The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag

by Wladimir Tchertkoff

  120 Described in Part One, Chapter V, p. 54.

  “Language plays a critical role in the construction of political lies”, as Jean-Philippe Jaccard observes. “It allows the powerful to name, define and describe the world, not as it really is but as they would like it be perceived by the population. It is true of all systems and starts at the level of vocabulary: in the USSR, they used the term “camp for re-education through work” to designate a concentration camp of the worst kind[…]. Linguists called this opacity, the loss of any connection between words and objects, a language artificially created and therefore false121”.

  121 Professor Jean-Philippe Jaccard, University of Geneva, Le Courrier, 7th June 2003.

  The archetype of the oxymoron is the famous Arbeit macht frei (work makes free) the sign placed by the Nazis over the entrance to Auschwitz. Financial support from the European Union for this propaganda about radiological quality in the Chernobyl gulag is essentially no different. Are European MPs aware of this or have they already been taken in by this scientific greenwash?

  • During a contentious discussion (CORE meeting on 12th July 2002 in Minsk), Norbert Jousten disagreed with Professor Kenisberg, and argued that local initiatives and an independent system of radiological control must be developed. He was therefore, defending Nesterenko’s position. Remember that Jousten was responsible for the four Belrad projects, which in 2002 were not under TACIS control, despite assertions to the contrary. During a meeting at the French embassy in Minsk, in December 2002, he said he was expecting a response any minute, from Brussels, which never arrived. Who is responsible?

  • Jacques Lochard, director of CEPN. During the same discussion on 12th July 2002, Lochard arguing against representatives from the Belarusian Ministry of Health, said that “all projects should support the LRMCs and the whole body measurement of radioactive contamination with spectrometers. The population does not trust government information about contamination of local food products, nor in the official monitoring of the levels of caesium 137 in children’s bodies. The inhabitants of these areas have expressed their wish for an independent, non-governmental system of radiological control to be established”.

  He stressed “the importance of the creation by Belrad of a network of LRMCs and of 8 minibuses, mobile laboratories for anthropogammametry”. It seems therefore that he was willing to restore Nesterenko’s functions and to make use of Belrad’s expertise. But make use of them to what end? Because Lochard, along with Hériard Dubreuil, opposed the funding of pectin-based adsorbents, the one benefit that the children of contaminated areas could have gained from an international programme such as CORE.

  Taking advantage of the work of the dosimetrist at the Olmany LRMC over several years, ETHOS appropriated Nesterenko’s data and then used them in ways that were contrary to Belrad’s objectives: to justify keeping inhabitants in contaminated territories by reassuring public opinion about the risks of radiation, and by minimising—and even ignoring—its direct effects on health. A cursory glance at CORE’s budget and a comparison of the amounts allocated shows this quite clearly. 25% was allocated to medical and radiological monitoring of inhabitants and 75% to the socioeconomic and cultural context. The ratio of the amount destined for what constitutes a medical emergency for people who have lived with chronic contamination for 17 years and the amount destined for socioeconomic and cultural needs is the exact opposite of what it should be. The extent of the underestimation of the health component is indicative of a politically motivated decision, one which preconditions and determines all the individual and collective decisions of those concerned just as ETHOS-CORE hoped. If Lochard had shown the same determination to support the distribution of the adsorbent pectin as he showed for the re-establishment of the LRMCs, his stated desire to work with Belrad might have been credible. Was it not Lochard who used the phrase “We need to occupy the territory”, reported to me by friends from the University of Caen. “What for?” one wants to ask him.

  • Henry Ollagnon, National Institute of Agronomy, Paris-Grignon, ETHOS. At the conference in Stolin in November 2001, his statement of disillusion in relation to the health of children was dramatically reinforced by the pediatrician, who summarized the situation during this conference. Ollagnon approved sustainable development in contaminated territories to ensure their rehabilitation. Prior to 1986, and without “sustainable development” the children were full of joy, living in a beautiful natural environment. Today they are dejected, beaten down, undermined, as we have observed and as their parents, the old peasant woman of Skorodnoie122 and the doctors that we interviewed testify.

  122 Film Controverses nucléaires of Wladimir Tchertkoff, Feldat Film, 6945 Origlio, Switzerland; email:eandreoli@vtx.ch. See Part Five, Chapter II, p. 318. (English version Nuclear Controversies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZR_Fvp3RrQ)

  • Vladimir Tsalko, President of the Chernobyl Committee of Belarus (ComChernobyl), member of the nomenklatura. He did not appear to share the position of the Minister of Health, supported by Professor Kenigsberg, which minimised the consequences of Chernobyl.

  CORE.—1. Presentation on the context of the preparations for the CORE program (p.7 in the original document).

  “Although 80% of the populations live in regions where the level of contamination with caesium-137 in soil is relatively low, for a variety of reasons, the possibility of continued radiological risk cannot be ignored. Indeed, complex radiological processes of re-concentration can lead, in certain situations, to levels of exposure of the people in these regions, in particular the children, that may be problematic. A second argument is based on the precautionary principle, given the uncertainty about the long term consequences for human beings, associated with life in an environment that is characterized by diffuse radioactive pollution”.

  Contortions.

  Unable to deny the increase in illness in children and wishing to avoid the hypothesis that food is the source of internal contamination, the CORE document explains “non-negligible radiological risk” in terms of levels of exposure (most probably external). But this is impossible according to the official dogma, because the levels are actually very low. Yes, but they suffer “complex radiological processes of re-concentration” (Where? In the air, in the soil, or in their organs?).

  “Diffuse radiological pollution”: this is not true. The radioactive pollution is not diffuse, as the studies of Nesterenko and his colleagues show. Radioactive pollution is not uniform either, particularly in the food chain and in vital organ systems, as Bandazhevsky and his colleagues show in their studies.

  CORE.—“Radioactive pollution has a significant impact on the economy in areas which depend heavily on agriculture. It is a source of deep concern for the population in terms of possible health effects, especially in children. The presence of radioactive contamination is also the source of depreciation in living condition, natural resources, and the cultural, symbolic and aesthetic values that are attached to these living conditions. Finally, the process of evacuating and re-housing populations since the Chernobyl accident has deeply disturbed the social and demographic equilibrium of these areas”.

  A deft sidestepping of the issue. We begin with a discussion about agriculture but are immediately diverted. It is a source of deep concern and not about internal contamination with Cs-137 through the ingestion of food. They do not explain why agriculture should be a source of worry. In order to avoid entering an area of discussion that is forbidden by the scientific establishment (IAEA, WHO, UNSCEAR), heartfelt concern is expressed about “cultural, symbolic and aesthetic values”. ETHOS-CORE will teach the farming community a new culture: optimism, initiative, rules of behaviour but they will offer no help in relation to issues of real danger and urgency: illnesses of vital organ systems. Illnesses against which they refuse to take preventive measures, and which are then not treated properly because information relating to these illnesses is prohibited.
/>
  In reality, the people we interviewed and filmed in September 2002 in the villages east of the river Sozh, in the Slavgorod123 district (the people are being monitored by a German organisation called Julich which carries out measurements but does not protect them) have no idea what they are ingesting. In true “Soviet” style, they are used to submitting, to feeling more or less unwell and to dying prematurely. The situation for children is even worse than for adults. In the beginning they appear to be perfectly well, the harm being done is invisible, and then when illness develops, it is already too late, whether it is in the heart, the eyes, gastritis or some other illness. 80%, 90% or 100% of children in these regions are ill. The people have gone from submission to the Soviet system to submission to an elusive radioactive power. In both cases, there is resignation, powerlessness. Disinformation: we did not observe “deep concern” in these interviews, but ignorance, a lack of information and a total absence of monitoring and qualified medical help. Parents do not attach great importance to their children’s symptoms, such as persistent headache, breathlessness or fatigue because they do not understand them. They do not know that the heart is affected.

  123 See “Nesterenko’s villages”. Part Five, Chapters VII to XII, p. 357–403.

  “The people of Belarus are quite simply the guinea pigs in an enormous radiological laboratory, from which the United States are gathering their scientific data. […] From the point of view of medical ethics in the United States and in Europe, scientific research on patients who are ill is not admissible unless, right from the outset, the treatment of the patient is guaranteed. Why should this be different, just because United States research is being conducted in Belarus? 124” In the case of the ETHOS-CORE programme, no scientific research worthy of the name is even undertaken125.

  124 Zeit-Fragen, 11, Jahrgang No 10, 17th March 2003; and Part Three, Chapter VI, p. 245.

  125 On this subject see the final note from Michel Fernex, p. 297.

  CORE.—“Capitalising on the valuable experience gained by the ETHOS project over the last few years in this area, the aim is to develop initiatives in the Stolin district based on coordination and cooperation adapted to the complexity of the situation. The projects developed will be characterised by strong levels of integration within health, economic development and radiological protection. In addition, the projects must involve cooperation at different levels: local, national and international.”

  What complexity are we talking about?

  Nothing is more complex than a living organism. But the CORE program turns its back on this in favour of promises of sustainable economic development, even if this is in contaminated terrain (“[…] integrate the presence of radioactivity into daily life as a new component of existence […]126” The word health is mentioned here in vain: the research undertaken by Professor Bandazhevsky at the Gomel Institute, showing a quantifiable linear correlation between levels of Cs-137 radiocontamination measured in children and various vital organ and system pathologies, is ignored. Also in vain is mention of the word radioprotection, for what are we protecting and how, when we do not know and do not want to know what is happening inside the contaminated organism? The refusal to finance the use of pectin is negative proof of this wilful ignorance.

  126 Quote from ETHOS’ glossy brochure with colour photos of the peasants of Olmany, Cf Part Four Chapter Two, page 267. Regards sur Olmany ©ETHOS, Paris, 1998

  In a letter addressed to the ambassador of Belarus in Paris on 20th February 2002, Bella Belbéoch (GSIEN) summarises:

  At the Gomel Medical Institute, a great number of clinical examinations were undertaken at first hand, and the results of immunological, haematological and biochemical tests were analysed by Professor Bandazhevsky and his colleagues from the population of an area that was extremely contaminated by Chernobyl. The health status of thousands of adults and children was the subject of a rigorous investigation.

  From clinical data, laboratory testing, autopsies—of both adults and children—and animal experiments, Professor Bandazhevsky showed that chronic incorporation of long lived radionuclides such as caesium-137 plays a leading role in the pathological processes. Incorporated Cs-137 is pathogenic and leads to the deterioration of cellular membrane structures and dysfunction of metabolic processes, interdependent morphological and functional alterations, resulting in problems in all vital systems and organs (heart, liver, kidneys, endocrine glands). The severity of these disorders increases with the concentration of Cs-137 in organs that are affected simultaneously and chronically by this radiotoxin which is not distributed homogenously between different organs of the body, as measurements during autopsy have demonstrated.

  CORE.—2. Methodological options of the CORE approach

  “Management of the radiological aspect of the situation: Radiological quality is the aim of CORE’s work, and will result from the dynamics of sustainable development (in health, food, environment, agriculture…) of the contaminated territories, and not in isolation.”

  So the Chernobyl territories could be decontaminated through sustainable development? The term “radiological quality”—in the context of the post Chernobyl health disaster—is an arrogant expression and an insult to intelligence (not to mention morality). When someone has power and money, he can say anything he likes. Like Gentner, from UNSCEAR, speaking at the Kiev conference (June 2001) on the medical consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary: for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible” (sic)127. You buy them off or you crush them from a position of strength. An absurdity or a lie is presented as axiomatic and whatever conclusions are most convenient are then drawn (An axiom is a truth which cannot be demonstrated but is obvious to anyone who understands the meaning—and in this case, anyone who does not understand the meaning is sidelined.) The impossible is declared possible: post Chernobyl radioactivity may be of high quality on condition that it initiates sustainable development. If it fails the population will be responsible. In short, the scientific truth proposed in these two lines from CORE is as follows: If you increase GNP, the caesium-137 will disappear from the food chain. Belarus is on its knees. ComChernobyl has no funds. A contaminated and humiliated population is being sold this lie about radiological quality—for which it will be responsible—with a promise to finance economic development.

  127 See Part Six, Chapter II, p. 424.

  CORE.—“Using experience gained during the ETHOS project, the CORE programme will encourage the development and intergenerational transmission of a practical radiological culture at the heart of the daily life of the inhabitants of the contaminated territories. It will also include projects relating to memory and its intergenerational and international transmission.”

  In this paragraph, CORE alludes, indirectly, and then skims over what is certainly the most worrying aspect of the Chernobyl catastrophe: the health consequences for the descendants of the population contaminated by radionuclides. Once more, this aid programme avoids confronting in any useful way the problem of health while showing that it is not completely unaware of it. Why concern oneself about future generations when there is no mention of what it is that threatens them, and no action planned to prevent whatever misfortune awaits them?

  Why talk about “culture” and “intergenerational memory”?

  In 1956, a group of brilliant genetic scientists, including the Nobel Prize winner H.J. Muller, raised the alarm in a well known statement: “As experts, we declare that the health of future generations is threatened by the increasing development of the nuclear industry and of sources of radiation”.

  After the Chernobyl catastrophe, many studies were undertaken on rodents in areas that were more or less contaminated. These animals are very representative of humans although their reproductive cycle is much faster. R.J. Baker and his colleagues, in a study of the DNA of a gene transmitted from mother
s to babies in the field vole, observed a level of mutations, from one generation to another that was hundreds of times higher than any that had been observed before in the animal kingdom128. The environment in which these field voles live has seen its levels of radioactivity decrease because rainfall leeches the Cs-137 downwards through the soil. One would expect the animals to react positively to improved radiological conditions. However, mutations and genomic instability continue and increase over 22 generations. Goncharova and Ryabokon are seeing the opposite of an adaptation to radiation129.

  128 R.J. Baker et al., “High levels of genetic change in rodents of Chernobyl”, Nature, No 380, p. 707–708, 25th April 1996.

  129 R.I. Goncharova and N.I. Ryabokon, “Dynamics of gamma-emitter content level in many generations of wild rodents in contaminated areas of Belarus”, 2nd Intern, 25–26th October 1994, conference “Radiobiological Consequences of Nuclear Accidents”.

  As humans and rodents are comparable genetically, these studies led Professor Hillis of the University of Texas to conclude in an editorial in Nature (25th April 1996): “Today we know that the mutagenic impact of a nuclear accident may be far more serious than previously suspected and that the eukaryotic genome may present rates of mutation that were never considered possible up to now130”.

  130 Extracts from a report by Michel Fernex, “La catastrophe de Tchernobyl et la sante” (The Chernobyl disaster and health), May 2000.

  But the programme CORE, that has no interest in these challenging scientific questions and no plans for preventive measures for the contaminated population, limits itself to a fatalistic intergenerational transmission of a radiological culture. It is also concerned with memory because Chernobyl now belongs to the past. Radiocontamination and its health consequences are to be considered as facts of nature, to which people all over the world must learn to adapt (international transmission), thanks to the savoir faire (radiological culture) that the “experts” will teach them. “Every man for himself! The state no longer has any responsibility for the health of the population” (Y. Bandazhevsky)