166 See the results obtained by Professor Pellerin with his 8,000 dosimeter films, mentioned by B. Belbéoch: Part Two, Chapter VIII, p.155.
Now, the question of the one million dollars is the following: are these predicted effects, which are not detected, are not detected but real? This is what people ask you permanently. My answer to that is the following. This is an epistemological, insoluble problem. There are not grounds for direct knowledge at this stage. We don’t know.
In conclusion, our conclusion at least… either Chernobyl produced around 30 deaths at 200 sieverts, from injuries clinically, clinically attributable to radiation exposure. 2,000 avoidable thyroid cancers in children. Until now, no other confirmed, international confirmed evidence of the public health impact, directly attributable to Chernobyl exposure—and I underline—radiation exposure. If you need more information, this is my address. For your pleasure, the agency will be able to provide copies to you of all the reports that I have mentioned here today. Thank you for your attention.
The representative of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Ionising Radiation (UNSCEAR) supports the view held by the IAEA that from a radiological point of view, “generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals (in the areas affected by the Chernobyl accident) should prevail”. This agency’s reports provide the scientific basis on which governments establish safety and radioprotection norms.
Gentner (UNSCEAR).—We said there, that the risk of leukaemia does not appear to be elevated even among recovery operation workers. And that there is no scientific evidence for increases either in overall cancer incidence, or in other non-malignant disorders that could be related to the accident. Dr Gonzales has said that we will never be able to show there is no effect, and that it is difficult, because of a lack of statistics, to show that an effect exists. The great majority of the population, and you saw from Dr. Gonzales’ presentation the doses, need not fear serious health consequences as a result of the Chernobyl accident having occurred.
This closing slide is one I use for almost any topic. It says: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible”. That can apply to every situation each way but we hope to be in the committee on a scientific basis, not using emotion, but using [...] the most rigorous possible data so that the people and the decision-makers can get the right information.
Gentner’s joke on his last slide was a cause of great hilarity to Professor Yarmonenko from Moscow. He was the one at the 1995 conference in Geneva who demanded that any speaker who tackled the subject of low level radiation on living organisms should be banned.
DURING THE BREAK
Alexei Yablokov, President of the Centre for Ecology Policy in Russia at the Academy of Sciences, opposes Putin’s policy of accepting onto Russian territory radioactive waste from the nuclear industry worldwide.
We film him against the noisy background of the hall as he comments on the presentations made by the UN representatives.
Alexei Yablokov.—It was a shameless presentation lacking any objective facts. All that is understandable from the point of view of the governments. They don’t want to know the truth. They want to avoid paying a lot of money to deal with the consequences. That is why any research that shows that the consequences are worse than they thought are rejected. They say the research is invalid. What worries me is that this is being said openly, that it is being presented as if their conclusions are scientific. In reality, they are making unscientific claims and conclusions. They don’t put forward any arguments. They are slickly presented, but they have no foundation.
Q.—Who supported this point of view today?
—The worst was the IAEA of course, and UNSCEAR. The most reasonable, of course, is the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). It’s the only United Nations programme that tries to understand the truth.
—What is the name of its representative?
—Zupka.
Among the crowds of participants, we spot Solange Fernex who is introducing Vassili Nesterenko to Dusan Zupka. We push our way through.
Nesterenko.—… I brought along this presentation that I gave to the European Parliament, on 4th October. I wanted to speak to you, because we have started to monitor the contamination in children and the first map we made was, not of the territories, nor of the food, but just of the children, indicating their level of contamination…
Zupka.—Can you tell me how many children have thyroid disease following Chernobyl?
—More than 1,500 have already been operated on.
—Why don’t you take the floor and tell them? That’s what this conference is for. No-one’s saying anything.
—There is no discussion here.
—I will speak to them. When they quote their figures, you need to interrupt and say: “No, that’s not true. In Belarus alone, there are more than 1,500”.
—Among adults, in Belarus, there are 7,700 people. Professor Demidchik has stated it officially…
—You know, the real problem is that at the UN we don’t have access to these statistics. No-one in your government will send them to us. That’s the problem.
—In that case, we will send them to you.
—We need official statistics. If we don’t receive official statistics, we can’t do anything at the UN.
—Maybe we can give them to you anyway. I would also like to give you Professor Bandazhevsky’s presentation. You know that he was rector…
—Of course I know.
(I join in their conversation)
Q.—Are you surprised that you don’t receive this information?
Zupka.—Exactly.
Q.—He has been giving out this information for years already, but he is being persecuted for it.
Zupka.—I have to tell you that we don’t receive information from either Ukraine, or Belarus or Russia…
Nesterenko.—I’m going to give you Bandazhevsky’s submission, showing the effects of radioactivity on the kidneys, on the eyes and on the heart
Zupka.—I know…it’s very important. Have you told the IAEA about it?...
Nesterenko.—You know how it is. For the IAEA, the more nuclear power stations there are, the more money it has. They are not the place to go for help.
Zupka.—What you need to do is make your arguments and your data known, the information that you have, the academics, the scientists who live there.
Q.—They are in a very difficult situation there, the independent scientists who live there.
Zupka.—We have no data, no good data, from any of the three countries. The official data that we get, that’s the only statistical material we have.
Q.—Is the material false, or is it insufficient?
M. Zupka.—Insufficient… insufficient.
Q.—They don’t do any research.
In order to film simultaneously different situations and the interactions going on in the hall and on the podium, we had brought in a second film crew. On the first day, we found ourselves at a press conference where representatives of the UN agencies were responding to questions from journalists in a separate room. At the same time, Romano was filming in the main hall where Alexei Yablokov was speaking to the whole assembly.
3. THE PRESS CONFERENCE
Yury Dranchkevich (Tovarichtch newspaper).—I have a question for Mr Gonzales. I am a journalist from Chernobyl, I have worked for more than ten years in the exclusion zone and I have many acquaintances that I have known for a long time in the Chernobyl area. I am absolutely convinced that the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster have had a catastrophic effect on health and on mortality among the liquidators and other victims. So I have personal motives for what I am saying as well. And so this is my question. What percentage of Chernobyl’s population and the liquidators have to die before the effects of the Chernoby
l disaster on health are recognised by the world?
Gonzales (IAEA).—Chernobyl is a tragedy and our duty is to discover exactly what you have asked. But it is not simple because a lot of information has been lost. We have observed that the general state of health of the population in the Chernobyl territories is not good. But all the international studies have also said that this poor state of health is independent of the contaminated territories. The fundamental question is the following: are the health problems attributable to Chernobyl? In spite of all the information that we have at the international level, we have been unable to establish a correlation between radiation exposure due to Chernobyl, except in the case thyroid cancer in children. I repeat, up to now, at an international level, no correlation has been established between illness and radiation exposure, except for thyroid tumours in children.
Dranchkevich.—The economic situation in the whole of Ukraine has deteriorated, but it is only among the liquidators and the inhabitants of the contaminated territories that there is so much illness and death.
Gentner (UNSCEAR).—All disasters have a negative effect on health. For example, unemployment, losing a job, problems caused by alcoholism, hospitalisation, divorce, all increase the incidence of poor health indicators. Unemployment influences people’s health. So an event like the Chernobyl accident and the evacuation, which is another event that can cause negative health effects, has certainly had an impact on health.
Natalia Preobrazhenskaya (Le Monde Vert newspaper).—I want to remind everyone that Ukraine suffered terribly in the war. In 1945 the economic situation was much harder than it is today, but there were no thyroid cancers, no leukaemia and young people did not die. So, stop repeating all this rubbish about an economic crisis…By the way, what is your area of expertise? I’m a biochemist. What is your specialism?
Gonzales.—I have worked in radioprotection since I got my degree.
Preobrazhenskaya.—What is your area of expertise, Sir? (She is addressing Pr I. Likhtarev, who is chairing the press conference)
Likhtarev (ICRP Ukraine).—Radioprotection…
Preobrazhenskaya.—Yes, OK. We’re all philosophers here, but what is your area of expertise?
Likhtarev.—Radioprotection.
Preobrazhenskaya.—Me too, I work in radioprotection. What are you? A physicist? A biologist? An engineer? A doctor? What are you?
Gonzales.—Yes, I am a physicist.
Preobrazhenskaya.—Ah. You are a physicist. OK. So now, before I ask my question, I want to say this: you are a physicist working for the IAEA; you need to merit the money that you receive to help sustain and develop nuclear energy. Quite simply, you can’t say anything different. And so, you ignore the real effects of radioactive isotopes and the consequences of the global nuclear catastrophe…
Gonzales.—Because you’re talking so much, let me tell you what I wanted to say before that you prevented me from saying. I assure you every hour of every day over the last fifteen years spent on the project, I have devoted myself to the good of the people of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. You can disagree with me, I can disagree with you, but I will not accept you casting doubt on my integrity, otherwise I will question yours. I think that you, and what you are doing, could do more harm to the people you think you’re protecting, than the harm that you’re supposedly protecting them from. You must realise aggression is a double edged sword: if you attack me, I’ll attack you. If you want to talk to me to understand the situation better, I’m prepared to talk to you till the end of my days. I am willing to stay and talk to anyone who wants to, at the end of this press conference.
Likhtarev (He is trying to bring the press conference to an end as it is not going well).—We can carry on with the press conference informally. We must talk about the significant issues. Otherwise the journalists will go away thinking that we’re “still covering things up”.
Fernex (ignoring I. Likhtarev’s request).—I also have observations to make about the IAEA, I would like to say that Chernobyl has been a catastrophe for your agency and that the construction of new nuclear power plants has been blocked by it. You are under a professional obligation to reduce the impact of the radioactivity on health to a minimum, or even less. There is conflict of interest so fundamental and total between medical research and your institution that all studies on the health aspects of Chernobyl, sponsored or presented by you in whatever form, should be banned from this conference. When there are such conflicts of interest, the IAEA’s contribution should be reduced to zero… To summarise, I think that the presence of the IAEA at medical scientific meetings should not be accepted.
The whole “conversation” has been very lively, and the hapless Ukrainian interpreter has barely been able to string three words together. Likhtarev finally manages to close the debate, and invites those who wish to continue the discussion individually to do so in the corridors or café. The two sides go their separate ways—the lobby relieved to be able to stop reciting its litany and those in the opposite camp, tired of listening to it.
Meanwhile, in the main hall things are hotting up. Yablokov, his white beard moving vigorously up and down, emphasising every point he makes, is talking at a fast pace, using every second of his allotted time, in a precise and clearly aimed counter-attack. Instinctively, Romano, who does not speak Russian but has grasped the emotion behind Yablokov’s words, is filming in close up, without a tripod, his camera on his shoulder, capturing every gesture of his indignant tirade.
4. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
Alexey Yablokov (ecologist).—We have heard today that from the first days following the accident, the IAEA has been actively involved in the work at Chernobyl. I met the director of the IAEA, Hans Blix. This is what he had to say in the first days after the accident: “Even if there were an accident of this type every year, I would still regard nuclear power as a valid source of energy”. That is the ideology with which the IAEA deals with Chernobyl.
Hans Blix is an excellent director, I know him and have nothing against him personally. But he was expressing the view of the IAEA! The apotheosis of all that was expressed just now by the scientist from UNSCEAR when he said “generally positive perspectives exist for the future health of most persons in the Chernobyl region”. We heard it here, it wasn’t a lapse. They present this as the conclusion of their work of the last ten years. We can’t agree with this. It is a political conclusion. It is the conclusion of government representatives, who do not want to see the obvious consequences of Chernobyl.
How can UNSCEAR present these conclusions when they are based on clearly falsified government data? Professor Korblein and I tried to collect figures on infant mortality in the Russian federation. They are ridiculous. They should be thrown in the bin! The real figures, the monthly figures about infant deaths don’t exist. Everything has been falsified. From top to bottom. As for the absence of up to date medical figures, let’s be honest. Surely you know that the directors of the Government Committee on statistics were arrested two years ago, for falsification of data? And this is not something peculiar to this country. Look at what happened in Great Britain. This is the testimony of a British scientist: he was prohibited from publishing certain information under threat of dismissal. This is a British ecological service. Someone who was trying to tell the truth was prohibited, obstructed and dismissed. It’s still going on. Half of the presentations here are about cancer. We have been shown some very beautiful images. I am amazed at the quality of the images. I would simply remind you that all the cancers in the world are monitored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. And what does this agency say? “The data from the Republics of the former Soviet Union may underestimate the number (official) of patients who are ill”. Please note that I found that quote in an UNSCEAR document. UNSCEAR knows. UNSCEAR knows it is using falsified data! And it carries on using them, in order to be able to say that the consequences of Chernobyl are not that serious!
<
br /> As for perinatal mortality of newborns; it has indeed increased. We have the figures to prove it. These figures are presented in the conference materials. Why aren’t we talking about it? Perinatal mortality has increased everywhere! What could have caused this increase? There is no other explanation than Chernobyl, of course.
Here is another interesting example. Yury Bandazhevsky—he is on trial as we speak; the accusation against him could land him in prison for nine years; I think this conference should send a message on this subject—Yury Bandazhevsky has shown that unexpected deaths, sudden deaths, are directly associated with the incorporation of radionuclides. If this is confirmed, it is an enormous source of data to include in the consequences of the disaster.
To say there are no genetic effects following Chernobyl is incredible: the genetic effects will be the most serious. Dozens of scientific papers, published in serious scientific journals, show that the genetic effects are serious with mutation rates that will be transmitted exponentially from generation to generation. How can one refuse to see that these congenital malformations are a consequence of Chernobyl? Of course they are! I am only quoting from a few studies, but there are dozens of others in existence. All you need to do is refute them. They exist!
Loganovsky’s studies are very significant. He is a Ukrainian psychiatrist. I don’t know him personally but I am very impressed by his work. It is a very important study. Schizophrenia cannot be confused with anything else. This illness has been found in people living in the Chernobyl area. Among the liquidators! You should read this study. It is illuminating! He has calculated very precisely how much of the psychiatric illnesses is due to stress and how much to the radioactivity. He says: 50 to 70% of the neuropsychological illness is due to radiation and not stress…
And here’s another new syndrome. Bandazhevsky, the same Professor Yury Bandazhevsky: “syndrome of incorporated long lived radionuclides”. A completely new syndrome. But we can’t do anything: there it is, it exists. How can you possibly deny it? It’s science. It seems to me that to refuse to talk about it is simply wrong.
The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag Page 57