This is a reference to the volume of ABSTRACTS which I myself bought on the morning of the 4 June 2001, on the first day of the 3rd International Conference “Health Consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe: results of 15 years of research”, 4–8 June 2001, in Kiev. The conference was filmed in its entirety by a Swiss Television team, under my direction. On Thursday 7 June,
Mrs. Roxana Garnets (UN Chernobyl Programm), who was chairing the Round Table programmed from 16.45 to 18.00, declared “We have recorded this discussion. We will include the material from this Round Table in the material of the conference and we will publish it 1 ”. The “materials recorded at the conference” constitute the raw material of the promised Proceedings, which have still not seen the light of day. In its reply to the Guardian, unwilling to recognize this shameful fact,
1 Cf. “Le crime de Tchernobyl, le goulag nucleaire” p. 574, W.Tchertkoff, Actes Sud, 2006.
RAD attempted to pass off the Abstracts as the Proceedings, an absurd substitution of terms, as I think you will concede. In the version of events presented by RAD, the Proceedings were sold before the conference?2 On 4 July 2011, Dr Neira repeated word for word the terms of the fallacious reply of 2007 in the email message sent to Mrs. Katz. This fact has scandalized and disappointed us. It confirms that the censorship that we are denouncing continues.
2 I attach the cover page of this volume which I have in my possession since the morning of the 4 June 2001!
2. In relation to censorship, Dr Hiroshi Nakajima, when questioned by Professor Michel Fernex in Kiev, was in no doubt as to the real nature of the proceedings that were promised to 700 participants at the conference which he had organized in November 1995, nor about the reasons for their nonpublication.
He explained in the clearest terms that the IAEA had not given its agreement because it has a major interest to protect3: the conclusions of its own conference to be held in March 1996 in Vienna, which contrary to that of Dr Nakajima, were to demonstrate that no serious health consequences resulted from the Chernobyl accident.
3 “Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement”. Article 1, §3. Of the WHO/IAEA Agreement (Res. WHA 12.40, 28 May 1959).
Here is Dr Hiroshi Nakajima’s declaration to Swiss television:
M.Fernex.—Why were the proceedings we had ordered not published?
H.Nakajima.—Because it was a conference organized jointly with the IAEA. This was the problem. M.Fernex.—Is this WHO conference here more free than in Geneva?
H.Nakajima.—Here, I am no more Director General, I am a private person.
W.Tchertkoff.—Don’t you think that the link between WHO and IAEA impaired the liberty of WHO?
H.Nakajima.—I was Director General, and I was responsible. But it’s mainly my legal department... Because the IAEA reports directly to the Security Council of the UN. And we, all specialized agencies, report to the Economic and Social Development Council. The organization which reports of the Security Council—not hierarchically, we are all equal—but for atomic affairs, military use and peaceful or civil use, they have the authority.
The evidence is clear. Dr Nakajima in no way denies the non-publication of the Conference Proceedings; on the contrary, he provides the explanation that we all know: the real hierarchical relationship between the WHO and the IAEA in nuclear matters, codified by the Convention on Assistance of September 1986. This Convention expropriates de facto, from the WHO, its principal functions in health matters in the case of an accident, attributing them to the IAEA. With no competence in health matters, it is the atomic energy agency that acts as directing and coordinating authority “to facilitate prompt assistance in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency to minimize its consequences and to protect life, property and the environment from the effects of radioactive releases.” (Convention on Assistance, art.1, 1; art. 3; art. 5). The WHO is not mentioned in any of the Articles of the Convention. If the Proceedings of the Conference had been published as you assert, the ex-Director General would have replied to Professor Fernex five years later: “No no, you are mistaken...”
Dear Dr Chan, we are in the domain of irrefutable fact. Hiroshi Nakajima is responsible for his legal interpretation, as you acknowledged during our meeting on 4 May, and you might have acted differently from him—but you cannot deny that he confirms, in his reply, that the Proceedings were never published.
During the meeting with you, we welcomed your various declarations which corrected WHO’s previous position on a number of points. This encouraged us to believe that a serious dialogue could indeed by established between us. But we cannot take seriously Dr Neira’s attempt to pass off “a selection of 12 articles” published in the Quarterly Journal of Health Statistics of WHO as the Proceedings of the 1995 Conference—an event of immense wealth and historic significance. We know that the Proceedings of a scientific conference are composed of three parts:
1. Summaries of contributions (abstracts),
2. Summaries of discussions held during the conference
3. Recommendations (conclusions) of the conference.
Professor Michel Fernex was present at the 1995 Conference and he described the essentials to us. This is what made us decide to film the “rejoinder” in Kiev; the arguments and the protagonists were the same but they were confronting a much worsened health situation in the contaminated territories.
Extract from Professor Fernex’s report
“In 1995, Dr Hiroshi Nakajima, Director-General of WHO, organized an international conference in Geneva from 20 to 23 November, on “Consequences of Chernobyl and other radiation accidents and their influence on human health” At this conference, presided by M. Y. Fujita, Governor of the Prefecture of Hiroshima, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the explosion of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl were considered as comparable radiological accidents. Important differences were noted between these two kinds of accidents (the three explosions must be termed “accidents” in this milieu). The Geneva Conference cannot be referenced4, as the Proceedings disappeared or were censored, so it is useful to recall its objectives which were clearly set out in the programme5 :
4 Health consequences of Chernobyl and other radiological accidents. International Conference organized by the WHO in Geneva, 20-23 November 1995. Proceedings not published.
5 Programme of the International Conference organized by the WHO in Geneva, from 20-23 November 1995. Consequences of Chernobyl and other radiation accidents and their influence on human health. The programme is available from WHO, Geneva. WHO/EHG/1995.
• To present the principal results of the first phase of the international program on health effects of Chernobyl accident (IPHECA).
• To compare the obtained results to the results of similar research, related to the health effects of Chernobyl accident.
• To improve (and to update) awareness of the type, the total extent and the harm for health of the Chernobyl accident, as known presently and to be foreseen in the future.
• To make new results of research concerning consequences of other radioactive accidents, available, in order to give more complete information on their health effects.
• To study the effectiveness of the protective measures undertaken in the area of public health during and after the accidents, and to offer recommendations for the future.
• To ensure the development and/or to clarify the state of knowledge concerning the consequences of influence of radiation on human health.
• To provide information on existing or future research within the framework of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
• To earmark the interesting tenden
cies and changes, which should become an object of steadfast attention of the researchers.
The conference program convinced the health authorities of the most affected countries and 700 doctors and experts to participate. The IAEA mobilized unconditional supporters of the nuclear industry. Thus, contradictory opinions were expressed which made the debate very lively. Representatives of the nuclear lobby attempted to prevent dialogue and Professor S. Yarmonenko of Moscow’s Centre for Oncology with extreme vehemence,- insisted that in the future, organizers of conferences on this subj ect should exclude any speaker who attempted to discuss the effects of low dose radiation. It appears that this exclusion did indeed become the rule for the international conferences which followed. The presentations, discussions and posters were never published.
The luxurious 519 page document which sets out the facts and figures collected in Phase 1 of the IPHECA pilot project “Health consequences of the Chernobyl accident”, confirms that the WHO intervened far too late in Chernobyl, in an accident that a majority of citizens considered an “emergency”. For five years, the IAEA appropriated the knowledge, and collaborated with health authorities on the measures to be taken for the population, the concern being to reduce expenditure and discontinue victim compensation.
Not only did the WHO fail to respect its Constitution which stipulates that it intervene in a timely fashion, but it also failed to act as the coordinating and directing authority in all international health matters, as set out in its Constitution. At the meetings where the destiny of populations was to be decided, WHO’s expert was Professor Pellerin, unconditional supporter of nuclear power 6. Five years after the catastrophe, the WHO was able to start work in “selected” areas, including dental caries in children as one of the priority studies. Hereditary genetic effects, which a WHO expert committee7 had previously considered a priority, were “forgotten”.
6 Belbeoch B. and Belbeoch R. : Tchernobyl, une catastrophe. Quelques elements pour un bilan. Edition Allia, 16 rue Charlemagne, Paris IVe, pp 220. 1993.
7 WHO. Effect of radiation on human heredity. Report of a Study Group convened by WHO together with Papers presented by various members of the group. WHO, Palais des Nations, Geneva, 1957.
As the presentations made at the Geneva Conference remain unpublished, it is useful to recall the words of certain participants, such as Martin Griffiths, of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs of the UN, in Geneva. This speaker noted that the truth had not been told to populations and reminded the conference that people were still living in contaminated areas. He requested that
assistance and studies continue, because without money, everything would cease. He noted that 9 million people were affected and that the negative health consequences continued to increase” 8
8 “La catastrophe de Tchemobyl et la sante” in Chroniques sur la Bielorussie contemporaine—L’Harmattan, 2001.
Dr Chan, you promised us that you would undertake a serious investigation. The most simple, direct and truthful way to do this was to speak to your peer, Dr Hiroshi Nakajima himself. He is the person who was censored. In 2007, I sent him a copy of my book and we invited him to the press conference that we organized in Geneva on 27th June hoping to be able to speak with him in more depth. He sent us a reply via his wife stating that he did not wish to cause you any embarrassment. In the spirit of transparency that you declare you are inaugurating in WHO’s relations with the public, perhaps you would consider freeing Dr Nakajima from his sensitivity with regard to yourself.
This is my dedication to Dr Nakajima that I wrote in the copy of the book “The Crime of Chernobyl” that I offered him:
“To Doctor Hiroshi Nakajima, with respect and gratitude for his testimony to the truth; for his research on the impact of an H Bomb on Boston, in which victims are deprived of assistance; for having shown the end of civilization that would result from the nuclear winter and the famine after a limited nuclear war ...
I am grateful for your attempt to study the consequences of Chernobyl in 1995, studies which were censored by the IAEA, which manages and minimizes medical problems in this area in the interests of proliferation of commercial nuclear power.”
The testimonies assembled in this book demonstrate the suffering of populations irradiated by the Chernobyl accident. This subject has become a source of permanent disinformation which is a shocking and disturbing state of affairs.”
Yours sincerely,
Alison Katz, Bruno Boussagol, Maryvonne David-Jougneau, Paul Roullaud.
Wladimir Tchertkoff For IndependentWHO [email protected]
GLOSSARY
ACTIVITY
Activity is a measure of the amount of radioactivity present in a material (inert or living). It is measured by the number of disintegrations per second. One becquerel (Bq) represents one disintegration per second.
The bequerel is far too small a unit to measure the amount of radioactivity in the core of a reactor or in material released following an accident, and therefore the old unit, a curie (Ci) is used, which corresponds to 37 billion becquerels. At Chernobyl several tens of millions of Ci were released. In order to measure the contamination of large areas of land, we use curies per square kilometre (Ci/km2) (See page 160,193, 350, 356-359, 363.) But when we are looking at biological effects, a curie is far too large a unit and we use the becquerel. The radioactivity in food produced on contaminated soil, and in the human body if it has eaten this food (internal contamination) is measured in becquerels per kilogram (Bq/kg).
ABSORBED DOSE
RAD AND GRAY
When radiation passes through matter it loses energy. It is on the basis of the amount of energy absorbed in the matter that we evaluate the level of radiation, the absorbed dose. It is measured in rad or in gray (1 gray = 100 rad)
THE EFFECT ON THE ORGANISM
REM AND SIEVERT
The effect of radiation on the organism depends on the absorbed dose and on the type of radiation (α, β, γ). To evaluate the biological impact of radiation, the absorbed dose is assigned a radiation weighting factor that relates to the degree of biological damage produced by that type of radiation. Alpha particles (α) are very effective, and are assigned a radiation weighting factor 20 times that of beta particles (β) or of gamma radiation (γ).
This is how we obtain equivalent dose. It is measured in rem or sievert (1 sievert— 100 rem). When there is no possibility of ambiguity, the term “dose” is used instead of the “equivalent dose”. To describe the effect on people, the commonly used term “dose” (sievert [Sv], millisievert/year [mSv/yr], or microsievert/hour [μSv/hr]) therefore does not indicate the energy, but the biological impact of the energy absorbed in a given tissue, the damage caused to the organism.
Lifetime dose: this is the radiation dose that an individual living in a contaminated area will receive if he lives there for seventy years. (See the controversy surrounding the theory of “35 rem lifetime dose” introduced by Dr Iline, (page 36-38, 68, 106, 144, 234, 431).
SOME REFERENCE POINTS
Since 1990 the International Commission for Radiological Protection has recommended an annual dose limit for workers in the nuclear industry of 20 millisieverts (2 rem). Before that it was 50 millisieverts (5 rem).
The annual dose limit recommended for the general public since 1985 is 1 millisievert (0.1 rem). Before it was 0.5 rem (5 millisievert). According to the IAEA norms, no radioprotection measures are necessary below 1 mSv/yr. V. Nesterenko recommends a limit of 0.3 mSv/yr for children (see page 162, 238). According to a law passed in Belarus in 2001, radioprotection measures need to be maintained even if the annual charge drops from 1 mSv/yr to 0.1 mSv/yr (page 472-473).
These limits do not define a threshold dividing dangerous from harmless exposures. Any dose of radiation carries a risk and the limits proposed by international experts are based on economic considerations to avoid any obstacles
to the development of the nuclear industry (see page 300 “The illusion of norms”).
The international norms are based on the principle that the risk to health is proportional to the dose received and that any dose of radiation carries a risk of cancer or to the genes.(ICRP 1990). Exposure to artificial radiation (including nuclear weapons testing) has caused numerous cancers worldwide. According to official United Nations figures it has caused 1.17 million deaths since 1945. The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) puts the figure at 61.1 million deaths. (See Yury Bandazhevsky’s view on page 189–192.)
RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIFE
Radioactive half-life is the time required for half the radioactive elements to disappear. At the end of a certain period, only half the initial radioactivity remains; at the end of two periods, a quarter, etc. After ten periods, only a thousandth remains. There is no threshold below which there is no biological effect from radiation.
Half-life varies considerably between one isotope and another, from a fraction of a second to millions or billions of years. Iodine-131 (8.04 days); caesium-134 (2.06 years); caesium-137 (30 years); strontium-90 (29.1 years); plutonium-239 (24,065 years).
Thus, when we consider elements with a short half-life, perhaps a week, these will be giving off considerable radioactivity for several months. Elements whose half-life is a few years to a few decades will remain active for a few decades or centuries. Plutonium, which is not only very long-lived but very toxic, will remain active for hundreds of thousands of years.
(Source: Bella and Roger Belbeoch, Tchernobyl, une catastrophe, Ed.Allia, 1993)
INDEX OF NAMES
A
Galia ACKERMAN 15, 78, 239
Ales ADAMOVICH 74, 112, 113, 114, 235, 540, 552, 583
The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag Page 82
