Marginal notes to the report "Health Effect of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes" (2005)

September 5, 2005, (evidently on the threshold of the UN Millennium Summit of 14-16 September) in London, Vienna, Washington and Toronto a “historic” survey paper “Chernobyl’s Heritage: Medical, Ecological, Social and Economic Effects” was presented to the public. The report was prepared by the “Chernobyl Forum” – an expert group that was formed in 2003 on the initiative of the IAEA with representatives from the IAEA, World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), World Bank, and a number of governmental organizations in Belorussia, Russia and the Ukraine. The paper (about 600 pages) consists of three volumes. These notes address one of them – “Health Effect of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes” (Report to the UN Chernobyl Forum , Expert Group “Health” (EGH)”, Working Draft, August 31, 2005, 179 p.), which is available at the IAEA site (www.iaea.org) under the aegis of WHO.

Here are some general remarks. The report was based on the traditional methodology of the IAEA/WHO, which is used for research into radiation effects, and its one-sided and preconceived approach has many times been noted by scientists. A core principle of this methodology is evaluation of the radiation impact (and the risk of diseases) based on the data on results of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These data mostly address a different sort of radiation impact (mainly external, instant, in big doses). It’s noteworthy that they were falsified from the very beginning, because there was a strict ban on collection of any data for a long time. So the start of “scientific” statistics dates back to 1950 – when a great number of victims had already died. However, even after 1950 the extent of the research was not satisfactory. For example, radiation impact on tens of thousands of Korean war prisoners, whose camps were located near the Japanese cities, was not taken into account.

The same tragic scenario was repeated after the Chernobyl accident. Not occupation authorities, but the state officials made monstrous decisions to restrict access to details and effects of the disaster and deliberately forge medical records. Pressure-free researches into the health of the population of contaminated with Chernobyl radionuclides regions in the Ukraine Belorussia and Russia were only started several years later after the accident, when the immediate effects were already difficult to scientifically register. This fully refers to the reconstruction of radiation doses. On the first days after radioactive fallout from the burning fourth block of the NPP, the concentration of short-lived radionuclides was thousand fold higher. Taking into account this and the high spottiness of radioactive fallout, the efforts to reconstruct individual doses from concentrations of radionuclides in the environment several years later (which is given much attention in the report) looks like aimed to distract from exposing real effects of the accident.

It’s worth noting another fact that makes the presented report scientifically vulnerable: it is the obvious partiality of experts from the IAEA and WHO. According to the principle that dates back to the Roman law, you can’t be a judge in our own home. However, evaluation of effects of the nuclear industry’s development was commissioned to specialists who have close contacts with the industry. This situation is called the “conflict of interests”. According to its by-laws, the main goal of the IAEA’s activities is proliferation of “peaceful atom”. The connection with the nuclear industry predetermines inevitable prejudice of any evaluations by the IAEA. This prejudice also affects the World Health Organization (WHO): there is an agreement between the IAEA and the WHO from 1958, which makes WHO seek for approval of the IAEA on all atomic issues[i].

In the report this partiality is openly declared with a demand to consider publications only from the selected range of scientific journals. This means those, in whose editorial boards (and, hence, among reviewers) there are specialists connected to atomic industry. Because of the conflict of interests such specialists oppose publications that show negative impacts of nuclear technologies. Then, after the general remarks, there are some comments on particular chapters of the report addressing specific effects of the Chernobyl accident to the health.

Chapter 6, addressing the impact of the accident on thyroid gland is the most detailed. However, a small note, given in a previous chapter, cancels many pages of delusively cogent arguments – there is an old suspicion that such short-lived radionuclides as iodine-132, iodine-133, tellurium-131m and tellurium-132 are not less (or even more) contributory to thyroid gland cancer than iodine-131 (p.19). In this case all “pinpoint accurate” evaluations of risks of thyroid gland cancer, based exceptionally on iodine-131, are not accurate at all.

Mentioning 4000 registered and operated cases of thyroid gland cancer in

Russia

, the

Ukraine

and

Belorussia

, the authors of the report avoid discussing prognoses about how many more cases are going to occur in the future. The report also does not consider the “inconvenient” forecast of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lion (France), according to which we can expect (in several regions of

Belorussia

and

Russia

alone!) about 60 thousand extra cases of thyroid gland cancer. The authors of the report didn’t pay attention to the fact that thyroid gland cancer is just the tip of the iceberg in the whole chain of pathologic modifications of this organ as a result of radiation. For every case of cancer there are many tens of cases of serious modifications in this vitally important endocrine gland. As the slightest changes of this gland strongly influence the whole body, this certainly should be considered as one of the effects of the accident, which affected the health of several hundred thousand people.

There is another evidence of how “impartial” the report is: following the rule “if it wasn’t mentioned in the journals we chose, there’s no reason to speak about this”, the authors of the report neglected the information about hundreds of cases of thyroid gland cancer in France, in the areas, where most of the Chernobyl fallout were regiostered on the first several days after the accident.

Chapter 7 addresses leucaemia. Leucaemia is one of few specific effects (markers) of radiation. That’s why the cases of leucaemia (especially among children and babies) are very revealing. Such cases are a red mark on the general map of radiation effects: once there is leucaemia, there must also be many other radiation effects. The inclusion of this chapter in the report is a retreat of nuclear workers from the positions they used to take several years ago. Till recently the atomic specialists stated: there are no statistics on increasing number of cases of leucaemia caused by Chernobyl radiation. These statements have always received distrust from the scientific community and they were followed by explanations that it’s late to calculate cases of acute leucaemia in the territories of the Ukraine, Russia and Belorussia (ases of the disease and deaths as a result of leucaemia were not registered during the first several years either because of bad medical service or because of inevitable falsification of such data, in compliance with the secret instructions).

The report admits there is some information about leucaemia in scientific research papers. However, this is done with partiality. There are two examples. In the section about infant leucaemia a number of publications from the journals (considered as worth mentioning by the authors of the report in other cases) are not indicated (probably because the ideas of these works contradict the conclusions made by the authors of the report). In the section addressing children’s leucaemia a research by Parkin at al. (1993) is mentioned, which demonstrated statistically significant differences in frequency of acute leucaemia before and after the accident. However, the authors of the report smartly avoid consideration of these data: “Though a number of cases of leucaemia in 1987-1988 statistically significantly increased compared to the assumed (based on frequency) level for 1980-1985., there is no proof that this growth is bigger in the territories, which were most affected by Chernobyl radiation”. The authors of the report are well aware that leucaemia is not caused by current radiation, but the one emitted several years ago. So the current contamination of the territories can’t directly cause leucaemia. Nevertheless, they say that “existing proofs does not support the conclusion that the level of infant leucaemia increased as a result of radioactive contamination caused by the Chernobyl accident…” It’s indicative that the authors of the report give no explanation of the growth in number of these leucaemia cases.

Chapter 8 addressing other cancers (besides leucaemia and thyroid gland cancer) starts with reminding ten million cases of cancer registered annually and six million deaths. The report recognizes (at last!) a statistically significant growth in number of cancer diseases among liquidators and breast cancer among women in the contaminated territories. Having noted that the latency time for cancer (20 years) after the radiation impact is coming to the end soon, the authors of the report make scientifically ill grounded conclusions: no considerable growth in number of cancer cases is expected; the number of deaths caused by cancer, which will occur in the future, won’t exceed 4000 (this will be about 3% of the total number of cancer deaths and it’ll be “difficult to detect”). The deliberate concealment will hardly be able to help mitigate the impacts of the Chernobyl accident. No doubt, in the next few years we’ll face the problem of a real cancer epidemic in all affected territories.

The report for the first time recognizes, though with numerous reservations, the existence of others – not cancer – diseases, caused by the Chernobyl accident. It’s recognized (Chapter 10) that not only acute and intense irradiation (as with liquidators), but also low-level irradiation of the population leads to cataracts – defects in the structure of lens and other morphofunctional defects of the eye.

In Chapter 11 (about cardiovascular diseases) they use the same trick as mentioned above concerning infant leucaemia: not to take into account detailed researches, which demonstrate a statistically significant growth in number of deaths as a result of cardiovascular diseases in the contaminated territories, the say that “the group didn’t have appropriate data at their disposal on national researches analyzing connection between radiation doses and diseases and deaths”, “there’s no evident connection between cardiovascular diseases and increased doses of radiation”. Thus, they make the following vague conclusion: “… the available date, though are not sufficient to speak about dependence of the growth in cardiovascular diseases on radiation, still may mean some influence…”(p.113).

The text of a small Chapter 12 “Cytogenetic Markers: Their Use and Function” looks like a chapter from a scientific monograph. Discussing methods of cytogenetic analysis, the authors avoid acknowledging the evident fact: many researches showed defects in chromosomal apparatus of people affected by the Chernobyl radiation. It’s fairly noted that in cytogenetic publications there’s no evidence of connection between the registered chromosomal malfunctions and the person’s health. However, taking into account found by many scientists levels of malfunctioning in genetic apparatus (by the way, not only in people, but also wild mammals, fish, birds, plants), it is inevitable that in the course of next ten generations various genetic defects (mutations) will occur and they will be accumulated in gene pool, and genetic instability can be one of the most serious results of the Chernobyl accident. The fact that genetic malfunctions will inevitably lead to hereditary and other diseases and growth in the number of deaths does not need to be proved by the Chernobyl researchers, this has already been proved many times before. The analysis of genetic impacts seems to be deliberately avoided, because otherwise the terrific statistics on victims and those people who will be victims in next generations (according to different estimations, from hundreds of thousands to many millions) would have to be revealed. By the way, there is no word “instability” in the report.

In Chapter 13 “Immunologic Affects to the Health” they say that only if liquidators were exposed to significant doses of radiation, their immunologic alterations can be a result of radiation. According to the authors of the report, other researches, including those in children’s immunology, have contradictory conclusions and, on the whole, it’s hardly possible that a low-level radiation could affect the immune status more than other factors (stress, for example). Such a vague wording in the report distract the reader’s attention an important biological question: the registered almost everywhere in the contaminated territories immunodeficiency has to result in the growth in the frequency and exacerbation of most acute and chronic diseases. This is what happens in many regions and it was even called the “Chernobyl AIDS”. There’s not a single word about this in the report!

The main conclusions in Chapter 14 addressing the children’s health are: there are no reliable data about dependence of the number of congenital malformations on the level of radiation; there are no data on increasing infant mortality in the contaminated territories; the data on miscarriages and other complications during a pregnancy period are not sufficient to make conclusions, and, in general, there’s no proof that radiation makes direct impact on the children’s health in the contaminated territories.

There are important recognitions behind these conclusions. It is recognized that a number of babies with the Down's syndrome increased sharply in

Belorussia

in January 1987 (among those being conceived in the first month after the accident). It’s acknowledged that from 1986 to 1994 the number of babies with congenital malformations grew significantly all over

Belorussia

. The authors of the report did not mention that in the publications, which they refer to, there is information about the growth in number of babies who died because of malformations of the nervous system, the growth in number of abortions with congenital malformations in the most contaminated regions.

Materials of this chapter also give grounds to reproach the authors of the report with incorrect interpretation of the date they use. Using the data of Lazjuk et al. (2003; 1999) about the higher level of nine congenital malformations in less contaminated regions compared to more contaminated ones (and even giving the diagram from this research – Pic. 14.1), the authors of the report “forget” to mention that this “strange” at first sight situation can be explained by the fact that there’s a special program of abortions as dangerous for life congenital malformations are detected during pregnancy (the annual level of additional abortions for medical reasons is several hundreds for the considered regions).

The last chapter of those addressing specific diseases is Chapter 15 “Mental, Psychological Effects and Impacts on the Central Nervous System”. The authors of the report admit that “The impact of the Chernobyl on the mental health is so far the most serious health problem, caused by the accident” (P.135). The most serious are thought to be psychological effects caused by stresses, radiophobia mainly as a result of the lack of information, “victimization”, etc. It is said, referring to the research of WHO on the project “Brain Injury “in uretro” (WHO, 1995b), that “radiation-exposed children did not show the increased level of retarded mentality compared to the control group”. This statement is amazing because actually this particular research of WHO (see “Medical Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, Geneva, 1995, pp. 442-445, Table 1.V.5) has revealed such deviations! This scientific falsification alone, made by the authors of the report, demonstrates the quality of the report.

The authors of the report admit importance of researches, which showed that liquidators, who were exposed to significant doses of radiation, have structural lesions of the brain. Commenting these outstanding research works of Ukrainian scientists ((Loganovsky & Loganovskaja, 2000 et al.), which detected considerable influence of radiation not only on mentality, but also brain structures, which were world-renowned and more than once published by the leading profile journals, the authors of the report say (p.134) that: “unfortunately, these finds were not grounded by independent researches and the biological basis of these connections was not demonstrated”.

In chapter 16 addressing the issue of mortality caused by the Chernobyl radiation, it is stated that this mortality is the total number of people, who died in 1986-2004 because of acute radiation sickness and the exceed over the number of deaths over the spontaneous level for liquidators and people, who were exposed to radiation fallout in Belorussia, the Ukraine and Russia. However, it is also emphasized that: “Actually, the real number of deaths as a result of the accident can hardly be ever found”. (p. 138). Nevertheless the authors of the report give the forecast with astonishing accuracy – 4726 more deaths in Russian within next 95 years after the accident, Leaving along the fact that, according to the laws of genetics, the effects of the accident will occur not for 95 years, but in the long chain of generations (and up to 7-10 generation these impacts will increase), the forecast of the report does not take into account such effects, caused by the Chernobyl radiation, as:

It’s clear that in their estimations the authors of the report by several orders underestimate the real rate of diseases and deaths caused by the Chernobyl radiation. The prognosis given in the report is based on the UN model of radiation risk MKP3 1991/НКДР (2000)( which has been many times criticized). The coefficient of those rare (from the long list of risks) included in the MKP3 model cancers are understated, at least, 100 times[ii].

The level of scientific impartiality of the report can be seen from the fact that the whole blocks of data about impacts of the Chernobyl accident are not considered there, in particular:

The authors of the report are certainly deliberately omitted the problem of liquidators and didn’t include them in a separate chapter. This is a group that received the most profound research in the perspective of both dose metering and detecting the radiation impact. Or order to conceal the real scale of the catastrophe the report does not address its impacts on the health of population in other countries besides

Belorussia

, the

Ukraine

and

Russia

. In some European countries (Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, Poland, Bulgaria, Austria, Greece, Turkey and others) already in first months after the accident important research works were conducted and their results could be extrapolated to the contaminated territories of the Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia (where such works were banned or irreversibly falsified).

The report can be of interest for specialists as a collection of data and arguments, which deliberately minimize the impacts of the Chernobyl accident. Make the objective information available for the public, the funding is necessary (by order less that it was used to organize four numerous meetings of experts of the IAEA/WHO in Geneva) to prepare another more realistic outlook on medical effects of the accident.

A special reproach should address 15 specialists from the

Ukraine

Russia

and

Belorussia

, who participated in this report. Despite of thousands of scientific works in these countries, covering and analyzing a great deal of materials, impacts of the accident are mostly estimated in the report, based on by order less in number works of western authors. This neglect of national researches is another example of partiality of the authors of the report.

On the whole, the report is a desperate attempt to distort the real picture of impacts of radiation contamination in the northern hemisphere on the human health as a result of the explosion at the fourth block of the Chernobyl NPP 20 years ago. It by orders underestimated the scale and consequences of this largest in the history man-caused disaster.

of the International Social and Ecological Union and the Center for Ecological Policy of

Russia

[i] Yablokov A.V. 2001. Myth about Insignificant impacts of the Chernobyl Accident. Moscow, Center for Ecological Policy of Russia, 112p. .

[ii] EKPP-2003. Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk. Detecting impacts of the ionizing radiation in small doses on the human health aimed at radiation protection. Regulating edition. Brussels, 2003. Translated from English into Russian – 2004, Moscow, Center for Ecological Policy of Russia, 218 p. (www.euradcom.org2003).

Сети МСоЭС

Дела МСоЭС

Программы МСоЭС
  Проекты и кампании
   членов МСоЭС

СоЭС-издат

Специальные проекты

Информационные партнёры:


О нас \| История и Успехи \| Миссия \| Манифест

Сети МСоЭС

Дела МСоЭС

Программы МСоЭС Проекты и кампании членов МСоЭС

СоЭС-издат

Специальные проекты

Информационные партнёры:

Программы МСоЭС
Проекты и кампании
членов МСоЭС