaminated between 1–15 Ci/km2
In areas contaminated above 15 Ci/km2
In people evacuated from areas contaminated
above 40 Ci/km2
136.2
189.6
225.8
354.9
146.1
196.0
365.9
425.0
Among the liquidators
281.4
420.0
In the analysis of the data on health and biological consequences of the disaster, the authors of the report allow two methodological errors to slip into their reasoning. The first concerns the logic of their argument. To justify their refusal to take into account existing data, in several passages of the report, they claim that it is necessary to “ undertake rigorous scientific research, that is recognised by international community”187, to extract “scientifically reliable consequences”, to initiate “the unbiased scientific research that is objective and methodologically sound”, to be “faithful to internationally recognised scientific protocols”, to obtain “authoritative proof”, to undertake “high quality scientific research”, to have “an internationally recognised programme of scientific research”, to obtain “reliable and objective results”, all of which implies that much of the collected data does not correspond to these criteria. One can only ignore existing studies if the comparison between data that do not conform to “international scientific protocols” and data from studies that do conform to these protocols shows us that the studies done in the same areas according to different methods give different results: in which case it would be normal to demand verification. As long as no such comparison has been made, it is methodologically incorrect (and morally inadmissible) to ignore the results of scientific research that has been done previously. Those who ignore this research are proving their bias against the results of research that show that the people’s health in the contaminated territories is deteriorating. Even if we accept the point of view expressed by the authors of this report and if we put aside the thousands of studies which, according to them, were undertaken using incorrect methods, no-one has the right to conclude that there are no health consequences purely on the grounds that the data is unavailable.
187 The authors apparently only consider as “recognised by the international community” those journals whose editors and readers’ committees include people from the nuclear industry. Doctors conducting research in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, working with patients from Chernobyl, have not got the time, in general, and are not in the habit of publishing their results in journals abroad that are “recognised by the international community”. At best, they present the results of their research at regional conferences and publish articles in national newspapers. As of today, there are thousands of published articles from Belarus, Ukraine and Russia about the consequences of Chernobyl, of which no more than 1% or 2% appear in Western journals. Nevertheless, a great deal of high level research has been undertaken, thanks to modern methods of dealing with statistical data.
The second methodological error made by the authors of this report is that they ignore the precautionary principle. The history of humanity shows that where we cannot claim with certainty that our acts will not cause harm, we must suppose that they could have dangerous consequences. The authors of the report recognise that there are many aspects of the Chernobyl disaster that are unclear, and have uncertain consequences: we do not know everything about the dose that people received in the first few days after the disaster, nor the particular geographical distribution of the radionuclides that fell on the soil, the future irradiation of the people living in the contaminated areas, the health and genetic consequences of the radiological impact. What is more, the report talks about the necessity of studying “the possible link between breast cancer in young women and women who were breastfeeding at the time of the accident, and radiation” “between radiation and breast cancer, between thyroid cancer in adults and the health of those who took part in the liquidation of the consequences of the accident”; “the distribution of caesium in biological tissues and the risks of specific alterations”, “the possible impacts of radiation on intrauterine development”. How can the authors of the report claim that “the health consequences of the radiation are exaggerated” when they recognise themselves that our scientific knowledge in these areas is still very incomplete? While admitting that we do not know all the possible risks, how can they claim that there is no danger!
It is quite astonishing that while they refer to aspects that need to be studied scientifically in the future, they do not even mention a whole series of questions about the impact of radiation that need studying just as urgently. For example, among many other things, the effect of radiation on:
• the genetic health of the population;
• the central nervous system and the sensory organs;
• lesions of the endothelium (the vessel walls);
• the lowering of immunity;
• damage to the hormonal system;
• the premature ageing of the body;
• the increase in mortality in certain age groups.
In their recommendations the authors of the report ignore a number of very important questions of principle, and this casts doubt on the whole strategy that they are proposing, including their “new approach” (page 158–159) which consists of resolving the problem of Chernobyl in three stages: the stage in which “the most urgent problems are resolved”, 1986–2001; the “rehabilitation” stage, 2002�
�2012; and the “management” stage after 2012. It is worrying to see that the authors propose leaving till 2012 any “… in-depth analysis of the current state of affairs […] to identify current needs in areas like public health, ecology and scientific research”. We believe that all this needs to be done now and continuously rather than waiting till the end of the next decade.
The authors of the report declare their objectivity (the essential aim of the report) but exhibit quite openly their favourable opinion of the nuclear industry, the primary cause of the disaster. Those who work in the nuclear industry have continued over a long period to say that Chernobyl was simply a technological accident that caused the death of about thirty people, less than 2000 thyroid cancers (easily treatable), that its consequences have been exaggerated and are mainly the result of the stress caused by radiophobia and from too rapid an evacuation of the population, in short, that it’s time “to forget Chernobyl”. Even though the authors declare from the first few lines of the report—one has to wonder why—that they undertook their study “without any pressure from interested organisations or persons”, they claim, in unison with the defenders of nuclear power, that people’s fears about radioactive contamination and its consequences are “unfounded” and even that they are due to “provocation”.
The authors of the report do not hide their anxiety to see nuclear power develop and say that “the fate of the population in the contaminated towns and villages will remain at the centre of any new discussion on energy development in the years to come” and that “the energy industry worldwide is very concerned that these problems should be resolved and that the future of nuclear energy be examined, without emotion, but reasonably on the basis of arguments and facts”. Is it not surprising that the authors of an analysis of this humanitarian disaster should be so concerned with the development of nuclear energy?
The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag Page 63
