The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag

by Wladimir Tchertkoff

  3. THE BEGINNINGS OF AN AMBIGUOUS TURNAROUND IN FRANCE ?

  Extracts from the IRSN document followed by my comments.

  IRSN—ECRR does not question the radioprotection system as it applies to external radiation but has significant criticisms to make about its application in the case of internal contamination by radionuclides. The committee believes that current evaluations underestimate the risk from internal contamination and it bases its argument partly on work published in the scientific literature. […] [it] tries to respond to this lacuna by proposing to change the ICRP radioprotection system and to reduce, arbitrarily, the annual exposure limits. The questions posed by ECRR are perfectly valid, but nevertheless the arguments put forward for changing the system are not convincing, because taken as a whole, the evidence does not fulfil the criteria for a rigorous and coherent scientific approach […].

  Commentary—Entrenched in the routine and the need for consistency within the official doctrine that originated with the American bombs and not the fire at Chernobyl (science’s black boxes73, as the experts from the ECRR call them), the IRSN puts a brake on the urgency of recognising the limitations of this dogma and prevents the adoption of appropriate measures to protect the population

  73 ECRR, op.cit. p.29 and following pages.

  While admitting its own ignorance and acknowledging that the criticisms are valid, the IRSN quibbles about the form and presentation of these criticisms—anything to avoid facing the possibility that there is a fundamental error in “the doctrine” that might force them to rethink the whole issue. Aurengo displayed the same attitude, though Professor Lacronique did at least admit that it was “embarrassing”.

  IRSN.—Internal contamination results from transcutaneous absorption of radionuclides deposited on skin, or incorporated through ingestion, inhalation or through a wound. One of the challenges of radioprotection is to predict the risks associated with this sort of exposure. This assessment is difficult because it requires knowledge of the correlation between the quantity of incorporated radionuclides and the emergence of pathologies.

  —It’s been done. The correlation has been established. Why not go and see Bandazhevsky and Nesterenko who have been studying the subject for the last fifteen years? At Chernobyl—the laboratory about which a certain French professor was so enthusiastic74—there is no need to predict the risk, but to observe the illness, study it and provide care of the patients. There are millions of human guinea pigs in perfect condition for the experiment.

  74 See interview with Y. Shcherbak, Part One, Chapter IV, p.38.

  IRSN.—[…] Usable data to determine these specific risk coefficients is hard to come by because normally, it is very difficult to link observed pathologies with precise levels of exposure […].

  —Not at all! There is a mass of data on internal contamination in the Chernobyl area, mostly collected by Western agencies,75 though not for the purposes of making a correlation with illness. As for the scientists who have researched and established the exact level for a lethal exposure, the IRSN is well acquainted with them. It does everything it can to prevent their work.

  75 See Part Three, Chapter VI, p.245, and Part Four, Chapter II, p.264 and following pages.

  IRSN.—In fact, the only data available for research concerns people exposed to radon 222, thorium 232 in the form of thorotrast, isotopes of radium and finally plutonium 239. The main pathologies that have been listed after exposure to these radionuclides are lung, liver and bone cancer, and leukaemia.

  Incredible! Chernobyl is three hours away by plane. There you will find plenty of caesium-137, and strontium-90 and millions of people exposed… No, contaminated by chronic incorporation of these radioactive particles through their food. As for the main pathologies, they are not listed at Chernobyl because it is forbidden. It would be “embarrassing”. For the people living there, every stage of their life, from gestation onwards, is accompanied by all kinds of somatic illness. Cancers are only the tip of the iceberg.

  IRSN.—In the case of epidemiological studies, many people thought that it was possible to understand the effects of chronic internal exposure by extrapolating from our knowledge of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chernobyl accident, that has played a revelatory role in this area, shows that it is not so simple.

  The statements published in recent years could therefore be revised. One reason for this is that it is now evident that the toxicity of an element is a complex variable that depends in part on the product, its concentration in the organism and how long it has been there (effects of proximity, Author’s note). On this point, there has long been a theory according to which the incorporation of 100 Bq in one day was equivalent to 1 Bq incorporated for 100 days. This is true mathematically but not biologically. The second reason is that reference is being made more and more frequently to research that shows that the ingestion of contaminated food in Belarus has led to a significant number of illnesses and birth defects of all sorts amongst the population (Bandazhevsky, 2001). Although this research is not accepted by the international scientific community, it serves to maintain doubt in the public mind and for that reason should be followed up.

  —Who, in the international scientific community, decides to accept or not accept a study? After all, the studies undertaken by Yury Bandazhevsky, Galina Bandazhevskaya and Vassili Nesterenko were published in Cardinale and Swiss Medical Weekly76.

  76 Y.I. Bandazhevsky, “Cardiomyopathie au césium-137”, Cardinale, tome XV, No 8, October 2003; Y.I. Bandazhevsky, “Chronic Cs-137 incorporation in children’s organs”, SMW, 2003, 133, p.488–490; G.S. Bandazhevskaya et al., “Relationship between Caesium (Cs-137) load, cardiovascular symptoms, and source of food in “Chernobyl” children—preliminary observations after intake of oral apple pectin”, SMW, 2004, 134, p.725–729;V.B. Nesterenko et al., “Reducing the Cs-137 load in the organism of “Chernobyl” children with apple pectin”, SMW, 2004, 134, p.24–27.

  IRSN.—The most publicised of these studies attests to the number of illnesses experienced by people living in Belarus, affecting the cardiovascular, the central nervous, digestive, respiratory, immune, reproductive systems, as well as the thyroid and the kidneys (Bandazhevsky, 2001).The author links these illnesses to the continued exposure to caesium-137 present in the region. […]The interest in all of these studies is that they show or seem to show effects that were not suspected before, when studies were based only on the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or on acute radiation experiments on animals. This seems to suggest, even if the available data is partial, that chronicity plays a part in the toxicity of radionuclides. Research should be done on the subject to understand these effects better and to further refine the radioprotection system.

  —Yes, that’s good, but what is striking about this late concession, what makes one feel uneasy while reading this document, is the absence of any mention of the need to offer urgent prophylactic radioprotective measures to the people who have been contaminated, living in the territories around Chernobyl. It is like conducting a sociological study of the Auschwitz survivors rather than liberating them. Everyone has their own profession, of course. Experts and scientists are not nurses. But the physicist Nesterenko and the anatomopathologist Bandazhevsky are not nurses either. What is the point of the IRSN? It could at least recommend immediate action, take a stand, get its hands dirty politically. Make a humanitarian gesture.

  IRSN.—An appropriate effort needs to be made to support new studies that are being launched soon on other cohorts of workers in Europe, more specifically exposed to certain radioelements such as uranium. The aim of these studies is to target populations where internal contamination has been correctly estimated, to follow their cases over a period of twenty years and to record a number of health indicators (cancer, leukaemia, chronic kidney disease, pulmonary, cardio-vascular…). These studies will be undertaken within the framework of the European Union. They will ev
entually increase our knowledge of the risks to health from low level internal exposure.

  This fine programme that brings the IRSN document to a close does nothing to relieve our uneasiness. It sends shivers down one’s spine. How does one “target over twenty years” the contaminated population and “record a number of health indicators”, if inadvertently, the human guinea pigs are decontaminated by effective prophylactic cures? But wisely they abstain from this. The text talks about “other cohorts of workers in Europe”. Is the crime of Chernobyl, financed by European tax payers, an officially planned programme? All that is needed is not to “target” people who have been seriously contaminated with any effective radioprotection.77

  77 See CORE programme, Part Four, Chapter III, p. 277.

  4. THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCIENTISTS

  The difficulties surrounding the independence of scientists was discussed at the People’s Permanent Tribunal (previously the Russell tribunal): “Chernobyl: Consequences on the Environment, Health and Human Rights” that took place in Vienna, Austria, between 12–15th April 1996.

  Professor Peter Weish, Human Ecology, University of Vienna.—I would like to come back to some questions that we discussed this morning, and to comment on a remark made by my friend Wolfgang Kromp, who said that we should not accuse persons for their responsibility in this catastrophe.[…] I would like to object to this view.[…]

  I would like to answer the question of whether it is possible to separate people from the system, Yes and no, it must be possible. We should create more sensitivity and awareness of the fact that people tend to be slaves of the system. We should stress also the need for them to act in responsible way.[…]

  Everyone has some freedom in his actions, and therefore no excuse for an irresponsible behaviour. We must try to have an open discussion, beyond the borders of a specific situation, to address the IAEA and to discuss with those people personally, outside their respective organisations, to stress their personal responsibility. […]

  Therefore we have to stress the responsibility of individuals. Human rights should not be violated. One basic human right is to be able to influence the environment in which you are living. Another is to be able to act in a responsible ethical way. Thus to be enslaved by institutions, represents a violation of human rights. […] Scientists in particular have to liberate themselves from a system which reduces them to mere tools in the hands of industry.

  Dr Wolfgang Kromp.—Physicist, Nuclear Adviser to the Austrian Federal Chancellor:

  I wanted much more to draw your attention on the system, standing behind those individuals. These workers are like Martians and once you remove them, others will come.[…]

  We have to go to the roots, and we should not forget to take care of those people which are the victims of this cruel system.

  Dr Rosalie Bertell, Co-ordinator of the International Medical Commission—Chernobyl (IMCC), Toronto, Canada:

  In our economy, it is very clear that scientists are dependent people. Normally scientists are paid by government or universities, and the universities are paying them with government money, or by the industry.

  The public needs information, expertise, but it is not able to afford to pay scientists to help them to understand what the argument is.[…]

  We have created a very complex technological society, but we don’t provide the people, who are on the front-line of risk, with experts to help them to understand what is happening.

  In 1978 I started to publish research on the health effects of low-level radiation, by ordinary diagnostic X rays. I immediately experienced a cut-off of all my funding. My name was going out on a list “Do Not Fund”. In fact we even got a paper from the US National Cancer Institute, that said that, if I would like to change my line of research, they would consider refunding. I was so angry at that because it went against everything.[…]

  It is a very high penalty that scientists pay to speak out on these issues. They need to be protected by society. We need to recognise science working in the public interest. We need people who can speak out about a hazard, without economic and social penalties, which our society hands out very freely to them.

  5. SECOND INTERVIEW WITH BANDAZHEVSKY

  Bandazhevsky.—I would like to show you the doctoral thesis of the famous Dr Botkine, which he defended in 1888 in St Petersburg. It is entitled “Influence of rubidium and caesium salts on the heart and on blood circulation”. It was the great Pavlov who carried out the experiments. This means that the quality of the work was very high. The experiments were carried out on dogs using rubidium and caesium salts. The author shows that with a certain concentration of caesium chloride—10% caesium chloride—there is an alteration in heart activity, problems with cardiac rhythm, and then the heart stops completely.

  Q.—And all this has been forgotten?

  Bandazhevsky.—As always. What seems new is just old but forgotten, as the saying goes. But it confirms the fact that radioactivity is accompanied by a very damaging chemical effect. We are seeing the consequences of this.

  Q.—Would the toxic effect be more dangerous than the radioactivity?

  Bandazhevsky.—In the situation we have in front of us now, it is more dangerous.

  Nesterenko.—I would say that the two work in conjunction, a synergy.

  Bandazhevsky.—I agree. What Botkine showed was that caesium as a chemical element, is very active in biological structures. We are wrong to think that at that time people did not know how to conduct research. Their way of working was admirable. Pavlov was in charge of the experimental part, because for experimentation with dogs, people only had confidence in Pavlov, and Botkin analysed the results.

  Q.—When I talked to Doctor Tykhyy in Kiev, he told me about these cases that the doctors could not understand: the sudden death of men between 45–50 years old in apparently good health.

  Bandazhevsky.—This is exactly what I am talking about. Sudden cardiac arrest. People often point out that there were similar cases long before Chernobyl. It’s true but there is an explanation: we have discovered a series of official documents, from the Belarusian health services that show clearly that caesium has been present in the atmosphere, the biosphere and in food since the 1960s. Here is another little book, in fact, about the same thing: “Global fallout of Caesium-137 and Man” by Marei, 1974. It talks about the different concentrations of caesium present in food across the whole of the Soviet Union. Other studies were done on the same subject in 1975. We have even found a description of the effects of radioactive elements in a 1970 report by Professor Mascalev. But it was not about incorporated substances. He implies that there are some inside the body but concludes that they do not pose a danger. Now look at this map of Polessie that shows the different levels of microcuries per litre of milk. It reflects the situation in the 1960s. It’s in this book.

  Q.—Why Polessie? Surely it was the same situation throughout the Soviet Union?

  Bandazhevsky.—Of course. There are figures in this book for 1964, 1965…1969 for all the republics of the Soviet Union. Look: “Concentration of caesium-137 in the daily diet of the rural population”.

  Q.—This is due to the nuclear weapons tests?

  Bandazhevsky.—I have no way of knowing that. I am just an observer of the situation...By the way, the map that I showed you yesterday was given to me by scientists from the CEA. When I talked to them about Chernobyl, they said: “Come on, after Chernobyl, the concentration in the atmosphere was a quarter of what it was after a nuclear test”. In fact, on the map, you can see that the high point in the curve shows high levels of contamination in the atmosphere above Moscow in the 1960s and a much lower level after Chernobyl in 1986. I’m not sure what explosive yield the bomb had, it’s not my field...I’m not a physicist. It’s the consequences that I’m concerned with.

  Q.—Were they trying to minimise the seriousness of the disaster at Chernobyl?

&nb
sp; Bandazhevsky.—Probably. But they also helped me to understand the mechanisms better. I began to study mortality figures from cancer not only after 1986 but from 1974 and even from 1960. Almost coincidentally, our own Ministry of Health also began talking about the cancer registers, showing that tumours and cardiovascular disease had begun long before Chernobyl. It’s true. It started in the 60s. On the other hand, I was able to tell them something they didn’t know: after Scandinavian countries banned the sale of food products containing radioactive caesium, their mortality rates for cancer and for cardiovascular disease started to decrease. In our country, they are increasing.

  Q.—Have heart attacks, which have been the subject of so much discussion over the last few decades, always been as common as they are today?

  Bandazhevsky.—Interesting question…First of all, what is a heart attack? Myocardial infarction is a vascular necrosis that occurs when the vessel is blocked by an embolism and this prevents blood supply to the tissue. When I first began my career as an anatomical pathologist, I was asked to do autopsies on people who had died very suddenly, and this necrosis intrigued me. I never discovered it! I should have encountered the classic version though. Well, I have to tell you that I very rarely met classic cases of myocardial infarction, that is, necrosis of the heart muscle that would have caused death. But with caesium, it’s very different. It is not necrosis but cardiomyopathy, meaning a diffuse toxic effect across the whole heart muscle. Here it is! Look at this microphotograph. There is no muscle left. Is it the transverse myocardial band? On this photo there is still something left resembling a heart, muscular fibres with contractions. It was a child’s heart. Here, in an adult heart, you can see that there is no muscle left, just holes. You can see on that photo the toxic effect of caesium on an animal’s heart: myocardial dystrophy. If I put this heart in a glass, it will take the form of the glass. I am getting to your question. This sort of disease, diffuse myocarditis, that has appeared since the 1960s is much more common today than the classic infarction, even if it is called by the same name. Of course, caesium plays the same damaging role in causing classic infarction because it affects the coagulation of the blood and leads to thrombosis. This aspect has been well researched. We know all about it. But this new type of heart disease, this is the main harm caused by cesium…