4) Yarochinskaya A. : Tchernobyl; Verite interdite (traduit du russe par Michele Kahn). Publie avec l’aide du Groupe des Verts au Parlement Europeen, Artel, Membre du Groupe Erasme, Louvain-la Neuve, Belgique, Ed de l’Aube, pp 143; 1993.
5) OMS. Rapport d’un groupe d’etude : Questions de sante mentale que pose l’utilisation de l’energie atomique a des fins pacifiques. Serie de Rapports Techniques, No 151, pp. 59, OMS, Geneve, 1958.
6) Les consequences de Tchernobyl et d’autres accidents radiologiques sur la sante. Conference Internationale organisee par l’OMS a Geneve, 20–23 novembre 1995. Actes non publies.
7) IAEA. One decade after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of the accident. Proceedings of an International Conference, pp 555, Vienna 8–12 April 1996. Sales and Promotion Unit, International Atomic Energy Agency, Wagramstr. 5 , P.O: Box 100, A-1400, Vienna, Austria.
8) WHO. Documents Fondamentaux de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Sante. 42e edition, pp 182, OMS Geneve, 1999.
9) WHO. Effets genetiques des radiations chez l’homme. Rapport d’un groupe d’etude reuni par l’OMS; pp 183, OMS, Palais des Nations, Geneve, 1957.
10) Programme de la Conference Internationale organisee par l’OMS a Geneve, du 20–23 novembre 1995. Les consequences de Tchernobyl et d’autres accidents radiologiques sur la sante. Le Programme peut etre obtenu a Geneve e/EHG/1995.
11) WHO. Health consequences of the Chernobyl accident. Results of the IPHECA pilot projects and related national programmes. WHO/EHG 95. pp 519. WHO Geneva 1996.
12) Okeanov A.E. et al.: Analysis of results obtained within “Epidemiological Registry” in Belarus. Geneva; the Russian version can be obtained at the WHO (unpublished document WHO/EOS/94.27 and 28) Geneva Switzerland, 1994.
13) Bandazhevsky Yu.I. and Lelevich V.V. : Clinical and experimental aspects of the effect of incorporated radionuclides upon the organism, Gomel, State Medical Institute, Belorussian Engineering Academy. Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus, pp 128. 1995.
14) Okeanov. A.E. : Conference a Minsk. Die wichtigsten wissenschaftlichen Referate. International Congress “The World after Chernobyl” Minsk 1996.
15) Petridou E., Trichopoulos D., Dessypris N., Flyzani V.,Haidas S., Kalmanti M., Koiouskas D., Kosmidis H., Piperopoulou F. and Tzortzatou F.: Infant leukemia after in utero exposure to radiation from Chernobyl. Nature, Vol. 382, 352–353, 1996
16) Stewart A.M.,Webb J., Hewitt D. A Survey of Childhood Malignancies, Brit.med. J. , Vol. i, p. 1495–1508, 28 June 1958.
17) Viel J.-F., Consequences des essais nucleaires sur la sante: quelles enquetes epidemiologiques? Medecine et Guerre Nucleaire, Vol. 11, p 41–44, janv.–mars 1996.
18) Nesterenko V.B. : Chernobyl Accident. Reasons and consequences. The expert Conclusion. Academy of Science of Belarus. pp. 442. Traduit du russe par S. Boos. SENMURV TEST, Minsk 1993.
19) Nesterenko V.B.: Chernobyl accident. Radioprotection of population. Institute of Radiation Safety “Belrad”. pp 180, Minsk 1998
20) European Commission, Atlas of Caesium Deposition on Europe after the Chernobyl Accident, Rep. EURO-16733, EC, Luxembourg (1996).
21) Bandazhevsky Y.I. : Structural and functional effects of radioisotopes incorporated by the organism. Ministery of Health Care of the Republic of Belarus. Belarussian Engineering Academy, Gomel State Medical Institute, pp 143, 1997.
22) Bandazhevsky Y.I.: Pathophysiology of incorporated radioactive emissions. Gomel State Medical Institute. pp 57, 1998.
23) Titov L.P., Kharitonic G., Gourmanchuk I.E. & Ignatenko S.I. : Effect of radiation on the production of immunoglobulins in children subsequent to the Chernobyl disaster, Allergy Proc. Vol. 16, No 4, p 185–193, July- August, 1995.
24) Drobyschewskaja I.M., Kryssenko N.A., Shakov I.G., Steshko W.A. & Okeanov A.E. Gesundheitszustand der Bevolkerung, die auf den durch die Tschernobyl-Katastrophe verseuchten Territorium der Republik Belarus lebt. p91–103, dans : Die wichtigsten wissenschaftlichen Referate, International Congress “The World after Chernobyl” Minsk 1996.
25) Vassilevna T., Voitevich T., Mirkulova T., Clinique Universitaire de Pediatrie a Minsk. Communications personnelles, 1996.
26) Amnesty International: BELARUS . Possible Prisoner of Conscience - Professor Yury Bandazhevsky. AI index : EUR 49/27/99, 18 October 1999.
27) Dubrova Yu.E., V.N. Nesterov, N.G. Krouchinsky, V.A. Ostapenko, R. Neumann, D.L. Neil, A.J. Jeffreys (1996). Human minisatellite mutation rate after the Chernobyl accident. Nature, 380:p.683–686, 25 avril 1996.
28) Goncharova R.I. & Slukvin A.M., Study on mutation and modification variability in young fishes of Cyprinus carpio from regions contaminated by the Chernobyl radioactive fallout. 27–28 October 1994, Russia-Norvegian Satellite Symposium on Nuclear Accidents, Radioecology and Health. Abstract Part 1, Moscow, 1994.
29) Ellegren H., Lindgren G. Primmer C.R. & M0ller: Fitness loss and germline mutations in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl. NATURE, Vol 389, pp. 593–596, 9 October 1997.
30) Goncharova R.I. & Ryabokon N.I.: The levels of cytogenetic injuries in consecutive generations of bank voles, inhabiting radiocontaminated areas. Proceedings of the Belarus-Japan Symposium in Minsk. “Acute and late Consequences of Nuclear catastrophes: Hiroshima- Nagasaki and Chernobyl”, pp. 312–321, Oct. 3–5, 1994 31)
31) Goncharova R.I. & Ryabokon N.I., Dynamics of gamma-emitter content level in many generations of wild rodents in contaminated areas of Belarus. 2nd Intern. 25–26 October 1994, Conf. “Radiobiological Consequences of Nuclear Accidents”.
32) Baker R.J., Van den Bussche R.A., Wright A.J., Wiggins L.E., Hamilton M.J., Reat E.P., Smith M.H., Lomakin M.D. & Chesser R.K. : High levels of genetic change in rodents of Chernobyl. NATURE , Vol 380, pp. 707–708, 25 April 1996.
33) Hillis D.M., Life in the hot zone around Chernobyl, Nature, Vol. 380, p 665 a 666, 25 avril 1996.
34) The World Health Report 1997 / Conquering suffering, Enriching humanity, pp.162, Distributed at the World Health Assembly (WHA), 1998.
35) Hartlmaier K.M. : Es geht nicht nur um Contergan. I. Mai beginnt der grosse Prozess. Er trifft grundsatzliche Fragen. Zahnarztliche Mitteilungen, Nr. 9, pp. 427–429, 1968.
36) Lazjuk G.I., Satow Y., Nikolaev D.L., Kirillova I.A., Novikova I.V., and Khmel R.D.: Increased frequency of embryonic disorders found in the residents of Belarus after Chernobyl accident. Proceedings of the Belarus-Japan Symposium “Acute and late Consequences of Nuclear Catastrophe: Hiroshima-Nagasaki and Chernobyl”; p. 107–123, Belarus Academy of Sciences, Minsk Oct. 3–5, 1994.
37) Lazjuk G.I. et al. : Genetic consequences of the Chernobyl accident for Belarus Republic (published also in Japanese in Gijutsu-to-Ningen, No 283, p.26–32, Jan./Febr. 1998) Research Activities about the Radiological Consequences of the Chernobyl NPS Accident. p.174–177, Edited by IMANAKA T. Research Reactor Institute, Kyoto University, KURRI-KR-21; March 1998.
May 3, 2000 Michel Fernex,
Address : F-68480 Biederthal, France.
WHO Director meets
IndependentWHO 4May 2011
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, 4 May 2011—WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan met with representatives of the group “Independent WHO” today to listen to their concerns and discuss common interests on radiation and health.
“Independent WHO” is a civil society group advocating for people who have been affected by radiation exposure as a result of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
Dr Chan stressed that the mandate of WHO is to protect the health of people and the Organisation works independently to fulfill this role while cooperating with other organisations in the UN system and other partners. She underlined that WHO takes its mandate to protect and advocate for the health of populations all over the world very seriously and does not compromise with the integrity of its functions.
In answer to their concerns, Dr C
han explained that:
• WHO develops guidelines and standards, and although the Organization can advocate for Member States to follow them, WHO cannot take the place of a national government and implement standards in a country or force a Government to do so.
• WHO’s responsibilities in these situations are mandated primarily by the International Health Regulations.
• Otherwise, WHO cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on issues of common concern, in a spirit of mutual respect and independence in the light of their respective mandates.
• WHO works closely with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to ensure food contaminated with radiation does not come to countries and will continue in that role;
• WHO agrees in principle that research should continue on the health effects of radiation and the research should not be influenced by industry.
• WHO will look into why the proceedings of a 2001 meeting on radiation and health were not published.
The Director-General clarified that the legal basis for WHO’s cooperation with the IAEA lies in the 1959 agreement between the two agencies, the two international conventions adopted in 1986 after the Chernobyl accident, and the International Health Regulations (2005). Their application allow a balance between cooperation and coordination without interfering with the independent pursuit by WHO of its public health mandate.
Six representatives of the Independent WHO group met with the Director-General for more than two hours. Dr Chan praised the representatives for the group’s passion and persistence and promised to keep the lines of dialogue open on the issues within WHO’s area of jurisdiction.
Letter to WHO Director-General
Margaret Chan May 12, 2011
IndependentWHO
c/o Éric Peytremann
54 rue Ernest Bloch
CH-1207 Genève
Dr Margaret Chan
Director-General of WHO
Avenue Appia
Ch-1211 Genève 27
12 May 2011
Subject: Letter from the collective IndependentWHO after meeting on 4 may 2011 with Dr Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General
Dear Dr. Chan,
We thank you for inviting us and for having received us with great courtesy and in particular for considering us for what we are: “citizen advocates of victims of radioactive contamination.”
You explained the institutional position of the World Health Organization headed by you, with its scope and its limitations, defined by both the Agreement with the IAEA and other international agencies and also by two Conventions of 1986 and the International Health Regulations established in 2005.
In this context, we do not doubt your sincerity when you say that our struggle—yours and ours—is common in that you consider it your duty to protect victims of radioactivity and to conduct this task “with entire independence”.
After our meeting we none the less decided to continue our vigil in front of WHO. Why?
• Firstly, we did not hear from you concrete proposals that would make it possible, in the short or medium term, to improve the lives of people severely affected by radioactive contamination, particularly that caused by the Chernobyl disaster.
• In your press release dated May 4 you assure that “ WHO agrees in principle that research should continue on the health effects of radiation and the research should not be influenced by industry.” But that is precisely what we condemn when we ask for a review of your Agreement with the IAEA dated 28 May 1959 (WHA 12-40): the IAEA , within its mandate, promotes civilian uses of atomic energy and is thus linked to the nuclear industry , which prevents it from recognizing objectively both the uncontrolled risks of atomic power and the health hazards of low doses of radionuclides.
• During our meeting on May 4, you acknowledged that “ Chernobyl has caused more than fifty dead .” You thereby contradict the joint assessment co-authored by WHO and IAEA (09/05/2005) which refers to “less than fifty deaths and 4,000 potential future deaths.” Moreover, a joint statement by WHO and IAEA on Chernobyl, dated April 24, 2009, said the areas affected by the accident are no longer dangerous for the population, which must be “reassured” by “practical advice” and convinced to “return to normal life.” Scientists and doctors on the ground, who face the real problems of health of children or those of the liquidators, have a very different vision of reality. The information they provide to us remains alarming.
Why should we not expect the Director-General of the WHO to distance herself from the IAEA by a clear rejection of these estimations of deaths caused by Chernobyl and these evaluations which go against reality?
It is clear to us after our meeting that you lack the means to be independent. Far from being in a position to set up—as we have requested—a team specializing in radiation and health, currently non-existent, you spoke of the “budget deficit of the WHO” which is preparing to lay off staff...
Thus, on the eve of the World Health Assembly opening on 16 May 2011, we reiterate our request for revision of the WHO-IAEA agreement of 1959 which makes you dependent on “experts” of the IAEA and the nuclear industry. We urge you to intervene with the international community to obtain the legal and financial independence to enable you to effectively take charge of health problems linked to radioactive contamination, according to your Constitution.
We have provided you with a copy, signed by the authors, of the book by A. Yablokov, V. and A.Nesterenko on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, translated and published by the New York Academy of Sciences1. This book is a sum of independent research that provides an assessment of Chernobyl—985,000 deaths—no relation to the one you co-signed in 2005.
1 Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, VOL. 1181, 2009
At our first meeting with five senior officials from WHO, July 2, 2009, the idea of organizing a forum where conflicting data and analysis on the health consequences of the Chernobyl accident could be discussed. At our meeting on May 4, you have assured you take into account “all sources, both official and unofficial” for your information. Finally, you referred to the need for transparency in society and “even at WHO!”
Convening such a forum, which becomes increasingly urgent after Fukushima, would meet this need and would demonstrate publicly WHO’s will to be independent. It would make public the actual situation in the contaminated territories and determine what steps should be taken in terms of research and health-care.
Please accept, Madam Director-General, the assurance of our deepest respect.
Eric Peytremann
For IndependentWHO
Letter to WHO Director-General Margaret Chan November 07, 2011
Independent WHO
Correspondent: Wladimir Tchertkoff
Nucleo paese
CH-6945 Origlio
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dr Margaret Chan
Director-General
World Health Organization
Avenue Appia
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
Origlio, 7 November 2011
Subject: non-publication of the Proceedings of the Conferences on the health consequences of Chernobyl, held in Geneva in 1995 and Kiev in 2001
Dear Dr Chan
The World Health Organization’s mandate is to promote health in the world and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s mandate is to promote nuclear energy. In light of the problems associated with nuclear reactors, many eminent scientists and public health professionals criticize the 1959 Agreement between these two organizations as an obstacle to serious investigation of the consequences of accidents and dissemination of information about the Chernobyl catastrophe which would allow ongoing damage to be docume
nted and future damage to be avoided.
In spite of this major obstacle to the dissemination of knowledge, independent research has continued over the last 25 years and an impressive quantity of data and new knowledge has accumulated. Much of this was presented and discussed at two important conferences organized by the WHO, in Geneva in 1995 and in Kiev in 2001. The Proceedings of these conferences, the importance of which cannot be understated given the exceptional nature of the catastrophe, were never published, as we testified during our meeting with you on 4 May 2011. You promised that an investigation would be undertaken and that we would be informed of its results in due course.
On 4 July 2011, we received a message from Dr Neira addressed personally to Alison Katz, informing her that the Proceedings of the two conferences had indeed been published. On 22 July 2011, we requested you (by email) to inform us whether this message constituted the results of the promised investigation and was the response of the Director-General to IndependentWHO. You did not reply. In order to ensure that this is not a simple misunderstanding of terms Proceeding (minutes of the discussions of a conference with resolution) and abstracts (summaries of presentations) and that open and serious dialogue is the new style of relationship that you hope to establish with us, we repeat with this letter the arguments and evidence that we presented on 4 May which perhaps, have not been sufficiently clear.
If no response to this letter is received by myself and the Coordination of IndependentWHO (see above email addresses), we will consider that Dr Neira’s message constitutes your definitive reply.
Arguments and evidence
1. In Autumn 2007, the Department of Radiation of WHO (RAD) replied (via the DG’s Office) to The Guardian newspaper, that the Proceedings of the two conferences had both been published. By way of proof of publication of the Proceedings of the Kiev 2001 conference, RAD cited “the special issue of International Journal of Radiation Medicine (2001, Vol. 3, N1-2, ISSN 15621154)”.
The Crime of Chernobyl- The Nuclear Gulag Page 81