Chernobyl Accident: the Crisis of the International Radiation Community
Mikhail V. MALKO
Institute of Physical and Chemical Radiation Problems of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus
Minsk, Sosny, 220109, Republic of Belarus; fax: +375 (0172) 467317
beginning. These and other problems are discussed in
the present report.

Introduction
11 years passed since the Chernobyl accident.
Within this period a lot of data have been establishedby the Belorussian, Russian and the Ukrainian
specialists. These data clearly show that the Chernobyl
accident is the most severe accident in the history ofpeaceful use of nuclear energy in the world. It hascaused a heavy impact on the environment in Belarus,
Russia and the Ukraine, significant worsening of theeconomic situation in these countries, disruption ofsocial life in the affected areas, growing anxiety andfears among the people living in the contaminatedterritories, as well as significant biomedical effects onthese people and on other categories of people.
At present there are no controversies about theecological, economic, social and psychologicalconsequences of the nuclear explosion at the
Chernobyl NPP. At the same time there exist
significant differences in the assessment ofradiological consequences of this accident. Specialists
in the affected republics of the former USSR had
established a significant rise in the incidence of manysomatic diseases soon after the accident. However, theinternational radiation community either denies such
effects at all or rejects any link between the increase in
the morbidity in general somatic diseases and theChernobyl accident, and attempts to explain thisincrease on the basis of purely psychological factors
and stresses. Such position of the internationalradiation community results from some politicalreasons and from the fact that it recognises only
leukaemia, solid cancers, teratogen and genetic effects
as late effects of radiation. At the same time even in thecase of medical effects recognised by the internationalradiation community, it failed to make a correct
assessment of thyroid cancers and hereditary
malformations resulting from the Chernobyl accident.
As well, it could not realise timely the real reasons of
the Chernobyl facts. These implications may beconsidered as a sign of a crisis of the internationalradiation community. It could not assess theseriousness of the Chernobyl accident and its
radiological consequences. Instead of taking an
objective position in order to help the affected
populations of the former USSR the internationalradiation community practically played a role of an
advocate of the USSR government that tried to playdown the consequences of this accident from the very

Official Assessment of Reasons andConsequences of the Chernobyl Accident
The Chernobyl accident is recognised by specialists
as the worst nuclear accident in the history of peacefuluse of nuclear energy. It had occurred on the 26th ofApril 1986 when the personnel of the fourth unit of theChernobyl NPP attempted to test the capability of aturbogenerator to supply electrical energy for a shortperiod of time in case of a station blackout. The
accident completely destroyed the reactor and as aresult large amounts of radioactive materials have beenreleased to the environment. The Soviet authorities
initially tried to conceal the fact of this accident. But as
it was impossible they attempted to play down theradiological consequences of the accident.
Soon after the accident the IAEA and the USSR
agreed to hold a Post-Accident Review Meeting in
Vienna. This meeting took place on the 25th-29th ofAugust 1986. At this meeting Soviet specialists
presented false information on the accident and its
radiological consequences [1].
According to the Soviet point of view, the main
reason for the accident was a violation by the
Chernobyl NPP personnel of the procedures of nuclear
power reactor operation developed in the USSR. The
Soviet specialists had also delivered their prognoses of
the Chernobyl accident radiological consequences.
They explained that deterministic effects were
established only among the personnel and the firemen
involved in the extermination of the accident. The
Soviet specialists had excluded the possibility ofdeterministic effects among the population andforecasted only negligible stochastic effects. For
example, their calculations based on the non-threshold
hypothesis of the dose-effect relationship forecasted
that the increase in the mortality rate had to be less than
0.05% of the spontaneous cancer mortality rate. This
result covered the population in the European part of
the USSR (about 75 mln. people).
The explanations presented by the Soviet part havebeen fully accepted by the participants of the meeting.
This can be seen from the Summary Report of the
Post-Accident Review Meeting in Vienna, publishedby the IAEA in September 1986 [2]. On page 28 of theabove-mentioned report one can read the following:"The foregoing account is based on the Working
Documents submitted and information volunteered5

by the Soviet experts. On the basis of thisinformation we have a plausible explanation for thesequence of events at Chernobyl Unit 4, and noattempt has been made to find alternative."
On page 17 of the Summary report of the IAEA it
is stated that:"The errors and violations of procedures were themajor factors contributing to the accident."
The participants of the IAEA meeting have also
agreed with the prognosis of radiologicalconsequences suggested by the Soviet specialists. Suchconclusion can be drawn on the basis of the following
statement made on page 7 of the Summary Report of
the Post-Accident Review Meeting:".... it appears that over the next 70 years, among the135,000 evacuees, the spontaneous incidence of allcancers would not be likely to be increased by morethan about 0.6%. The corresponding figure for theremaining population in most regions of theEuropean part of the Soviet Union is not expected to
exceed 0.15% but is likely to be lower, of the orderof 0.03%. The relative increase in the mortality due
to thyroid cancer could reach 1%" [2].
Such point of view was not changed by theinternational community until the present time.
The Post-Accident Review Meeting has delivered
plausible explanations of the reasons of the Chernobyl
accident and its radiological consequences accepted by
the international radiation community. However, these
explanations have either been erroneous, or incorrect.
Today it is known that different drawbacks of the
RBMK-type reactor project (four reactors of this typewere in operation at the Chernobyl NPP) have been thereal reasons of the accident [3] and not the mistakes ofthe personnel as it was stated in the Post-Accident
Review Meeting in Vienna [2].
The most important of these shortages were [3]:• large positive void coefficient;• unstable operation at low reactor power;• possibility of power excursion;• imperfect construction of absorber rods (use ofgraphite water displacers linked with absorber rods).
One needs to notice that the IAEA had to correct its
explanation of the direct reasons of the Chernobyl
accident only 7 years after the Post-Accident Review
Meeting in Vienna.
A question arises: why did the experts of westerncountries not even try look for other explanations of
the reasons of the Chernobyl accident especially after
the Soviet experts had told at the Vienna Meeting that
remedial actions were planned to improve the safety of
the RBMK reactors operation such as the increase of
the full enrichment from 2.0% to 2.4% and installationof additional absorbers into the core (these two

measures were developed to mitigate the problem of
the positive void coefficient of the RBMK-type
reactors - one of the main reasons of the accident)?
The usage of fast shutdown system and some othersystems had also been foreseen.
Two different explanations can be suggested for thefact that the participants of the Post-Accident Review
Meeting in Vienna could not understand the realreasons of the accident. First is that the experts at thismeeting did not understand the specific features of the
RBMK-type reactors. Second is that they were
unwilling to doubt the official Soviet point of view inorder to save the image of nuclear energy. The first
explanation is quite unreasonable because all remedialactions to improve the nuclear safety of reactors of the
RBMK-type that were suggested by Soviet specialists
at the Post-Accident Review Meeting in Vienna
indicated clearly the project shortages of such reactors.
It seems to us that the second explanation is more
adequate and unpleasant because it means that the
specialists in the field of nuclear safety are ready toconceal the real dangers of the peaceful use of nuclear
energy.
The publication of the document [3] has practically
put an end to the inadequate explanations of thereasons of the Chernobyl accident. However, adifferent situation remains in case of the radiologicalconsequences of the accident. In fact, up to now theinternational radiation community insists that theradiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident
are almost negligible. Only in 1995 did theinternational radiation community recognise therelation between irradiation and the high increase in
the thyroid cancer incidence among children in
Belarus, the Russian Federation, and the Ukraine [4].
All other effects established by the Belorussian,Russian and the Ukrainian specialists are completely
rejected [5].
For example, the international radiation community
does not recognise the data of Prof. G.Lazjuk and hiscolleagues [6,7] on hereditary malformation in theaffected areas of Belarus. As well, nobody recognises
the valuable statistical data on the significant increasein the morbidity rate in different somatic diseases,
established soon after the Chernobyl accident inBelarus, the Russian Federation, and the Ukraine. As
far as the radiological consequences of the Chernobyl
accident are considered, the international radiation
community continues to advocate the idea suggestedby the Soviet specialists and accepted at the
Post-Accident Review Meeting in Vienna that theradiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident
cannot even be observed.

6

Such position of the international radiation
community was of great importance for the Soviet
authorities that have been trying from the very
beginning to play down the Chernobyl radiologicalconsequences. At the time of the accident the Soviet
Union was in a state of a deep economic crisis andcould not provide necessary assistance to the affected
populations of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. The
Soviet Union could provide only limited help to theaffected population. Due to this reason all information
related to the Chernobyl accident and its radiologicalconsequences in the former USSR was concealed not
only from the general public, but in many cases fromthe specialists in the field of radiation protection. For
example, the data presented by the Soviet experts at the
Post-Accident Review Meeting in August 1986 wereclosed in the USSR for a long time. The same
happened to different documents regulating protective
measures in the contaminated areas of the USSR.

Chernobyl accident. It was foreseen to implement the
350 mSv concept beginning from the 1st January 1990.
Along with its implementation all restrictions
introduced in the contaminated areas after the accident
had to be lifted.
The 350 mSv concept was based on prognoses of
medical consequences made by the Soviet specialists
in the summer 1986 [1], as well as on the basis of arevised assessment carried out under supervision ofProf. L.Ilyin in late 1988 [9]. The new predictions
agreed very good with the old ones. However, they
were incorrect as the previous ones. This is especiallywell seen in the case of thyroid cancer. According to
the assessment [9], only 39 additional thyroid cancers
would have been induced in children of Belarus as aresult of the Chernobyl accident. They had to appear
within the 30-year period after the latent period of 5
years. This means, that the first additional thyroid
cancers could be registered by children in Belarus only
in 1991.
This prognosis of Prof. L.Ilyin and his colleagues[9] was completely wrong. It can be seen from Table 1,
where the data on the thyroid cancer incidence inBelarus [10] are given. Only 7 cases of children's
thyroid cancer have been registered in Belarus within
the 9-year period before the Chernobyl accident(1977-1985). This gives 1 thyroid cancer per year as aspontaneous morbidity rate of children in Belarus.
Taking this value into consideration, one had to expect
only 5 children's thyroid cancers in Belarus within thefirst 5 years after the Chernobyl accident. On thecontrary, 47 cases of this cancer have been establishedover 1986-1990 which is 9 times more as compared tothe expectations based on the assumptions by Prof.
L.Ilyin and his colleagues [9].
The total number of children's thyroid cancers
established in Belarus in 1986-1995, which is the first
10 years after the Chernobyl accident, reached 424
cases [11]. It exceeded 10 times the total number ofchildren's thyroid cancers predicted by authors [9] forthe 35-year period after the accident. As can be seenfrom the comparison of predicted and real data, theprognoses of the Soviet specialists [1,9] had
underestimated to a great extent the children's thyroid
cancer resulting from the Chernobyl accident. The

Medical Effects on People Affected by the
Chernobyl Accident
The ″350 mSv concept″
The complicated economic state of the USSR was
possibly the main reason for elaboration of theso-called 350 mSv concept or the lifetime dose conceptthat established a limit of irradiation of the affected
population. This concept was developed by the
National Commission on Radiation Protection of the
USSR (NCRP) in the late autumn 1988 [8].
The 350 mSv concept was based on the following
assumptions:• the sum of external and internal doses that can bedelivered to a person as a result of the Chernobyl
accident will not exceed 350 mSv within 70 years
period beginning from the 26th of April 1986 in the
majority of the contaminated areas of the USSR;• an additional dose of radiation equal or less than 350
mSv accumulated within the whole lifetime on thecontaminated territory will have no significant
medical consequences for the people.
In accordance with these assumptions there was nonecessity to carry out different protective measures
including relocation practically in all areas of Belarus,
Russia and the Ukraine affected as a result of theTable 1 Number of thyroid cancer of children and adults in Belarus [10].
Pre-accident period
Post-accident period
Years
AdultsChildren
Years
Adults
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
Total

121
97
101
127
132
131
136
139
148
1131

2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
7

1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total

7

162
202
207
226
289
340
416
512
553
2907

Children
2
4
5
7
29
59
66
79
82
333

same may be concluded in regard of the hereditary
malformations in the contaminated areas of the former
USSR. Predictions [1,9] excluded practically even thepossibility of such effects being established. The
incorrectness of this conclusion was shown by Prof.
G.Lazjuk and his colleagues [6,7].
The mentioned facts are without doubt an
indication of the serious underestimation of theradiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident
made by the authors of the assessment [1,9]. This fact
was evident for many specialists in the contaminatedareas of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine who had
established a significant worsening in the health stateof the affected population soon after the accident.
However, the results of the assessments [1,9] aswell as the 350 mSv concept were considered by
Soviet authorities and the international radiation
community as valid. One needs to notice that theinternational radiation community had known indetails the new Soviet assessment of the Chernobyl
radiological consequences [9] and the 350 mSv
concept. Soon after the Session of the USSR Academyof Medical Sciences, the report of Prof. L.Ilyin et al.
[9] has been submitted to the World HealthOrganisation. Later it was published as a scientificarticle in a famous international journal [12]. The same
happened to the 350 mSv concept. The report on the
350 mSv concept was delivered by Prof. L.Ilyin at theThirty-eighth Session of the UNSCEAR that was heldin Vienna 8-12 May 1989 [13]. The 350 mSv concept
was also presented on the 12th of May 1989 at an
informal meeting on the Chernobyl consequences
organised by the Secretariat of the IAEA [14].
The new Soviet prediction did not cause any
criticism from the part of the international radiation
community. Such conclusion can be made from thefact that the contents of the article by Prof. L.Ilyin andhis colleagues [12] did not significantly differ from thereport [9], and from the fact of extensive help of theinternational radiation community to the Soviet
government in its attempts to implement the 350 mSv
concept.

the principles and implementation of the 350 mSv
concept. They had also taken part in meetings anddiscussions with other specialists of the affected Soviet
republics and people from contaminated areas. In
Minsk the WHO experts had visited a special meetingon Chernobyl problems held at the Academy of
Sciences of Belarus. Such well-known specialists of
the Ministry of Health Care of the USSR as Prof.
L.Ilyin, Prof. L.Buldakov, Prof. A.Guskova and others
had participated in that meeting.
At all of these meetings and discussions the WHO
experts had completely approved of the official Soviet
point of view that the Chernobyl accident could notcause significant health effects by the affected
populations. They not only agreed upon the 350 mSv
concept, but even volunteered the view that, had they
been requested to set a level for the lifetime dose, theywould have chosen a value of the order of two to threetimes higher than 350 mSv [15].
The WHO experts had also rejected any relation
between radiation and the significant increase in themorbidity in many somatic diseases established in theaffected areas of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine soonafter the accident. In regard to this problem they said in
their report to the USSR government:"... scientists who are not well versed in radiation
effects have attributed various biological and healtheffects to radiation exposure. These changes can not
be attributed to radiation... and are much more likely
to be due to psychological factors and stress.
Attributing these effects to radiation only increases
the psychological pressure in the population andprovoke additional stress-related health problems, italso undermines confidence in the competence of theradiation specialists. This has in turn, led to doubts
over the proposed values. Urgent consideration
should be given to the institution of an education
programme to overcome this mistrust by ensuringthat the public and scientists in allied fields canproperly appreciate the proposals to protect the
population" [15].
The quotations given above from the report [15]clearly show that the WHO experts played a role ofadvocates of the Soviet authorities which tried to playdown by any means the scale of the Chernobyl
accident and its radiological consequences.
In January 1990 the special Mission of the Leagueof the Red Crescent Societies also visited the affectedareas of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine [16]. This
Mission comprised 6 members - qualified specialists indifferent branches of medicine from the United
Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, the Federal
Republic of Germany and Japan. The experts of theMission of the League of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties were more careful in their assessment of theradiological situation in the affected areas. However,they too could not understand the real reasons for theworsening of the health state of the population affectedby the Chernobyl accident. In the summary of theirExperts from WHO
This help was demonstrated by a visit of a group of
the WHO experts to the Soviet Union in June 1989.
This visit found place due to a request of the Soviet
Government. The group of the WHO experts included
the following specialists: Dr. D.Beninson, Chairman of
the International Commission on RadiologicalProtection (ICRP), Director of License Department ofArgentina Atomic Energy Commission; Prof.
P.Pellerin, Chief of Radiation Protection Services of
the French Health Ministry, member of the ICRP; Dr.
P.J.Waight, Radiation Scientist of the WHO Division
of Environmental Health [15].
The WHO experts attended a meeting of the USSR
National Commission on Radiation Protection in
Moscow, where they had taken part in a discussion of8

report compiled after returning from the affected areas,
they had stated the following conclusions:"Among the health problems reported it was felt thatmany of these, though perceived as radiation effects
both by the public and by some doctors, wereunrelated to radiation exposure. Little recognition
appears to have been given to factors such as
improved screening of the population and changed
patterns of living and of dietary habits. In particular,
psychological stress and anxiety, understandable inthe current situation, cause physical symptoms andaffect health in a variety of ways" [16].
Nevertheless, the Mission of the League of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies was able tounderstand the seriousness of the situation in theaffected areas of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine.
They had managed to come to the correct conclusionthat in some cases relocation of people must have been
accepted as one of the countermeasures. Taking this
into account, they stated that the indications forrelocation should be based not only on radiation doses,
but on considerations of socio-economic conditions of
inhabitants in the affected areas as well. Thisconclusion has been a very important one because thecentral authorities of the USSR were making all
attempts to avoid the relocation as a measure ofradiation protection.

On the basis of the doses estimated by the Projectand currently accepted radiation risk estimates,
future increases over the natural incidence of cancers
or hereditary effects would be difficult to discern,even in large and well designed long term
epidemiological studies" [17].
This abstract shows that the participants of theInternational Chernobyl Project practically repeatedthe conclusions of the official Soviet predictions
presented at the Post-Accident Review Meeting inAugust 1986 in Vienna [1] as well as the conclusionsof the documents [2] and [9].
The following conclusions were made in the Reportof the participants of the International Chernobyl
Project in relation to the increase in the morbidity ingeneral somatic diseases that have been registered by
medical specialists of Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine
in the contaminated areas:"Reported adverse health effects attributed toradiation have not been substantiated either by those
local studies which were adequately performed or by
the studies under the Project.
Many of the local clinical investigations of healtheffects had been done poorly, producing confusing
often contradictory results. The reasons for thesefailures included: lack of well maintained equipment
and supplies, poor information through lack of
documentation and lack of access to scientific
literature; and shortages of well trained specialists"[17].
In accord with these statements radiobiologicalconsequences of the Chernobyl accident must havebeen relatively insignificant. However, suchconclusion was wrong and that was proved just a
couple of years after the International Chernobyl
Project. Thus, one could wonder about the reasons forthe experts participating in the International Chernobyl
Project to be so optimistic in the evaluation of theradiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident.
This question sounds especially justified in case one
notices that practically all participants of this project
had materials showing a picture contrary to theiroptimistic assessment.
It is known that the international experts who hadtaken part in the International Chernobyl Project were
aware of the report by the Minster of the Ministry of
Health Care of Belarus [18] delivered at an informal
meeting arranged by the IAEA Secretariat on the 19thof December 1989 in Vienna. The Belorussian
Minister reported about a significant increase in themorbidity of thyroid by children especially in heavily
contaminated districts of the Gomel region. He also
informed the participants of the meeting about anincrease in the rate of hereditary malformations in
new-born:"The frequency of the birth of children withcongenital developmental defects (with stricter
recording) in the radionuclide-contaminated areas
over recent years has increased somewhat moreInternational Chernobyl ProjectIn 1990 the International Chernobyl Project has
been carried out under the aegis of the IAEA. It was
initiated by the letter of the Soviet government sent on
October 1989 [17]. The letter requested the IAEA toconduct an evaluation of the countermeasures taken in
the USSR after the Chernobyl accident and of the
future protective measures. Conclusions made on thebasis of this evaluation were published in 1991 in a
special report [17]. The report stated in regard of thebiomedical consequences of the Chernobyl accident:"There were significant non-radiation-related healthdisorders in the populations of both surveyed
contaminated and surveyed control settlements
studied under the Project, but no health disorders that
could be attributed directly to radiation exposure.
The accident had substantial negative psychologicalconsequences in terms of anxiety and stress due tothe continuing and high levels of uncertainty, theoccurrence of which extended beyond thecontaminated areas of concern. These werecompounded by socio-economic and politicalchanges occurring in the USSR.
The official data that were examined did notindicate a marked increase in the incidence ofleukaemia or cancers. However, the data were notdetailed enough to exclude the possibility of anincrease in the incidence of some tumour types.
Reported absorbed thyroid dose estimates in children
are such that there may be a statistical increase in theincidence of thyroid tumours in the future.

9significantly than in remaining areas of the Republic(except the Grodno region). This index is 5.65 (per1,000 newly born) for Byelorussia but 6.89 for thecontaminated areas” [18].
In regard of the worsening of the general healthstate of the affected population the Minister stated:"Among adults in 1988 there was a two- to fourfold
increase, in comparison with preceding years, in thenumber of persons suffering from diabetes mellitus,
chronic bronchitis, ischemic heart diseases, nerve
diseases, ulcers and chronic bronchopulmonary
diseases. There was also a noticeable rise in the
proportion of children with various functional
disorders, neurasthenic and anaemic syndromes,
chronic diseases of the tonsils and nasopharynx, etc.
At the same time, doctors of all specialities havenoted a more difficult and more prolonged course ofmany diseases, a higher frequency of complications
and an increase in adequate drug response" [18].
Despite of the official character of the information
presented by the Belorussian Minister it wascompletely ignored and was not considered during
implementation of the International Chernobyl Project.
This disregard is often explained by the internationalradiation community by the low competence of thespecialists working in the contaminated areas ofBelarus, Russia and the Ukraine and by lack of reliabledata on the morbidity in theses and clean areas.
Such explanation is not correct, at least in Belarus.
For example, the monitoring of hereditary
malformation of stricter recording has been carried out
in Belarus since 1982 [6]. One needs to know that
submission of data on hereditary malformations ofstricter recording such as reduction of extremities,
spina bifida, polydactyla, etc. to the national register iscompulsory in Belarus. Such conditions allow toacquire reliable statistics related to the hereditary
malformations.

Belarus has been induced by chemical species(nitrates, etc.) in fruit and vegetables brought to the
Republic from the Soviet Middle Asia where mineral
fertilisers and pesticides are heavily used.
It is evident that these hypotheses are not plausible.
The preparates of stable iodine were used in Belarus
over a number of years before the Chernobyl accident
because the soil in Belarus, especially in the Gomel
and Brest regions is short of stable iodine. However, noincrease in the thyroid cancer incidence had beenregistered in Belarus prior to the Chernobyl accident.
On the other hand, the amounts of fruit and vegetablesfrom the Soviet Middle Asia have not been large
enough to be accessible to a significant number ofchildren in Belarus.
The specialists of the WHO believed that their
hypotheses could be valid because at the time of
publishing of the paper [19] only a minor increase in
the thyroid cancer incidence has been registered in the
Ukraine and no increase at all in Russia. In reality, thisdifference in the morbidity in thyroid cancer in
Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine had another cause. It
is known [23], that the highest thyroid doses have beendelivered to the affected children in Belarus and thelowest to the children in Russia. This fact explains thedifference in the latent periods of the thyroid cancers in
the affected republics of the former USSR.
Some specialists denied that radiation could havebeen the reason for the increase in the children's
thyroid cancers in Belarus because of a very shortlatent period. Such specialists simply could notunderstand that the duration of the latent perioddepends strongly on the number of irradiated persons.
It can be lessened if the number of exposed persons
increases. This very important idea was suggested by afamous specialists in the field of radiation medicine,Prof. J.Gofman a long time before the Chernobyl
accident. The Belorussian specialists have managed toprove the validity of this idea by Prof. J.Gofman in thecase of thyroid cancer, thus making a significant
contribution to the study of radiation effects on theorganism. In 1993-1995 it was confirmed that theirdata have been correct [4, 25, 26].
Health statistics in the affected areas
Another very important contribution from the partof the Belorussian specialists is the establishment of asignificant increase in the incidence of the generalsomatic diseases among the affected populations.
Many specialists doubt that an increase in theincidence of general somatic diseases exists. The factthat such doubts have no serious grounds becomes
evident from the data given in Tables 2 and 3 of thisreport. These data are the results of epidemiologicalstudies carried out by Dr. P.Shidlovsky for the
residents of the contaminated and control districts of
the Brest region [27, 28].

Thyroid cancer in Belorussian children
The Belorussian specialists could also prove theirhigh professional skills in the case of children's thyroid
cancer. Different doubts were expressed by specialistsof other countries after a group of Belorussian
specialists had published their data on thyroid cancerof children in Belarus in the scientific journal "Nature"in September 1992 [19]. According to [20,21] asignificant rise in the incidence of children's thyroid
cancers in Belarus could be caused by the improved
screening after the Chernobyl accident. Specialists of
the World Health Organisation had suggested tworather exotic hypotheses [22]. According to the first,
the growth in the thyroid cancer incidence in childrenof Belarus could have been caused by giving stableiodine preparates to children in the affected areas after
the decay of radioactive iodine in order to prevent
endemic goitre. The second hypothesis was based on
the assumption that children's thyroid cancer in

10

As can be seen from the Tables 2 and 3, there had
been a significant difference in the morbidity in many
classes of general somatic diseases in adults andchildren living in the contaminated and clean areas of
the Brest region. In the case of adults such difference
may be observed in infections and parasitogenic
diseases, diseases of the endocrine system,
maldigestion, disorders of metabolism and immunity,
psychic disorders, diseases of the circulatory system,
cerebrovascular diseases, diseases of the respiratory
system, diseases of digestive organs, etc [see Table 2].
In the case of children a significant difference wasestablished in infections and parasitogenic diseases,
diseases of the endocrine system, psychic disorders,disease of the nervous system, diseases of the senseorgans, diseases of digestive organs, etc [see Table 3].
Dr. P.Shidlovsky surveyed a large number of
persons in his studies of the contaminated and control
districts. This provides a significant reliability of his
results. For the cohort of residents of the contaminateddistricts he had used all residents of Luninets, Stolin
and Pinsk districts of the Brest region.
The total number of people living in these districts
constituted in 1990 approximately 182,900 persons.
The average caesium-137 contamination is 37 to 185
kBq/m2 (1-5 Ci/km2) [27,28]. As the control cohort Dr.
P.Shidlovsky used residents of Kamenetsk, Brest,
Malorita, Zablinka and Pruzany districts of the Brest
region with total number of 179,800 persons [27, 28].

Table 2 Indices of general morbidity of adults and adolescents in 3 contaminated and 5 control
districts (rayons) of the Brest region in 1990 [27].
Diseases
Altogether
Infections and parasitogenic diseases
Diseases of the endocrine system, maldigestion, metabolism
disorders, immunity disorders,
including: thyrotoxicosis with and without goitre
Psychic disorders
Chronic otitis
Diseases of the circulatory system
including: hypertension,: ischemic heart diseases
From the total number of patients suffering ischemic heart diseases:
patients with acute myocardial infarction
patients with other acute and subacute forms of ischemic heartdiseasespatients with stenocardia
Cerebrovascular diseases,
including: cerebral atherosclerosis
Diseases of the respiratory system,
including: chronic diseases of tonsils and adenoids: chronic bronchitis and unspecified bronchitis, emphysema:suppurative and other chronic non-specific lung diseases
Diseases of digestive organs,including: gastric ulcer, duodenal ulcer: chronic gastritis (atopic): chololelitic disease, cholecystitis (without mentioningof gallstones)
Urogenital diseases,
including: nephritis, nephritic syndrome, neprosis: kidneys infections
Female infertility
Skin diseases and diseases of the subcutaneous fat,including: contact dermatitis and other forms of eczema
Diseases of the osteomuscular system and of the connective tissue
including: osteoarthrosis and salt arthropathyes
Poisoning with medicine preparates as well as with biologicalsubstances having mostly a non-medical character11

Indices of the general morbidity (per 100,000
adults and adolescents)P

3 contaminated districts
62,023±113.48
3,251±41.5

5 control districts
48,479±117.9
2,119.8±34.0

0.99
0.99

2,340.6±35.4
74.4±6.4
2,936.0±39.5
249.9±11.7
12,060.7±76.2
3,318.2±41.9
5,307.3±52.42

1,506.7±28.7
29.5±4.0
2,604.0±37,6166.3±9.6
9,300.4±68.5
2,394±36.1
4,366.5±48.2

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99

53.6±5.441.7±4.8

0.99

44.3
1,328.6±26.8
1,981.4±32.6
1,764.4±30.8

17.2
594.5±18.1
1,363.2±27.3
986.7±23.3

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99

597.0±18.0
1.891.2±31.8
182.1±9.7
7,074.4±59.9
1,895.0±31.8
1,468.6±28.1

278.1±12.4
1,359.3±27.3152.9±9.2
5,108.5±51.9
1,225.7±25.9765.3±20.5

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99

1,147.1±24.9
3,415.6±42.5131.8±8.5649.5±18.8
83.7±2.3
3,376.7±42.2
735.4±20.0
5,399.1±52.96
1,170.0±25.1

658.5±19.1
1,995.6±33.0
67.9±6.1
522.2±17.0
56.2±5.5
2,060.0±35.5
350.4±13.9
4,191.9±47.3
770.3±20.6

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99

135.6±3.8

28.9±4.1

0.99

These novel findings of the Belorussian scientist
Dr. P.Shildlovsky were later confirmed by many otherspecialists of the CIS. In February 1993 the official
magazine of the Ministry for Health Care of Belarus"Zdravookhranenie Belarusi" published results

obtained by the Ukrainian epidemiologists [29]. They
analysed the morbidity among 61,066 persons
evacuated from the 30-km zone in 1986. The
Ukrainian have found data similar to that of Dr.
P.Shidlovsky for this category of people. Nearly the

Table 3 Indices of general morbidity of children in 3 contaminated and 5 control districts (rayons) of
the Brest region in 1990 [27].
Indices of the general morbidity (per 100,000
adults and adolescents)
3 contaminated districts
5 control districts

Diseases
Altogether
Infections and parasitogenic diseases
Diseases of the endocrine system, maldigestion, metabolism
disorders,
Psychic disorders
Diseases of the nervous system and of the sense organs
Chronic rheumatism
Chronic pharyngitis, nasopharyngitis, sinusitis
Diseases of digestive organs,chronic gastritis (atopic)
chololelitic disease, cholecystitis (without mentioning ofgallstones)
Atopic dermatitis
Diseases of the osteomuscular system and of the connective
tissueCongenital malformations
including: congenital malformations of the heart and of thecirculatory system
Poisoning with medicine preparates as well as withbiological substances having mostly a non-medical characterP

68,725±188.5
7,096.5±104.4

59,974±203.3
4,010.1±80.6

0.99
0.99

1,752.1±53.3
2,219.8±59.9
4,783.5±86.8
125.6±14,4117.4±13.9
3,350.4±73.2
128.9±14.6

1,389.5±48.1
1,109.6±43,03,173.7±72.0
87.7±12,282.6±11.8
2,355.8±62.3
40.5±8.3

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.99

208.3±18.5
1,011.6±40.7

60.7±10.1
672.8±33.6

0.99
0.99

737.2±34.8
679.3±33.4

492.4±28.7
482.3±28.4

0.99
0.99

305.8±22.4

242.8±20.2

0.954.383.7±83.7

52.3±9.4

0.99

Table 4 Primary morbidity of adults and adolescents in Belarus (per 100,000 persons) [32].
DiseasesYear

Belarus

1st Group

2nd Group

3rd Group

4th Group

Diseases of the endocrine system,
maldigestion, metabolism disorders,immunity depression
Diseases of the blood andblood-forming tissue

1993
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995

631
668
584
62
91
74
1014
1099
1125
3939
4185
4120

2559
2862
3427
322
339
304
1460
2439
3252
5927
7250
8604

2528
2169
2368
293
283
279
861
1253
2317
4880
4719
5812

1472
1636
1272
292
254
175
1416
1579
1326
4369
4789
3864

762
909
723
132
114
101
930
1194
1115
5270
5363
4769

1993
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995

136
146
147
1626
1646
1630
1938
1889
1817
3148
3474
3720

301
420
463
4956
5975
7242
5728
6411
7784
4447
7095
8860

355
425
443
4969
5852
6293
2653
3607
4216
3611
4152
4419

226
366
321
3215
4827
4860
3943
3942
3298
4236
4404
5166

190
196
194
1732
1702
1524
2170
2015
2283
4432
4712
4196

Psychic disorders

Diseases of the nervous system and of
the sense organs
including cataract

Diseases of the circulatory system

Diseases of the digestive organs

Diseases of the osteomuscular systemand of the connective tissue

Notices: Belarus — all adults and adolescents; 1st Group — liquidators; 2nd Group — evacuees from the 30-km zone; 3rd Group —residents of settlements in areas with caesium-137 contamination level higher than 555 kBq/m2 (15 Ci/km2); 4th Group — residents
of settlements in areas with caesium-137 contamination level from 37 to 185 kBq/m2 (from 1 to 5 Ci/km2);

12

same results have been established for Belorussian andRussian liquidators [30, 31]. The studies [30, 31]
established reliable data showing that the difference inthe morbidity of liquidators and the general public
increases with time. A similar increase is to be found in
all other categories of the affected populations.
Table 4 compiled by the author of the present reporton the basis of data of the National Medical Register
published by authors [32] indicates this fact clearly. An
analysis of Table 4 shows the existence of an evident
correlation between doses of irradiation or levels of
surface contamination and the morbidity of theaffected populations. The highest incidence in somatic
diseases in comparison to the total population ofBelarus is to be found in liquidators and the people
evacuated from the 30-km zone in 1986, the lowest —in the residents of the affected territories withcaesium-137 contamination level less than 555 kBq/m2(15 Ci/km2).

in the number of non-specific somatic diseases in
populations affected by the Chernobyl accident statethat such an effect has not been observed in citizens ofHiroshima and Nagasaki which survived the atomic
bombardment in August 1945. However, suchstatements are wrong. It was shown by specialists ofthe Hannan Chuo Hospital (Osaka, Japan) [33]. They
examined 1,232 victims of the atomic bombardment
within the period of 1985-1990. According to [33]:"Lumbago was 3.6 times more frequent,hypertension 1.7 times, eye diseases 5 times,
neuralgia and myalgia 4.7 times, same tendencies for
gastralgia, gastritis, etc.".
The data of Japanese specialists are presented in Fig.
1.
There are no data in Fig 1 for such diseases inJapanese general public as dental disease, headachearthritis, loss of physical strength, cervical spondyltitis
because the authors [33] could not find them in "TheBasic National Life Survey of Japan". Accordance indata established in people affected by the Chernobyl
accident and the victims who had survived Hiroshima
and Nagasaki gives a strong argument in favour of theassumption that theincrease in the incidenceingeneralsomatic
diseases established in
Belarus, Russia and the
Ukraine resulted fromthe accident, and notfrom pure psychologicalfactors. This information
indicates that at present
there are no objective
groundsforanyscepticism
often
expressedbytheinternational radiation
A-bomb victims
community [5, 34] inGeneral population
relationtosuchphenomenaastheincrease in the incidenceingeneralsomatic
diseases in all categories
of people affected by the
Chernobyl accident.

Comparison with Japanese data
One needs to stress a very interesting fact. Veryoften specialists who doubt of the significant increase
lumbagohypertension
ocular diseaseneuralgia, myalgia
anaemia, leukopenia
dental disease
gastritis
gastro-duodenal ulcer
headacheischemic heart disease
liver disease
diabetes mellitus
arthritis
loss of physical strength
nepritis, urethral infection
skin disease
cervical spondylitis
bronchitis, pneumonia
arythmiacholethiasis, pancreats
0

10

20

30

Fig. 1 Comparison of morbidity rates (%) of the A-bomb victims and of thegeneral Japanese population [33].
13One
decadeafter
Chernobyl
About 20 scientificpapersdescribing
various somatic effects
in liquidators, adults andchildren exposed toradiation as a result of
the Chernobyl accident
have been presented attheInternational
Conference"OneDecade after Chernobyl. Summing up theConsequences of the Accident" held in Vienna,
Austria, 8-12 April 1996 [35, 56]. This conference wassponsored by the European Commission, theInternational Atomic Energy Agency and the World
Health Organisation in co-operation with the United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation and other United Nations divisions, as wellas with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (Nuclear Energy Agency).
Practically all international organisations involved inpeaceful use of nuclear energy took part in the
preparation of this conference which was to become
the most important step in the assessment of theChernobyl accident and its radiological consequences.
However, the conference could not fulfil the task of an
objective analysis of this severest accident in thehistory of peaceful use of nuclear energy. Suchconclusion may be drawn from the following statementof given in the conference summary:"Increases in the frequency of a number of
non-specific detrimental health effects other thancancer among exposed populations, and particularlyliquidators, have been reported. It is difficult tointerpret these findings because exposed populations
undergo a much more intensive and active follow-up
of their state of health than does the general
population. Any such increases, if real, might also
reflect effects of stress and anxiety" [5].
It is evident from the quotation that the participantsof the conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident" whohad prepared the most important document of theconference — the summary, doubted even the realityof the increase in the incidence of general somatic
diseases in the affected areas of Belarus, Russia andthe Ukraine. It seems very strange because, as was
mentioned above, a number of scientific papers[35-56] have been presented at the conference that
demonstrated the manifestation of this phenomena inall categories of people affected by the Chernobyl
accident. The significant increase in the morbidity indifferent somatic diseases in the the affected
population has been recognised by the author of the
Background Paper 4 of the Conference [57] which
explained this increase on the basis of psychologicalfactors and stresses.
The conference also rejected the possibility ofhereditary malformations in the affected areas ofBelarus, Russia and the Ukraine as a result of theChernobyl accident despite of the existence of reliabledata on such effects. Practically it has not changed theconclusion of the international radiation communitythat the consequences of the Chernobyl accident are
negligible. The only exception was made for the strong
growth of the thyroid cancer morbidity. Possibly,
because there are no more arguments to reject thereality in this case.

It seems that the international radiation community
is more interested to save the image of the nuclear
industry rather than to protect people from the effectsof radiation. This can be determined by every objective
specialist as a sign of a crisis if the internationalradiation community which rejects reliable
information in order to support its own point of view
about the negligible radiological consequences of theChernobyl accident.
A very plausible explanation for the above attitudeof the International Scientific Radiation Community
has been given at the Session of the Permanent
People's Tribunal by a famous specialist in the field of
the radiation medicine Dr. Rosalie Bertell [58].
According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, the harmful
impact of radiation caused interest of the specialists
and the military because of the possible use of nuclear
weapons in wars. A very interesting problem forplanners of such wars was how much enemies could
have been killed by nuclear weapons. Due to thisreasons specialists in the field of radiation biology,
radiation medicine and radiation protection had
worked since the very beginning mostly for the
military purposes. Later they have switched toproblems of nuclear reactors' use for electricity
generation. As a result of such involvement in solvingof military and industrial problems, specialists inradiobiology, radiation medicine and radiation
protection did not pay attention to the problem toprotect the health of public from the harmful influenceof radiation. This is also a reason for the internationalradiation community not to consider any medical
effect of radiation other than fatal cancers andleukaemia, some teratogen and genetic effects asconsequence of irradiation.
Certainly, such way of assessment of theradiological consequences is not acceptable. The life
standard, not the number of fatal cancers, should beconsidered in case of a radiological accident like theChernobyl accident. Has not this to be the primary taskof the international radiation community to protect thepeople exposed to ionizing radiation?

Summary
The information given in the present report about
the Chernobyl accident and its radiologicalconsequences indicates a serious crisis of theinternational radiation community. The following
signs of this crises can be discerned:• The international radiation community did notrecognise the real reasons of the accident for a longtime.
• It could not make a correct assessment of the damage
to the thyroid of the affected populations of Belarus,
Russia and the Ukraine.
• Up to present time it rejects the reliable data on
hereditary malformations.

14• It is not able to accept reliable data on the increase in
the incidence in all categories of people affected by
the Chernobyl accident.
• The international radiation community supported theSoviet authorities in their attempts to play down theradiological consequences of the Chernobyl accident
for a long time.

International Conference "The Radiological Consequencesof the Chernobyl Accident" held in Minsk, Belarus, 18-22
March 1996. EUR 16 544 EN. Brussels. Luxembourg,
1996, pp. 677-682.
11.E.D.Williams, D.Becker, E.P.Demidchik et al. Effects on
the Thyroid in Populations Exposed to Radiation as a
Result of the Chernobyl Accident. Proceedings of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl:
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Vienna,
Austria, 1996, pp. 207-239.
12.L.A.Ilyin,
M.I.Bolonov,
L.A.Buldakov
etal.
Radiocontamination Patterns and Possible HealthConsequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear
Power Station. J. Radiol. Prot. 1990. Vol. 10, N3, pp. 3-29.
13.Appendix 3 of the Appendices to the Draft Proposal "TheRadiological Consequences in the USSR from the
Chernobyl Accident: Assessment of Health andEnvironmental Effects and Evaluation of Protective
Measures". The International Chernobyl Project. IAEA,
Vienna. 1990-04-18.
14.Appendix 2 of the Appendices to the Draft Proposal "TheRadiological Consequences in the USSR from the
Chernobyl Accident: Assessment of Health andEnvironmental Effects and Evaluation of Protective
Measures". The International Chernobyl Project. IAEA,
Vienna. 1990-04-18.
15.Report of the WHO Mission to the USSR. June 19-26,
1989. Appendix 6 of the Appendices to the Draft Proposal"The Radiological Consequences in the USSR from the
Chernobyl Accident: Assessment of Health andEnvironmental Effects and Evaluation of Protective
Measures". The International Chernobyl Project. IAEA,
Vienna. 1990-04-18.
16.The League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Report on Assessment Mission to the Areas Affected by the
Chernobyl Disaster, USSR. February 1990, p. vi.
17.The International Chernobyl Project. An Overview.
Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluationof Protective Measures. Report by the International
Advisory Committee. IAEA, Vienna. 1991.
18.V.S.Ulashchik. Some Medical Aspects of theConsequences of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear
Power Plant (Based on Belorussian Data). Appendix 5 of
the Appendices to the Draft Proposal "The RadiologicalConsequences in the USSR from the Chernobyl Accident:
Assessment of Health and Environmental Effects and
Evaluation of Protective Measures". The International
Chernobyl Project. IAEA, Vienna. 1990-04-18.
19.V.S.Kazakov, E.P.Demidchik, L.N.Astakhova. Thyroid
Cancer after Chernobyl. Incidence. Nature. V.359. 3
September 1992. p. 21.
20.E.Ron, J.Lubin, A.B.Schneider. Thyroid Cancer
Incidence. Nature. V.360. 12 November 1992. p. 113.
21.G.K.Reeves. Comments on Thyroid Cancer. Atoms inJapan, V. 37, N 4, 1993. p. 25.
22.WHO Says: Belarus Cancers May Stem from More than
Chernobyl. Nucleonic week. December 17, 1992, pp.
12-13.
23.M.V.Malko. Assessment of the Chernobyl RadiologicalConsequences. Report for the Toyota-95 Project. 1996.
24. John W. Gofman. Radiation and Human Health. A
Comprehensive Investigation of the Evidence Relating
Low-level Radiation to Cancer and Other Diseases. Sierra
Club Books. San Francisco. 1981.

Acknowledgement
The constant interest of T.Imanaka for the
problem of the role of the international radiation
community in the assessment of the Chernobyl
accident and its radiological consequences, as well as
support from the Toyota Foundation are greatly
acknowledged.
The assistance of Vladimir M. Malko in the
preparation of the English version of the report and its
computer variant is acknowledged.

References
1.The Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and its

Consequences. Information compiled for the IAEA
Experts' Meeting, 25-29 August 1986, Vienna, USSR State
Committee on the Utilisation of the Atomic Energy.
2.International Atomic Energy Agency. Summary Report on
the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl
Accident, Safety Series No 75-INSAG-1, IAEA, Vienna,
1986.
3.International Atomic Energy Agency. The Chernobyl
Accident: Supplement to INSAG-1, Safety Series No
75-INSAG-7, IAEA, Vienna, 1993.
4.W.Kreisel, A.Tsyb, N.Krishenko et al. WHO Updating
Report on the WHO Conference on "Health Consequencesof the Chernobyl and other Radiological Accidents
including results of the IPHECA Programme". Proceedingsof the International Conference "One Decade after
Chernobyl: Summing up the Consequences of theAccident". Vienna, Austria, 1996, pp. 85-99.
5.Summary of the Conference Results. Proceedings of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl:
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Vienna,
Austria, 1996, pp. 3-17.
6.G.I.Lazjuk, D.L.Nikolaev, E.G.Ilyina. Monitoring of
Inherited Anomalies by New-born in South Districts ofGomel and Mogilev Regions. Zdravookhranenie Belorussii(Minsk). 1990, N6, pp. 55-57 (in Russian).
7.G.I.Lazjuk, I.A.Kirillova, D.L.Nikolaev et al. Frequency
Changes of Inherited Anomalies in the Republic Belarus
after the Chernobyl Accident. Radiat. Prot. Dosim., vol. 62,
N1/2, pp. 71-74 (1995).
8.The Limit of Individual Lifetime Dose Established for
Inhabitants of Controlled Rayons of the RSFSR, BSSR, andUkr. SSR Affected by the Radioactive Contamination as a
Result of the Accident at the Chernobyl NPP. National
Commission on Radiation Protection at the USSR Ministryof Health Care. Moscow, November 1988 (in Russian).
9.L.A.Ilyin, M.Balonov, L.A.Buldakov et al. Ecological
Patterns and Biomedical Consequences of the Accident at
the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station. Report at theGeneral Session of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the
USSR. Moscow, 21-23 March 1989.
10.E.P.Demidchik, I.M.Drobyshevskay, E.D.Cherstvoy et al.
Thyroid Cancer in Children in Belarus. Proceedings of the15

25.D.Williams, A.Pinchera, A.Karaglou, K.H.Chadwick.

Our Understanding. Book of Extended Synopsis of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/135,
pp. 248-249 (in Russian).
39.A.M.Nagornaya, V.M.Ponomarenko. Epidemiological
Analysis of the Population Suffering from the Chernobyl
Accident: Data of the National Register. Book of Extended
Synopsis of the International Conference "One Decade
after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of theAccident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/234, pp. 356-359 (in Russian).
40.E.M.Lukyanova, Yu.G.Antipikin, L.I.Omelchenko et al.
Clinical and Paraclinical Aspects of Children's Health 10
Years after the Chernobyl Accident. Book of Extended
Synopsis of the International Conference "One Decade
after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of theAccident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/242, pp. 364-365.
41.E.S.Korolenko. Influence of the Chernobyl Catastropheon the Health State of People. Book of Extended Synopsis
of the International Conference "One Decade after
Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of theAccident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/247, pp. 369-372 (in Russian).
42.E.I.Stepanova. Health Condition of Children Irradiated in
Utter. Book of Extended Synopsis of the International
Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl. Summing up theConsequences of the Accident". Austria Centre Vienna,
Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/255, pp. 379-380(in Russian).
43.V.E.Dashkevich, L.B.Gutman, A.G.Colomyitseva et al.
Dynamics of the State of Health of Pregnant Women andNew-born Babies Following the Chernobyl Accident. Book
of Extended Synopsis of the International Conference "One
Decade after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of
the Accident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/395, pp. 356-359.
44.V.M.Shubik. Immunological and Epidemiological
Investigation in Regions Contaminated by Radionuclides
after the Chernobyl Accident. Book of Extended Synopsis
of the International Conference "One Decade after
Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of theAccident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/222, pp. 356-359 (in Russian).
45.V.Talko. Immune Status of Victims of the Chernobyl
Catastrophe. Book of Extended Synopsis of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/254,
pp. 377-378 (in Russian).
46.I.N.Khomazjuk. Problem of Cardiovascular Diseases at
Victims Ten Years After the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Book
of Extended Synopsis of the International Conference "One
Decade after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of
the Accident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/257, pp. 356-359.
47.A.M.Romanenko et al. Effect of Long-term Low DoseIrradiation on Pathology and Some Metabolic Mechanismof Urological Inflammatory Diseases in Patients fromRadiocontaminated Areas of Ukraine. Book of Extended
Synopsis of the International Conference "One Decade
after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of theThyroid Cancer in Children Living Near Chernobyl. Expert
Panel Report on the Consequences of the Chernobyl
Accident. EUR 15248 EN. Brussels. Luxembourg. 1993.
26.Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident. Resultsof the IPHECA Pilot Projects and Related National
Programmes. Scientific Report International Programme on
the Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident (IPHECA).
World Health Organisation. Geneva. 1995 (in Russian).
27.P.R.Shidlovsky. General Morbidity in Brest Region.
Zdravookhranenie Belorussii (Minsk). 1992, N5, pp. 13-17(in Russian).
28.P.R.Shidlovsky. General Morbidity of the Population inDistricts of the Brest Region. Zdravookhranenie Belorussii(Minsk). 1992, N1, pp. 8-11 (in Russian).
29.A.M.Nagornaya, A.P.Kartysh, T.L.Proklina et al.
Morbidity of Evacuated Population of the Ukraine after the
Chernobyl Accident. Zdravookhranenie Belorussii(Minsk). 1993, N2, pp. 11-13 (in Russian).
30.V.K.Ivanov, A.F.Tsyb, M.A.Maksyutov et al. Radiationand Epidemiological Analyses of Data on Participants of
Liquidation of Consequences of the Accident at the
Chernobyl NPP Included in the Russian State Medical andDosimetric Register. Atomnaya Energia. V. 78, N2, 1995,
pp. 121-127.
31.A.E.Okeanov, E.Cardis, S.I.Antipova et al. Health Statusand Follow-up of the Liquidators in Belarus. Proceedingsof the First International Conference "The RadiologicalConsequences of the Chernobyl Accident" held in Minsk(Belarus) 18-22 March 1996. EUR 16544 EN. Brussels.
Luxembourg, 1996, pp. 851-859.
32.S.I.Antipova, V.M.Korzhunov, I.V.Rozina et al. Analysisof the Morbidity in 1995 in Adults and Adolescents
Affected by the Catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPP. Medical
and Biological Aspects of the Accident at the Chernobyl
NPP. Minsk. N4, 1996, pp. 3-49.
33.Katsumi Furitsu. The Japanese Experience at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Materials of the Session of the Permanent
People's Tribunal "Chernobyl. Environmental Health andHuman Rights Implications" held in Vienna, Austria, 12-15
April 1996, pp. 155-158.
34.Chernobyl. Ten Years on Radiological and Health Impact.
An Appraisal by the IAEA Committee on Radiation
Protection and Public Health. November 1995. Nuclear
Energy Agency. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development. OECD 1996. Paris. France.
35.A.N.Arinchin, N.A.Gresm T.I.Polyakova et al. HealthState of the Children's Population of the Republic Belarus
Affected by the Chernobyl Catastrophe.
36.E.P.Ivanov, G.V.Tolochko, L.P.Shuvaeva et al. "Diseaseof Blood by Children and Adults after the Accident at the
Chernobyl NPP. Book of Extended Synopsis of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/35,
pp. 55-60 (in Russian).
37.F.M.Gaiduk, V.D.Korolev, A.P.Gelda et al. PsychicalConsequences of the Chernobyl Accident in Belarus. Book
of Extended Synopsis of the International Conference "One
Decade after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of
the Accident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/36, pp. 61-62 (in Russian).
38.V.P.Chernyshow, E.V.Vykhovanets, I.I.Slukin et al.
Immune system of Chernobyl Children: Development in

16

Accident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/398, pp. 565-566.
48.D.V.Korkushko, V.V.Povoroznjuk, V.B.Shatilo et al.
Functional State of Cardio-Vascular and Bone-Muscular
Systems in Chernobyl Accident Liquidators and in
Residing in Radiation-controlled Territories of Ukraine.
Book of Extended Synopsis of the International Conference"One Decade after Chernobyl. Summing up theConsequences of the Accident". Austria Centre Vienna,
Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/399, p. 367.
49.S.S.Aleksin, V.Yu.Cheprasov, N.N.Zybina et al.
Characteristics of Bronchopulmonary
Pathology inParticipants of Liquidation of Consequences of theAccident at the Chernobyl NPP. Book of Extended
Synopsis of the International Conference "One Decade
after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of theAccident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/90, pp. 186-187 (in Russian).
50.V.K.Ivanov, A.F.Tsyb. National Chernobyl Registry:
Radiation Risk Analysis. Book of Extended Synopsis of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/108,
pp. 208-209 (in Russian).
51.Yu.A.Zozulya, A.R.Vinnitsky, I.V.Stepanenko. ClinicalPeculiarities of the Brain Damage by Liquidators of theChernobyl Accident. Book of Extended Synopsis of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/170,
pp. 277-278 (in Russian).
52.N.M.Oganesian, I.Emeryt, A.S.Pogosian, K.V.Asrian.
Medical Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident in
Emergency Workers — 10 Years Observation. Book ofExtended Synopsis of the International Conference "One
Decade after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of
the Accident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/193, p. 296.
53.V.B.Karpov, N.G.Yakovleva, E.B.Mokrousova et al.
Some Peculiarities of Health Condition by Liquidators of

the Accident at the Chernobyl NPP, Residents of theContaminated Territories and Persons Participated at
Atomic Weapon Tests. Book of Extended Synopsis of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/223,
pp. 338-339 (in Russian).
54.A.Nyagu, K.Loganovsky, E.V.Vaschenko, K.Yuriev.
Psycho-physiological Effects of Chronical Irradiation as a
Result of the Chernobyl Accident. Book of Extended
Synopsis of the International Conference "One Decade
after Chernobyl. Summing up the Consequences of theAccident". Austria Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April
1996. Paper CN-63/229, pp. 347-348.
55.I.I.Gorpynchenko, N.I.Boyko. Sexual Disorders andGenerative Function of Males who Took Part in the
Liquidation of the Consequences of the Accident at the
Chernobyl NPP. Book of Extended Synopsis of theInternational Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/264,
pp. 389-390.
56.A.Ye.Romanenko. Epidemiological and Theoretical
Assessments of Long-time Medical Effects at Victims of
the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Book of Extended Synopsis of
the International Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Austria
Centre Vienna, Austria, 8-12 April 1996. Paper CN-63/259,
pp. 387-388 (in Russian).
57.T.R.Lee. Environmental Stress Reactions Following theChernobyl Accident Background Paper 4. Proceedings ofthe International Conference "One Decade after Chernobyl.
Summing up the Consequences of the Accident". Vienna,
Austria. 1996, pp. 283-310.
58.Dr. Rosale Bertell. Report at the Session of the Permanent
People's Tribunal. Materials of the Session of thePermanent People's Tribunal "Chernobyl. Environmental
Health and Human Rights Implications" held in Vienna,
Austria, 12-15 April 1996, pp. 15-21.

17