The Chornobyl nuclear disaster claimed 4,000 people, along with another 100,000-200,000, who can be rightfully called victims. These sensational statistics were made public in Kyiv during a conference that ended on August 7. They are sensational because the statistics differ, to put it mildly, from those cited in Ukraine at various roundtables and special parliamentary hearings. Two and a half million Ukrainians are formally recognized as victims of the Chornobyl disaster, which is believed to have killed another 60,000. One can hardly call into question the competence of the authors of the latest report. Among them are over a hundred experts of the so-called Chornobyl Forum, an organization including representatives of the UN, WHO, and IAEA. Their findings are based on their own studies. According to these scientists, no increase in leukemia incidence, which more often than not is formally attributed to radiation exposure, was observed during their investigations. Neither was the prognosticated “epidemic” of infertility among women. It is only possible to establish the fact of thyroid cancer. Their observations indicate that this incidence has indeed registered an increase in the contaminated areas. It is explained by people consuming contaminated milk obtained from cows grazing on pastures affected by radiation. Radioactive iodine, which has a short half-life, may have accumulated in the thyroid gland. However, for millions of people who sustained low exposure, the consequences have proved to be minimal. The authors of the report are convinced that the problem of post- Chornobyl Ukraine lies elsewhere. Large-scale monetary compensation programs are “a great obstacle to rejuvenating this region; they have created a situation marked by rampant maintenance; they are consuming a large part of the budgetary appropriations.” At the same time, people living in the vicinity of Chornobyl regard themselves as victims of the nuclear disaster, regardless of the fact that they only have a vague idea of its nature and causes; yet these people are haunted by fears that prevent them from starting afresh.
The Chornobyl Forum findings may well trigger another huge scandal. Greenpeace has issued unambiguous statements concerning the report and its authors. Jan Van de Putte told the BBC that refuting the disaster’s realities means not only offending thousands of its victims, by alleging that their ills are caused by irrational fears, but that this will result in dangerous recommendations that will encourage people to resettle in the contaminated areas. Angelica Claussen, head of the international organization Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, accused WHO of circulating erroneous data.
She believes that WHO is hamstrung by a one-sided agreement with IAEA, whereby the world’s nuclear-monitoring body is allowed control over studies dealing with the “peaceful atom” [Soviet propaganda concept designed to convince the world public that all nuclear research in the USSR was meant for peaceful purposes, while actually stepping up Star-War-like projects — Transl.] Simply put, this means that the actual purpose of such statements is to whitewash the idea of nuclear energy exploitation.
Be that as it may, this situation does not add to Ukraine’s international image. The report indicates, however, that Chornobyl relief operations do not require mind-boggling sums. In fact, the authors provide recommendations on how to reduce these expenditures. Thus, it is likely that donor organizations will take them into consideration in the nearest future. At the same time, most of our bureaucrats have named lack of funding as the sole reason for all Chornobyl-related hardships. Various conferences have made it clear that Ukraine has never received the sums promised by the West, although the Ukrainian government has indeed honored its commitment by shutting down Chornobyl’s remaining power unit. This is why, as our bureaucrats claim, the Chornobyl shelter is in a critical state, so there is no denying the possibility of another disastrous discharge, which will be far worse than what happened in 1986.
However, the fact remains that international organizations have never forgotten about Chornobyl’s problems. Even if the amount of financial assistance has differed from declared sums, it has always been constant. For example, last year the US gave Ukraine $143 million, of which $8 million was allocated for repairs at the sarcophagus. In 2003, the United States gave $25 million to help resolve various Chornobyl-related problems. This year, the G-8 countries are planning to donate $225 million to help carry out the Chernobyl Shelter Fund in Ukraine, in addition to various treatment and rehabilitation programs.
The fact that donor money has not always been used effectively is another question altogether. Yemlen Sobotovych, director of the National Academy’s Institute of Environmental Geochemistry, says that the shelter was built without allowing for certain technical nuances. As a result, this project, worth billions of dollars, can be used effectively only with “a number of reservations.” Plans are afoot to build another shelter to cover the original one; this project will cost an estimated one billion euros. “However, no one admits that its maintenance will cost Ukraine up to $30 million a year,” Mr. Sobotovych angrily points out, adding, “Should anything happen inside the inner shelter, we won’t be able to do anything, given its design.”
Dr. Sobotovych believes that the international experts’ report proves only one thing: they want to stop helping Ukraine. The obvious consequence of such sensational declarations is that we will be left all alone with our Chornobyl problems, which are steadily gaining momentum.
On the other hand, it is possible that some of the expert findings are objective. For instance, we know that in Chernihiv oblast, on relatively clean territories, the population exodus during the past 10 years has twice surpassed that from contaminated areas. A number of people would simply arrive in the contaminated areas in order to obtain compensation from the state. The issuance of Chornobyl victim certificates is also suspect. Ukrainian Emergency Management Minister David Zhvania stated recently that inspections show that not all citizens in possession of these certificates, which guarantee free public transport, places in tourist groups, and housing, are actually Chornobyl victims. There are also problems with health care. Research conducted by psychologist Yuriy Shvalba shows that people who were involved in Chornobyl rescue operations as well as resettlers tend to be firmly convinced that no matter what they do, they will remain affected. Not surprisingly, this psychological predisposition reinforces the most insignificant diagnoses. This is why experts are convinced that many diseases that physicians today call a consequence of Chornobyl have a psychological basis — the so-called victim syndrome. As a matter of fact, WHO statistics point to every fourth Chornobyl man as physically handicapped, while 2,000 other Ukrainians hold the status of invalids from childhood. Among the Chornobyl liquidators (people involved in Chornobyl rescue operations — Ed.) 94.2% manifest one pathology or another, and the mortality rate of Chornobyl victims has increased by nearly two times over the past several years.
The Ukrainian government has still not formally responded to the international experts’ report. The Emergency Management Ministry, currently authorized to handle all Chornobyl issues, appears to be content with issuing a brief press release in which Deputy Minister Tetiana Amosova, who took part in the Vienna conference, states: “Chornobyl tolerates no politics; it needs common sense and sensitive decisions. We will tolerate no speculations; Chornobyl must be helped, not obstructed.” Ministry officials promised that detailed information would be provided shortly.
