A recent column by Prof William Reville on the Chernobyl Report provoked an angry response. He answers his critics
My column of December 1st 2005 summarised the report Chernobyl's Legacy - Health, Environmental and Socio- Economic Impacts, which was released by the Chernobyl Forum in September 2005. The report detailed the assessment by hundreds of scientists, health experts and economists of the impact of the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl. The experts who compiled the report were drawn from eight specialised agencies of the United Nations, as well as the governments of Belarus, Russian Federation and the Ukraine. There was considerable public reaction to my article.
The report declares that up to 4,000 people may eventually die because of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident, but, as of mid-2005, fewer than 60 deaths can be directly attributed to Chernobyl radiation, and most of these were rescue workers who were highly exposed to radiation shortly after the explosion and who died within months of the accident. Approximately 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer, mostly in children and adolescents, are attributed to radiation exposure. At least nine children died of thyroid cancer, but 99 per cent of cases were successfully treated. Otherwise, the experts found no evidence of increased incidence of cancers among affected residents.
The report is also reassuring about environmental impact. A 30-kilometre area surrounding the reactor is heavily contaminated and remains closed, and some forests and lakes have also been closed off, but otherwise radiation levels have returned to acceptable levels. Although five million people live in areas classified as contaminated, the majority received only very low doses of radiation, comparable to natural background radiation in many parts of the world. There is no evidence of decreased fertility or an increase in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation.
The report highlights a distressing level of "paralysing fatalism" among residents of affected areas. The people have a grossly exaggerated perception of the effects of the radiation to which they have been exposed and now attribute all ill-health to the radiation. The fatalism leads to drug and alcohol abuse, unprotected sex and unemployment.
The report recommends that, for these millions, still classified as victims, the first priority should be to encourage self-reliance in order to normalise their lives as soon as possible. They should be educated to understand the minimal risks they are facing and to shed their fatalistic outlook.
However, up to 200,000 people remain severely affected by the accident - poor people who live in the few severely contaminated areas, people who were resettled but never settled down in the new environment or found a job, and the thyroid cancer sufferers. These people need substantial help to rebuild their lives.
In a letter to The Irish Times (December 8th, 2005) Patrick Crowley MB accused me of playing down the medical impact of Chernobyl. He said he witnessed very many congenital birth deformities when he visited the area in 1994 and points to the 21,000 liquidators who have died since 1986. In a subsequent letter to The Irish Times (December 28th, 2005) Adi Roche points out that it was clear to her on a recent visit to Chernobyl that "cancers and genetic related diseases" are greatly increased. In the meantime a couple of letters welcoming the Chernobyl Report have also been published.
Personal impressions of the incidence of disease on a national scale are unreliable. Only scientifically based surveys can produce reliable data. Such data was carefully analysed by the experts on The Chernobyl Forum. When they conflict, the personal impressions of a few should carry little or no weight compared with the results of careful surveys.
Roche hints that the Chernobyl Report data was presented selectively in order to downplay the gravity of the situation. This would amount to falsification - a mortal sin in science. Why would hundreds of scientists conspire to do this? Indeed, how could they do this, since the true story would certainly leak out? The idea is preposterous and such charges reflect badly on those who make them.
And as for the 21,000 deaths among the liquidators since 1986, this is just about the number that would have died from natural causes in this group of 200,000 people anyway had the Chernobyl accident never happened.
I have spoken to people, with varied backgrounds, who read my article on the Chernobyl Report - accountants, civil engineers, bankers, technicians and scientists familiar with radiation. With the exception of the latter group, nobody believed the Chernobyl Report. People assume that radiation from Chernobyl has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and interpret the report as a "whitewash" on behalf of the nuclear industry. It is not unlikely that my personal poll would be replicated in a nationwide survey of public opinion.
It is alarming that amateur opinion in the specialised area of health and radiation would take such strong precedence in the public mind over the considered study of hundreds of scientists. If these groups are right, the integrity of science has been destroyed.
But I can assure you that the integrity of science is intact. Few harmful agents are as well understood scientifically as radiation. The Chernobyl Report authoritatively confirms that the health effects of Chernobyl are far less than originally feared. Is this not good news? Should this not encourage the people of Chernobyl to face the future with hope and optimism? Who does it serve to encourage people to believe they are seriously radiation-damaged, when in fact they are not?
Economic and social help to the people of Chernobyl is of limited use when so many believe their health is irreparably damaged. Telling the truth would lift this awful gloom.
• William Reville is associate professor of biochemistry and public awareness of science officer at UCC - http://understandingscience.ucc.ie