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) 
 
¶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