|
Dear Sir,
Anthony Browne's article in the Observer of January 6th, "'Myth'
of Chernobyl Suffering' purports to describe the findings of a report
published by UNICEF and UNDP. The report, 'The Human Consequences of
the Chernobyl Accident' has not yet been published, but having now seen
a copy of the final draft of this 50 page document, I am amazed at the
distortions contained in Mr. Browne's article.
The biggest damage
to health, claims the article, is 'hypochondria'. The report
discusses the 'complex psychosocial effects of the accident'.
The Report is not as Anthony Browne claims 'a challenge to
those who seek to highlight the dangers of nuclear energy'.
It points out that there is a 50% chance of a major nuclear
accident every ten years; that up to 200,000
people still live on highly contaminated territory; that caesium 137
and Strontium 90 will continue to pose a hazard to health for decades
to come; and that many people, particularly poor, rural populations are
continuously forced to eat contaminated foodstuffs which 'present potentially
serious risks to their health'. Whilst the article concedes that there
has been a 60 fold rise in thyroid cancer in Belarus, it does not appear
to attach great significance to
this statistic. This once very rare disease is expected to affect between
6,000 and 8,000 people in the affected regions 'at a conservative estimate'
according to the UN report. It points out that the International Atomic
Energy Agency published a report in 1991 which declared that there was
'no connection between health effects and radiation exposure'. Early
assurances by those who were supposed to be knowledgeable on radiation
issues,
which later turned out to be completely false, are amongst the reasons
why so many in the populations of the three affected countries do not
believe what they are told. This may magnify their fears and add to the
stress they feel when they know that they must feed their children every
day on contaminated meat and milk, but this is very different from 'hypochondria'.
Perhaps the most damaging and inaccurate part of the whole Observer article
is the final assertion that it was totally wrong to evacuate people from
the contaminated areas and that everyone should now come back. The report
queries the cost effectiveness of continuing to relocate people now,
almost 16 years after the accident, but it states that 'resettlement
certainly substantially reduced the collective dose and the number of
individuals
receiving unacceptably high doses'. To encourage families to move back
into The 30km zone around the plant, where the levels of contamination
are enormous, is breathtakingly irresponsible of Mr. Browne.
The main purposes of the UN report are to encourage more support from
governments for the people of the region in helping them to rebuild their
lives, and to press for the establishment of a long term programme of
research.
As the
organiser of a charity working for the last seven years in
the region,
I have spoken with many doctors who describe new types of illness
never seen before; blood diseases which have only been seen
in elderly people now appearing in children; young children
developing testicular or ovarian cancer; a major rise in brain
tumours; heart disease,
respiratory illnesses and an exponential growth in diabetes; and the
birth of many children with disabilities despite a strict regime of monitoring
pregnancies and aborting foetuses which appear to present problems.
There is no question
that a variety of factors are involved in the extreme ill health
of the population of the more contaminated parts of Belarus
- alcohol consumption, a fatty diet, chemical pollution and
poverty - but it seems extremely likely that radiation is involved
in some of these illnesses. The report acknowledges that far
more research needs to be
carried out and the funds should to be provided for this by the international
community.
The UNICEF/UNDP
report is a serious and important contribution to tackling the
aftermath of the world's worst nuclear accident. Anthony Browne's
article is a disgraceful attempt to pre-empt the report by misrepresenting
it in a way which is entirely unworthy of a serious newspaper.
Linda Walker
National Co-ordinator
Chernobyl Children's Project (UK)
|
