|
IAEA looking for consensus on the effects of Chernobyl
Background
paper from Dr. Angelika Claußen, IPPNW Germany Why
a consensus? Studies conducted for the International Chernobyl Project of the IAEA took place from January 1990 to the end of February 1991. In 1990 alone the rate of new cases of thyroid cancer in children in Belarus was 30 times higher than the 10 year average. The IAEA report states however: "The official data that were examined did not indicate a marked increase in the incidence of leukaemia or cancers. (…) Reported adverse health effects attributed to radiation were not substantiated either by those local studies that were adequately performed or by the studies under the Project… (…) The children who were examined were found to be generally healthy. (…) " (1) Later independent research by the BBC has proved that the IAEA and its international commission of experts were already in possession of all of the relevant facts at the time of the conference and the presentation of the report, including the histopathological evidence for a marked increase in the rate of thyroid cancers. It is alarming to ascertain that this deliberate deception of the general public was practiced by such experts as Professor Mettler (Director of the medical expert group of the International Chernobyl Project) and other experts from the EU and Japan. (2) In a press release of June 13 2000, 14 years after the Chernobyl catastrophe, the IAEA quoted new claims by UNSCEAR - the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation - about the medical effects of radiation from the Chernobyl accident: "Apart from the substantial increase in thyroid cancer after childhood exposure ….there is no evidence of a major public health impact related to ionizing radiation 14 years after the Chernobyl accident. No increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality that could be associated with radiation exposure have been observed." (3) This claim of the UN Scientific Committee is incorrect. It denies the massive increase in thyroid cancer in adults and increases in other cancers. In 1999 the incidence of thyroid cancer in adults in Belarus was already more than five times higher than the mean average over ten years before the Chernobyl accident. The evidence of several thousand additional thyroid cancers in adults had already been established. An increase in the rate of other types of cancer had also been registered, including an increase in cancers in Belarus and in particular a 50% increase in childhood leukaemia, as well as an increase in breast cancer. Moreover, the rate of malignant disease such as youth diabetes had increased. WHO has kept a low profile when it comes to statements about Chernobyl's medical consequences: "The Chernobyl accident led to fatality of 30 workers at the reactor site, caused the hospitalization of two hundreds of others and exposed 6.7 million people to ionizing radiation caused by fallout of radioactive aerosols. This has led to a ten-fold increase in thyroid cancer among children in affected areas." (4) In the current press release on the present "Consensus conference", IAEA claims there will be 4000 deaths as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident: 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation sickness, nine children who died of thyroid cancer and an estimated 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia. (5) A quick look at the Low Level Radiation Campaign web site (6) in the UK that is run by independent scientists, as is the web site "Strahlentelex" (an independent information service in Berlin on radiation and health) (7), show in contrast a wealth of scientific publications from the affected countries and West Europe on the effects of Chernobyl. In November 2004, the Swiss Medical Weekly published study results of the Clinical Institute of Radiation, Medicine and Endocrinology Research, Minsk, Belarus showing that cancer rates between 1990 and 2000 had risen by 40% in comparison with before the Chernobyl catastrophe. (8) A rise in congenital malformations and stillbirths has also been observed, both in Belarus, particularly in the badly affected area of Gomel, as well as in Ukraine, West Europe and in Turkey (9). However, IAEA's current press release claims that: "A modest but steady increase in reported congenital malformations in both contaminated and uncontaminated area of Belarus appears related to better reporting, not radiation." (5) Why is IAEA trying to reach a consensus on the medical and environmental effects of Chernobyl, when it is obvious that the numbers of deaths and disease go up from year to year and the scientific discussion on radiation induced disease - that increases understanding of the mechanisms of constant external and internal (incorporated) low-level radiation - is fully underway? Do we not rather need more intensive research efforts at this point, in order to understand the problem better? If we take a look at the IAEA statute then it becomes clear. The main objective set by the statute for IAEA is: "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world." It also says in the Statute that IAEA is resposible for health questions relating to nuclear energy. (10) By this time the attentive reader will wonder: IAEA responsible for health questions? Should that not be the responsibility of WHO, the UN World Health Organisation? The WHO constitution defines 22 functions for the organisation, including "to provide information, counsel and assistance in the field of health" and "to assist in developing an informed public opinion among all peoples on matters of health". (11) As early as the fifties, when many scientists, as well as the German philosopher Ernst Bloch, still believed in the promise of "the peaceful uses of nuclear energy", 20 well-known geneticists gave a warning at a WHO conference in 1956 about radiation exposure because they had discovered that even the smallest doses could cause disproportionately large amounts of damage to cells. In 1959 critical voices within the WHO on the damaging consequences to the human gene pool and human health were silenced. Article III.1 of the agreement between IAEA and WHO states: "The International Atomic Energy Agency and the World health Organisation recognize that they may find it necessary to apply certain limitations for the safeguarding of confidential information furnished to them." In other words: the general public will not be protected from the dangers and risks of nuclear energy, but rather from the truth about them. WHO is bound by an adhesion contract. Science at WHO is only allowed within narrow limits defined by the IAEA. We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe. Many scientific studies on the medical effects of Chernobyl from the affected countries Belarus, Ukraine and Russia are not yet known to us because they have not been translated from Russian. What we need now is independent research and dissemination of research results on the effects of Chernobyl. 20 years on, IAEA is still largely being steered by its own interests. The agreement between IAEA and WHO should be revoked immediately. Sources: |