Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05MINSK1155
2005-09-22 10:23:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Minsk
Cable title:  

Chernobyl Report Met with Criticism by Some

Tags:  ENRG PGOV MNUC SENV TBIO TRGY BO 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0012
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSK #1155/01 2651023
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 221023Z SEP 05
FM AMEMBASSY MINSK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3032
INFO RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 3141
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KIEV 2920
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 001155 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/19/2015
TAGS: ENRG PGOV MNUC SENV TBIO TRGY BO
SUBJECT: Chernobyl Report Met with Criticism by Some
Experts

Classified by Ambassador George Krol for Reasons 1.4 (B,D)

C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 001155

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/19/2015
TAGS: ENRG PGOV MNUC SENV TBIO TRGY BO
SUBJECT: Chernobyl Report Met with Criticism by Some
Experts

Classified by Ambassador George Krol for Reasons 1.4 (B,D)


1. (C) Summary: The Chernobyl Forum, comprised of several
UN organizations, recently released its report on the
consequences of the Chernobyl accident 20 years later. The
report predicts much lower deaths and health effects than
previously predicted and calls earlier assessments
"exaggerated and incorrect," blaming most of the health
problems on phsycological trauma stemming from the
accident. The report, though positive, has met criticism
in Belarus from independent researchers who called the
information "biased" and largely incorrect. The overall
concern is that the GOB will inappropriately use the report
to justify massive economic development and repopulation in
the contaminated areas while ignoring the need for
continued monitoring, research, and cleanup. End Summary.

The Report
--------------


2. (U) On September 5 in Vienna, the Chernobyl Forum Q made
up of eight UN agencies, including the International Atomic
and Energy Agency (IAEA),World Health Organization (WHO),
and UN Development Programme (UNDP) - released a report
assessing the impact and consequences of the Chernobyl
nuclear accident twenty years later. Titled "Chernobyl's
Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts"
and based on the work of more than 100 international
scientists and health experts, the 600-page report
presented lower than expected figures on deaths and
diseases related to radiation and called previous estimates
exaggerated. According to the report, only 4,000 cases of
radiation-related deaths could occur as a result of the
accident and only 50 people have died to date. The report
indicates that the greatest tragedy is the mental impact of
Chernobyl on the population, which has caused negative
self-assessments of health, beliefs in shortened life
expectancies, and dependence on assistance from the state.
The report suggests governments streamline programs to

target the most needy and reduce the benefits given to
those less affected. The full report can be found on
www.iaea.org.


German Researcher Critical of Report
--------------


3. (C) On September 15, attachi and Chernobyl researcher at
the German Embassy in Belarus Wolfgang Faust openly
revealed his criticism of the Chernobyl report,
particularly the information given by the GOB. Due to the
high level of secrecy following the Chernobyl accident,
few, if any, international scientists were able to gather
evidence while Soviet authorities distorted or simply hid
the facts. According to Faust, the evidence provided by
Belarusian authorities to the Forum is neither public nor
accessible to independent scientists for further
evaluation. Faust also highlighted that many of the
scientists involved in the Chernobyl report have not
visited the region, and if they had, then did not stay for
long. Faust believes that proper research requires time
and repetition in order to provide accurate and consecutive
results. The report stated that no convincing evidence
proves that the radiation from Chernobyl leads to cancer,
to which Faust replied that such a conclusion is
"completely false." As he explained, the science of
radiation on human health is such a relatively new sphere
of research that scientists still cannot determine the
long-term consequences of Chernobyl, let alone provide a
true corollary between the possible causes and effects.


4. (C) Faust accuses the scientists who wrote the report of
being biased and catering to the world nuclear power lobby.
He believes the question surrounding Chernobyl is and
always will be political, especially today with Belarus'
hopes to construct a nuclear power plant (NPP) and
Ukraine's plans to build dozens more. According to Faust,
scientists who work for large organizations and companies
are concerned with getting a paycheck and, if they want to
keep their job, are inclined to produce results their
employers want to see. The IAEA, according to Faust, is
more interested in promoting "safe" nuclear energy rather
than caring about the possible health and social-economic
consequences. He stated that many scientists believe an
NPP can be 100 percent safe and country leaders want to
convince the world that this is so. Faust believes that UN
endorsement of this report will make it more difficult to
have open discussions or debates about the IAEA and UN's
findings. Even a member of Belarus' Chernobyl Committee,

which has been known to tow the government party line
rather than provide objective analysis, confided in Faust
that some things in the report were "completely wrong, if
not false."


Belarusian Experts Equally Concerned
--------------


5. (C) Ivan Nikitchenko, agriculture specialist, scientist,
and candidate at the Belarusian National Academy of
Sciences told Poloff on September 8 that the report helps
the GOB whitewash the consequences of Chernobyl and would
be manipulated by the GOB to support its economic and
social policy in the contaminated regions. Nikitchenko
noted the GOB's efforts to liquidate radiation-monitoring
stations in the afflicted regions, promote large-scale
agriculture development, and repopulation. Nikitchenko
said that the Forum did not consult him or his colleagues
about the consequences of the tragedy nor did they
participate in the report.


6. (C) Of particular concern to Nikitchenko is the
government's ambivalence towards the population's health,
which he called a modern-day "genocide." Due to lack of
funding and government pressure, the Institute for
Endocrinology, responsible for in-depth research on the
effects of Chernobyl, closed three years ago and out of the
308 Radiation Security Institute monitoring stations in the
contaminated regions, only 80 continue to operate.
Government doctors continue to deny appearances of
radiation-related illnesses, even though the number of
heart attacks, muscle failures, cardiovascular problems,
and aneurisms continues to grow. [Comment: The report
claims the increase in diseases is due to better reporting
and that there is no connection to radiation.] Qkitchenko
gave one example of how doctors, in order to hide the
number of fetus abnormalities due to radiation, pressure
women to have abortions, regardless of their stage in the
pregnancy.


The UNDP's Take
--------------


7. (C) On September 14, Alessandro Fracasetti of the UNDP
office in Belarus agreed that the report was controversial
but did not differ much from the previous 2002 UN report,
"The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident: A
Strategy for Recovering." Fracasetti also acknowledged the
GOB's help with the report, including information given to
the international scientists and health experts. According
to Fracasetti, the report correctly refutes the paranoia
and over-exageration of radiation effects on the population
while not underestimating the importance of continued
monitoring of food and the population's health. Fracasetti
agreed with the report's suggestions for Belarus to
reassess the zones of contamination, streamline the
benefits given to the victims, and implement projects to
rehabilitate local economies. The largest problem is that
the affected population makes unhealthy decisions because
it does not have adequate information about radiation and
the proper behavior to help mitigate the effects. However,
Fracasetti agreed the GOB could manipulate the facts of the
report and he noted some examples of the government being
more concerned with economic productivity than health.


Comment
--------------


8. (C) The psychological consequences from Chernobyl,
including the dependency on state subsidies and the
"victim" versus "survivor" mentality are visible problems
in Belarus today. However, due to the unreliability of the
GOB's information, the Chernobyl report should be read with
some skepticism. The accident was veiled in secrecy for a
long time and the USSR hid the facts from the population.
A doctor from the U.S. National Cancer Institute who
conducts research in the contaminated areas of Belarus
informed Poloffs in March that many of the initial
background radiation tests performed by USSR
scientists/doctors following the accident were carelessly
taken and generally inaccurate [Note: It is not known
whether these same tests were used in the report.]
Secondly, due to the government's sporadic funding and
general ambivalence, no extensive monitoring and consistent
research have been conducted to assess the long-term
effects of radiation on a person's health.



9. (C) Another concern is that Lukashenko could construe
the report's findings in a way to support his economic
interests. The GOB is aggressively pursuing large-scale
agricultural/rural development and international investment
in some of the affected regions. Officials from the GOB's
Chernobyl Committee, which was created to mitigate the
consequences and actively participated with the UNDP on the
report, told Poloff in February that their organization's
primary concern was economic development and not health.
Lukashenko visits the region each year on the Chernobyl
anniversary and, via state media, declares that the area is
safe to live in and the food is free from contamination.
To some extent, the report justifies such statements from
the GOB.


KROL