The parliamentary hearings dedicated to the seventeenth anniversary of Chornobyl produced no new revelations: awesome figures were quoted and excuses made for many unsolved problems. Many Chornobyl veterans in the audience yawned openly. “We have seen all this before,” they said after the hearings. Expenses on the Chornobyl cleanup are now estimated at $12.2 billion, half of which has been paid from the budged of independent Ukraine. Works on creating a database on the Victims of Chornobyl had not yet been completed: it is filled 92%, containing 2,773,000 persons. According to Minister for Emergency Situations and Liquidating the Consequences of Chornobyl Hryhory Reva, Ukraine’s budget constantly runs counter to the Chornobyl needs envisaged by legislation. While in 1996 half of the appropriated money was actually transferred, in 2002 only 21.5% was. As a result, today Chornobyl payment arrears amount to 700 million hryvnias, 4.5 times more than in 1996. To quote Ministry of Health data, the morbidity rate among those who took part in the cleanup has risen from 21.8% to 93.5%. In addition, the medical statistics analysis is evidence that the peak is yet to come — probably in the next five years. After the hearings, head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Ecology, Nature Management, and Liquidating the Chornobyl Consequences Hennady RUDENKO (SDPU{O} faction) commented on the situation for The Day.
“After the parliamentary hearings many expressed a certain skepticism toward the effectiveness of such events in terms of solving the Chornobyl issue. What do you think?”
“For many politicians the Chornobyl hearings are just another occasion to make a speech. This is why I’d like public opinion to sound more distinctly. People’s deputies have sufficient opportunity to show their love and care of the Chornobyl victims. In general, I would give today’s hearings seven points out of twelve. The main thing is that, in spite of their opposite views on some issues, there are no fundamental differences between the politicians, public opinion, and experts.”
“Recently scientists are often saying that their important and necessary developments get absolutely no financial support.”
“Chornobyl is invisible; one can see it only through the prism of time or a sick list. Research on Chornobyl is financed quite adequately. Under such conditions many scientific doctrines and findings in the field of radiation could have been implemented instead of all these ‘maybe yes maybe no’ talks. It reminds one of a joke about an old lawyer who died and was mourned by his entire family.
“In a week his son came to his widow and said, ‘Mother, I found a file with a case under father’s pillow. I don’t know why it took him so long: I won it in two days!’
“‘What have you done? That case fed us for twenty years!’ replied his mother.
“One can get the impression that for many Chornobyl is a case that has been nourishing them for seventeen years and they want to keep it like that for another twenty, thirty, or fifty years. At present it is absolutely necessary to work out a scientific strategy with realistic questions and tasks. It is time to revive joint research by the countries that suffered most from Chornobyl — Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. It wasn’t the West who taught us how to liquidate the consequences of the catastrophe, quite the contrary. A mega program was worked out under the Soviet Union to liquidate the consequences of the catastrophe and aid its victims. It was designed for $14 billion, only $5.7 billion of which was Ukrainian money. The Soviet Union didn’t have any problems about where to get the money, but how to implement it. After Ukraine proclaimed its independence everything got confused; there was no money, but the strategy remained. Today, in addition to other problems, the question of creating a separate Chornobyl department should be raised. First, many objects are now under double subordination, which makes a real mess: the Ministry for Emergency Situations transfers its functions with the Ministry for Fuel and Energy and vice versa. Second, a unified department is needed because Chornobyl is the only and biggest expenditure item under internal social expenses and internal social debt accounting for roughly 700,000 hryvnias. We demand that it was paid out in the next year and a half to two years, so that nobody will suffer in terms of social policy.”
“The issue of address aid to Chornobyl victims has long been on the agenda.”
“Yes, but it appears that the ministers, deputies, and public views on this problem are quite different. The bureaucracy says that targeted aids means that an official will decide whom to give it to. On the contrary, we believe that targeted aids means first of all medical care, for instance, implementing compulsory medical insurance for the Chornobyl victims.”
“Many scientists claim that the situation surrounding the Shelter is threatening. It is quite possible that the closed station will soon give us a new radioactive surprise. In your view, is this an overreaction or warning?”
“Anything is possible. Today we have to admit that the negotiations over closing the station and the future of Ukrainian nuclear energy system were carried out as well as they could have been. The situation at the station is really disturbing. High humidity at the Shelter damages the hardware, while subsoil waters flooding the structure lead to venting dust and strong radionuclide pollution. At the same time, it is impossible to secure complete control because of the restricted access to the areas with high radiation. I am not sure that, say, tomorrow nothing will happen at the station. Thus, the main thing today is to do everything possible to prevent another economic and psychological shock. I believe this year we will complete the negotiations, remove all the obstacles, and start implementing the designed projects. It’s true that we don’t have enough money, but time is money, and while we are holding consultations we are losing even what we have.”
