This monograph is a reprint of a volume originally published by the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) in 2009 and the copyright (2009) for all material, excluding the cover photo and this page, is held by the NYAS. Under a license dated March 15, 2011, the New York Academy of Sciences, has granted the authors (A. Yablokov et al.) nonexclusive rights to distribute and republish this volume in print or electronic form. A copy of this license is available upon request from the authors. Similarly, the copyright holder for the cover photo (T.A. Mousseau) grants the authors the right to freely distribute this image as part of this reprint. ON THE COVER Pine trees reveal changes in wood color, density, and growth rate following irradiation from the Chernobyl disaster. T.A. Mousseau, University of South Carolina (2009) Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment ALEXEY V. Y ABLOKOV VASSILY B. NESTERENKO ALEXEY V. N ESTERENKO Consulting Editor JANETTE D. SHERMAN-NEVINGER Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment ALEXEY V. Y ABLOKOV,VASSILY B. NESTERENKO, AND ALEXEY V. N ESTERENKO Consulting Editor JANETTE D. SHERMAN-NEVINGER CONTENTS Foreword. By Prof.Dr.Biol.DimitroM.Grodzinsky .......................... vii Preface. By AlexeyV.YablokovandVassilyB.Nesterenko ..................... x Acknowledgments ........................................................ xiv Introduction: The Difficult Truth about Chernobyl. By Alexey V.Nesterenko, VassilyB.Nesterenko,andAlexeyV.Yablokov ........................... 1 Chapter I. Chernobyl Contamination: An Overview 1. Chernobyl Contamination through Time and Space. By Alexey V. Yablokov andVassilyB.Nesterenko .............................................. 5 Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health 2. Chernobyl’s Public Health Consequences: Some Methodological Problems. By AlexeyV.Yablokov.................................................. 32 3. General Morbidity, Impairment, and Disability after the Chernobyl Catastrophe. By AlexeyV.Yablokov ..................................... 42 4. Accelerated Aging as a Consequence of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. By Alexey V.Yablokov ........................................................... 55 5. Nonmalignant Diseases after the Chernobyl Catastrophe. By Alexey V. Yablokov.............................................................. 58 6. Oncological Diseases after the Chernobyl Catastrophe. By Alexey V. Yablokov.............................................................. 161 7. Mortality after the Chernobyl Catastrophe. By AlexeyV.Yablokov.......... 192 ConclusiontoChapterII ................................................. 217 v vi Chapter III. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for the Environment 8. Atmospheric, Water, and Soil Contamination after Chernobyl. By Alexey V. Yablokov,VassilyB.Nesterenko,andAlexeyV.Nesterenko ................ 223 9. Chernobyl’s Radioactive Impact on Flora. By AlexeyV.Yablokov........... 237 10. Chernobyl’s Radioactive Impact on Fauna. By AlexeyV.Yablokov.......... 255 11. Chernobyl’s Radioactive Impact on Microbial Biota. By Alexey V. Yablokov.............................................................. 281 ConclusiontoChapterIII ................................................ 285 Chapter IV. Radiation Protection after the Chernobyl Catastrophe 12. Chernobyl’s Radioactive Contamination of Food and People. By Alexey V. Nesterenko,VassilyB.Nesterenko,andAlexeyV.Yablokov................ 289 13. Decorporation of Chernobyl Radionuclides. By Vassily B. Nesterenko and AlexeyV.Nesterenko................................................... 303 14. Protective Measures for Activities in Chernobyl’s Radioactively Contaminated Territories. By AlexeyV.NesterenkoandVassilyB.Nesterenko ............ 311 15. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health and the Environment 23 Years Later. By Alexey V.Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, andAlexeyV.Nesterenko .............................................. 318 ConclusiontoChapterIV ................................................ 327 CHERNOBYL Foreword More than 22 years have passed since the Chernobyl catastrophe burst upon and changed our world. In just a few days, the air, natural waters, flowers, trees, woods, rivers, and seas turned to potential sources of danger to people, as radioactive substances emitted by the destroyed reactor fell upon all life. Throughout the Northern Hemisphere radioactivity covered most living spaces and became a source of potential harm for all living things. Naturally, just after the failure, public response was very strong and demonstrated mistrust of atomic engineering. A number of countries decided to stop the construction of new nuclear power stations. The enormous expenses required to mitigate the negative consequences of Chernobyl at once “raised the price” of nuclear-generated electric power. This response disturbed the governments of many countries, international organizations, and official bodies in charge of nuclear technology and led to a paradoxical polarization as to how to address the issues of those injured by the Chernobyl catastrophe and the effects of chronic irradiation on the health of people living in contaminated areas. Owing to the polarization of the problem, instead of organizing an objective and comprehensive study of the radiological and radiobiological phenomena induced by small doses of radiation, anticipating possible negative consequences, and taking adequate measures, insofar as possible, to protect the population from possible negative effects, apologists of nuclear power began a blackout on data concerning the actual amounts of radioactive emissions, the doses of radiation, and the increasing morbidity among the people that were affected. When it became impossible to hide the obvious increase in radiation-related diseases, attempts were made to explain it away as being a result of nationwide fear. At the same time some concepts of modern radiobiology were suddenly revised. For example, contrary to elementary observations about the nature of the primary interactions of ionizing radiation and the molecular structure of cells, a campaign began to deny non- threshold radiation effects. On the basis of the effects of small doses of radiation in some nonhuman systems where hormesis was noted, some scientists began to insist that such doses from Chernobyl would actually benefit humans and all other living things. The apogee of this situation was reached in 2006 on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown. By that time the health and quality of life had decreased for millions of people. In April 2006 in Kiev, Ukraine, two international conferences were held in venues close to one another: one was convened by supporters of atomic energy and the other by a number of international organizations alarmed by the true state of health of those affected by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The decision of the first conference has not been accepted up to now because the Ukrainian party disagrees with its extremely optimistic positions. The second conference unanimously agreed that radioactive contamination of large areas is accompanied by distinctly negative health consequences for the populations and predicted increased risk of radiogenic diseases in European countries in the coming years. vii viii For a long time I have thought that the time has come to put an end to the opposition between technocracy advocates and those who support objective scientific approaches to estimate the negative risks for people exposed to the Chernobyl fallout. The basis for believing that these risks are not minor is very convincing. Declassified documents of that time issued by Soviet Union/Ukraine governmental commissions in regard to the first decade after 1986 contain data on a number of people who were hospitalized with acute radiation sickness. The number is greater by two orders of magnitude than was recently quoted in official documents. How can we understand this difference in calculating the numbers of individuals who are ill as a result of irradiation? It is groundless to think that the doctors’ diagnoses were universally wrong. Many knew in the first 10-day period after the meltdown that diseases of the nasopharynx were widespread. We do not know the quantity or dose of hot particles that settled in the nasopharyngeal epithelium to cause this syndrome. They were probably higher than the accepted figures. To estimate doses of the Chernobyl catastrophe over the course of a year, it is critical to consider the irradiation contributed by ground and foliage fallout, which contaminated various forms of food with short-half-life radionuclides. Even in 1987 activity of some of the radionuclides exceeded the contamination by Cs-137 and Sr-90. Thus decisions to calculate dose only on the scale of Cs-137 radiation led to obvious underestimation of the actual accumulated effective doses. Internal radiation doses were defined on the basis of the activity in milk and potatoes for different areas. Thus in the Ukrainian Poles’e region, where mushrooms and other forest products make up a sizable share of the food consumed, the radioactivity was not considered. The biological efficiency of cytogenic effects varies depending on whether the radiation is external or internal: internal radiation causes greater damage, a fact also neglected. Thus, there is reason to believe that doses of irradiation have not