Problems of Social Assistance to the Chernobyl Sufferers in Russia
Alla YAROSHINSKAYA
Yaroshinskaya Charity Fund
20/2 Beresnevskaya Naberezhnaya, Moscow 103790, Russia; yaro@glas.apc.org
decontamination activities, the authorities did not
manage to carry out quick and effective evacuation of
116 thousand people from the 30-km zone around
Chernobyl. Without doubt, the reason of such failure
was related with the deep secretiveness of thecommunist regime which did not need open the truths
about the accident at all. The party and government
leaders discussed the tragedy only behind closed doors.
Evacuation of residents from the villages in the
30-km zone was executed without detailed planning.
Nothing definite was explained, except that people had
to leave their villages for some time, for two-three
weeks, and then would come back again. Nevertheless,some executives of the contaminated districts recall
having a feeling, that these residents would neverreturn to their homes (see A.Yaroshinskaya.
"Chernobyl. Top Secret", Moscow. 1992).
In 1989 the author of this article was elected a
People's Deputy of the USSR from one of the mostaffected regions — the Zhitomir region. She came to
Moscow and visited the Bureau for Fuel and Energy
Resources at the Council of Ministers of the USSR
with documents proving the necessity of resettlementfrom the Narodich and Lugin districts of the Zhitomir
region. The Bureau was involved in the problems ofliquidation of the Chernobyl accident consequences atthat time. Notwithstanding this fact, the leaders of the
Bureau refused even to hear about any resettlement.
However, after the author had reported these facts at
the First Congress of the People's Deputies of the
USSR, a decision was made immediately to resettle 12villages. This points to only one fact that until 1989
there was no scientifically developed government
programme to aid the people affected by the ChNPS
accident. This was not due to lack of scientificbrain-power necessary for its elaboration. This isrelated with glasnost. A closed society and glasnost of
the Chernobyl events were ideologically incompatible
each other.
During the first five years after the Chernobyl
accident the co-ordination of measures to liquidate theaccident consequences and aid to the population was
subject to the strict command system of administration.
For this purpose a special operative group wasestablished in the Politburo of the Central Committeeof the CPSU and it continued to function in the courseof several years. At first the group meeting was held
daily, but afterwards more and more infrequently. The
operative group received reports from republics, the

1. Assistance to the Chernobyl sufferers from thegovernment
1.1. In the period of the USSR
By the time of the world's largest civil nuclear
accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station(ChNPS) in April, 1986 NOT A SINGLE legislativeact existed in the USSR that could protect victims ofpossible nuclear accidents and incidents. Such was theSoviet Union despite of the fact that it was literally
stuffed with both nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors
for military industry, as well as with hundreds ofresearch reactors all over the country. Thus, when theaccident at the ChNPS happened, the government of
the USSR had no available legislative base to provide
assistance for sufferers — personnel of ChNPS,
volunteer-liquidators, and the population affected by
the accident. During the first five years after theaccident the Supreme Soviet of the USSR had made no
attempts to adopt any laws to protect the citizens
affected by the accident at ChNPS and to give themrights for certain benefits and compensations. How can
we understand this situation? The Soviet communist
regime could not allow to disclose the scale andcontamination levels of the accident, as well as thenumber of affected persons. During the first five years
after the accident, various decrees of the Central
Committee of the CPSU (Communist Party of theSoviet Union), which were directed to republican andregional party organs for execution, functioned the roleof "laws". Quite often they were issued, as joint decrees
both of the Central Committee of the CPSU and of thegovernment of the USSR. As a matter of course, they
were secret. When these decrees appeared in open
documents, they had no concrete information on thenumber of sufferers, their needs.
The first actions by the authorities to rescue lives of
the ChNPS personnel and fire-fighters were of
emergent nature without preparation. Coordination ofliquidation work was not effective because theauthorities were not ready for such a large-scale
nuclear accident. This is indicated by the fact that
medics did not carried out iodine prophylactics in duetime (within the first eight days after the accident).
Although a large amount of chemical and engineering
corps, special military materiel and transport
equipment of the Ministry of Defence of the USSR and
Civil Defence forces were mobilized in dosimetric and257

compact contents with attempts of scientific approach.
This programme contained the most important issues
about the criteria of benefits to the population andresidents in the affected territory — the issues that were
not mentioned on the governmental level for years. The
Ukrainian programme was not even signed. So, its
author was unknown. It was evident that different"parts" of this programme were merged into a single
document in a machine-like manner. The programmeof the ChNPS accident consequences liquidation for
RSFSR turned out to be the strangest . It involved only
one region, the Bryansk region. However, at that time it
was already known that other regions of Russia had
been contaminated, for example, in the
Orlov-Bryansk-Tula spot.
In April 1991, after numerous discussions in theparliament and the government, "Concept of Living inDistricts Affected by the Accident at the Chernobyl
NPS" was adopted at a session of the State Expert
Commission. According to this concept, the main
criterion to make decisions on protective measures,
their scales and compensations for damages to the
population had become irradiation dose induced by the
Chernobyl accident. A dose of irradiation wasconsidered acceptable if it resulted in an averageannual effective equivalent dose not exceeding 0.1 rem(1 mSv). Persons living in "dirty" territories or having
lived there for a defined minimal period, had the rightfor loss recovery by way of benefits, compensations,guarantees, and systems of social and medical
assistance.
A system of social guarantees to Russian
population was worked out only in May 1991 in the
Law of RSFSR "On Social Protection of Citizens
Exposed to Radiation as a Result of the Catastrophe at
the Chernobyl NPS". As a matter of fact, in order tolaunch the mechanism of the Law, more than 40
normative bylaws were elaborated and adopted.
Nevertheless, this law was inefficient, especially ascompensation payments to the population wereconcerned. In June 1992 modifications andamendments were introduced to the Law.

government, Ministries of Defence and Health, gave
hearings to operative group members' reports, andimmediately took decisions on ALL problems:
hospitalisation, discharge from hospital, increase in the
maximum acceptable doses for vegetables and fruit
consumption in the affected territories, population
resettlement, aid to personnel of the ChNPS,
introduction of benefits for compensation payments tothe population, medical assistance to the affected
persons, etc.
The secrecy and uncoordinated character of theactions by the authoritative bodies on different levels
led at times to misuse of authority power. For instance,in the Narodich district of the Zhitomir region, officials
who were distributing flats for the resettled people inKiev, L'vov, Zhitomir, etc. were taking several flats fortheir own, disallowing them to the people in real need.
The efficiency of taken decisions was low for one
more reason: at that time the foodstuffs in the USSR
were in short supply not only in affected villages, but in
big towns and cities as well. Thus, the decisions of the
CPSU to improve the situation of foodstuffs supply to
the ChNPS victims were practicably impossible.
According to the party decision, residents in theaffected zones were receiving 30 roubles (people
called them "coffin money") for "clean" food.
However, "clean" food was not found in village shops.
The shops were practically empty. The sum itself was
simply ridiculous. Three different programmes, whichwere not interconnected each other, for liquidation of
the ChNPS accident consequences existed until 1989
— the Ukrainian and the Belorussian programmes, andthe programme of liquidation of the consequences of
the accident at the ChNPS in the Bryansk region(Russia) for the period of 1988 to 1990. In April 1990 astate-union programme of liquidation of the ChNPS
accident consequences in RSFSR (Russian Soviet
Federated Socialist Republics) for 1990-1992 was
made.
Only in 1990 were held THE FIRST open public
parliament hearings on the Chernobyl accident. At
these hearings the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
adopted the first decree to liquidate the consequencesof the accident at ChNPS and to elaborate acomprehensive state programme and a concept ofliving in the affected districts. A State Expert
Commission at the Government of the USSR was also
founded (the author of this report was a member of thiscommission as a People's Deputy of the USSR), which
had to elaborate an all-union programme of liquidationof the consequences of the Chernobyl accident.
Three new programmes of the accident
consequences liquidation were presented to the Expert
Commission — the Ukrainian, the Belorussian and theprogramme for Bryansk region (RSFSR). Only the
Belorussian programme had more or less integral andThus, if one was to sum up the government
assistance to the population affected by the ChNPS
accident within the Soviet period (1986-1991), nottaking into account its quality and efficiency, thefollowing directions of this assistance could be
distinguished:• recovery and decontamination measures, aimed atdecrease in the radioactive contamination of
territories;• implementation of social protection of citizens livingin the affected territories: resettlement from thecontaminatedtothe"clean"territories,
compensations for loss of housing, compensations
for "clean" foodstuffs, medical assistance benefits.

258

specialists (e.g. ex-Chairman of the State Committee
on Liquidation of the ChNPS Accident Consequences
V.Ya.Vozniyak) state, the taken measures resulted in
improvement of soil fertility and a 1.5-4 times decreasein the radionuclide accumulation in plants. Personally,
I strongly doubt such numbers, especially when suchinformation comes from V.Ya.Vozniyak who himself
took part in classifying the information about the
Chernobyl accident during the Soviet period. The same
doubts arise about the very necessity to plant
something in fields that are known to be radioactive, as
foodstuffs for people or even as forage for animals. I
cannot perceive and accept such logic of a Moscow
cabinet official who determined how the people had tolive in a zone of permanent health risk.

At that time medical brigades visited the districts
affected as a result of the accident at the ChNPS inorder to perform in-depth examination of the
population and determine the changes of health status.
Unfortunately, all information was classified secret not
only to the population, but (according to
E.B.Burlakova) to some of Russian scientists.
During this period, however, the material andtechnical bases of local health care were significantly
improved; a network of diagnostics andmedical-recreation centres was established, advanced
training of medical personnel was carried out, etc.
According to the data of the State Committee of theRussian Federation on Liquidation of theConsequences of the Accident at the ChNPS, medical
observation of health status of the Russian population
was performed both by local medical establishments
and by 25 leading research institutes. A Russian state
medical-dosimetric registry was established. Its
database contains information on 137.6 thousandpeople affected by radiation effects as a result of theChernobyl accident; 97 thousand of so-calledliquidators, about 3 thousand of the people evacuatedfrom the affected zone, more than 35 thousand of thepeople living in the affected zone, and more than 2.6
thousand of children born from participants of theaccident consequences liquidation.
In the first years after the accident at the ChNPS theGovernment of the USSR allocated budget funds forhousing construction for the resettled. However, evenin such case ideology played its role as well. In order toconceal the scale of the accident a decision was taken
to build new houses for the victims of the catastropheeven on contaminated territories. For example, about
200 million roubles (in prices of that time) were
invested only in the Zhitomir region in construction of
50 apartment blocks in the "dirty" territory of the
Narodich district. It should be noted that the resettled
did not live there, knowing this was a deceit on the partof the authorities.
As far as the Russian Federation is concerned,
decontamination of 412 settlements in the affected
territories was carried out. About 13 thousand people
were resettled from the zones of radioactive
contamination in the Bryansk region, 5.5 thousand ofthem from the zone of obligatory resettlement. 18
settlements were entirely resettled. Until 1993 about 50
thousand people have been resettled or havevoluntarily left the affected territories of the RussianFederation.
It is interesting to note that special agrochemical
studies were conducted in the affected territories inorder to decrease accumulation of radionuclides inagricultural production. In some districts of the
Bryansk, Orlov, Tula, Kaluga regions, sowing of
forage crops was extended, while grain crops werereduced; buckwheat and rape were not sown. As some

1.2. After the collapse of the USSR
After the collapse of the USSR, every of the threemost affected republics had to deal with its problems
on one's own. At the time of the Commonwealth of
Independent States foundation (late 1991) the area
contaminated with caesium-137 as a result of theaccident at the ChNPS with a density of 1 Ci/km2 andhigher has totalled in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus
more than 100 thousand square kilometres. The main
problem of every newly formed state remained thesame — social protection to victims of the ChNPS
accident: resettlement from the so-called radioactive"B" zones (according to the Chernobyl laws of Russia,
the Ukraine and Belarus) which are nominally areas
with a contamination density of 15-40 Ci/km2 or evenhigher.
Already 11 years passed since the accident at the
ChNPS! A sad fact should be stated: neither the Soviet
government nor the democratic governments havemanaged so far to provide their citizens with theminimum which is set by the Chernobyl laws adopted
by their parliaments. Moreover, the state assistance tothe resettled nowadays tends to decline. In 1993, forexample, 4,410 persons were resettled from the zonesof obligatory and guaranteed resettlement (Gomel andMogilev region) in Belarus (according to A.Dumnov,
E.Vos'mirko), and in 1995 — only 1,723. 2,790
persons were resettled in 1993 from the zones ofobligatory and guaranteed resettlement (Bryansk,
Kaluga, Tula and Orlov regions) in Russia, and in 1995
— only 1,370. The same picture is to be seen in the
Ukraine.
According to preliminary data, 410.4 thousandpeople are living in the affected territory in the zones ofobligatory and guaranteed resettlement in Russia(Bryansk, Kaluga, Tula regions) in early 1997, in
Belarus — 323 thousand people, in the Ukraine — 673
thousand people (furthermore, 479 people are living in
the restricted zone of the Kiev region). Simple
mathematics shows that with the existing trend
preserved, the resettlement of people from the zones of259

regions, depending on the duration of residence (inpercent to the minimal salary defined by the law):• from 26th of April 1986 — at a rate of 60 percent;• from 1st of January 1987 — at a rate of 50 percent;• from 1st of January 1991 — at a rate of 30 percent.
Thus the monthly compensation to the citizens
residing (working) in the zone of resettlement until
resettlement to other places constitutes from the 1st ofJanuary 1987, for example, 42,000 roubles.
The citizens of above-mentioned categories also
have the right of monthly pension and benefits for
unemployed pensioners, invalids and disabled children
at higher rates depending on the duration of residence(in percent to the minimal salary defined by the law):• from 26th of April 1986 — at a rate of 300 percent;• from 1st of January 1987 — at a rate of 200 percent;• from 1st of January 1991 — at a rate of 100 percent.
As well, fellowships are granted to 100-percent of
postgraduate students and students of state primary,secondary and higher professional educational
establishments on the territory of the zone ofresettlement. The state scholarship to students of statehigher educational establishments of Russia is the sameas the minimal salary, 84,000 roubles. Thus, students
of state higher educational establishments on the
territory of the zone of resettlement receive ascholarship from the state at a rate of 168,000 roubles.
Citizens of the named categories are also guaranteed
other benefits by the Law.
The Law also makes a provision for compensations(Section 5) for the harm inflicted to health as a result of
the Chernobyl catastrophe. For instance, invalids of the
1st and the 2nd group receive an annual compensation at
a rate of five minimal monthly salaries, defined by thelaw. Thus, with a minimal monthly salary of 84,000
roubles invalids of the 1st and the 2nd group mustreceive an annual compensation of 420,000 roubles forloss of health.
The law also covers compensations to othercategories of citizens, whose health has been harmed asa result of the accident at the ChNPS.
Due to the severe state of the economy, thepayments and compensations to the citizens, who
suffered as a result of the accident at the ChNPS, havebeen more and more often delayed by the state bodies.

obligatory and guaranteed resettlement in thesecountries may be prolonged for decades.
According to the Federal Law of Russia "On Social
Aid to Citizens Subject to Effects of Radiation as a
Result of the Catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPS", thestatus of such citizens is defined. In the Section 3 of theLaw, 12 categories of citizens are defined, which canbe used as bases of compensations and benefits by theLaw. All benefit and compensation rates available tothe victims of Chernobyl are described in detail in thementioned law. Below are listed some of them:
1. Citizens who contracted radiation syndrome,
other illnesses, and invalids as a result of thecatastrophe are granted gratuitous medical treatment(hospital and ambulatory), gratuitous acquisition of
medicines on a physician's prescription, gratuitous
dentistry and construction of dentures, gratuitous
annual sanatorium-resort therapy or payment at the
average cost of the corresponding travel voucher, etc.
Working invalids are granted disablement benefits up
to four continuous months or up to five months within acalendar year with 100 percent payment of the averagesalary. A gratuitous one-time grant of house-room
equipped with modern conveniences is provided,
regardless of the period of residence in the given
settlement, within three months from the submission ofa corresponding application under the condition thatthe applicants are recognised to need improvement in
the housing conditions or residing in shared apartmentswith an additional separate room. Also are granted
50-percent discounts in accommodation payments tothe citizens named above, including members of theirfamilies residing together with them, as well as
50-percent discount in payments for telephone, radio,
shared TV-aerials and their installation; 50-percent
discount in payments for gas, heating, water andelectricity; gratuitous travel on the territory of Russia
on all types of urban and suburban passenger
transportation, as well as once every year — all overRussia; relief from income-tax and all other types oftaxes, etc.
2. Citizens who are permanently residing (working)on the territory of the zone with the right forresettlement can receive monthly compensation
depending upon the period of residence (in percent to
the minimal salary defined by the Law):• from 26th of April 1986 — at a rate of 40 percent;• from 1st of January 1987 — at a rate of 30 percent;• from 1st of January 1991 — at a rate of 20 percent.
Today the minimal salary in Russia constitutes
84,000 roubles per month. This means that the above
citizens in this zone receive a compensation of 33,600
roubles, 25,200 roubles, 16,800 roubles respectively.
3. Citizens who are permanently residing on the
territory of the zone of resettlement can receive amonthly compensation until resettlement to otherAn important indicator of the state care about the
population living in the contaminated territories is asum of special investment for construction of housing,social and cultural facilities for the resettled, as well as
establishment of industrial facilities to employ them.
The expenditures for liquidation of the consequencesof the Chernobyl accident in the budget of each country
is a separate item. However, in recent years these sums
tended to shrink. The reason for such a phenomenon is
general financial recession, inflation processes, thebulk of new transition-period problems in the economy

260sugar have been supplied to these territories in the
Ukraine in 1995 as compared with 1991. Incomparison with 1994, supplies of vegetables, meat,
vegetable oil and different cereals have decreased by ahalf, and supplies of milk and sugar — by more than
two-thirds. The same relates to Russia and Belarus in a
number of regions.

of the newly-independent states. Investment in theeconomy of every country has been recently dropping
at a rate of 10-30 percent a year in comparable prices.
The real amount of Chernobyl investment has dropped
at an even bigger rate. The expenditures of Belarus for
Chernobyl investment in dollar equivalent was last year
(1996) 120 million dollars, of Russia — 60 million, andof the Ukraine — 185 million. The cutback in housing
construction in the framework of the "Chernobyl"
programmes in three states altogether constituted 40
percent in comparison to 1995. As compared with
1995, only 27 percent of housing were completed in
Russia, in Belarus — 62 percent, and in the Ukraine —75 percent (A.Dumnov, E.Vos'mirko).
After the commencement of the war in Chechnya,
the construction of 150 houses in the Potchip district of
the Bryansk region (settlement Moskovsky), run by the
Moscow government, was withheld, leaving the houses
unfinished. Practically no clinics, hospitals andsecondary schools, which are very important elementsof the infrastructure for residents and the resettled,
have been put into service in Russia last year. Problems
are accumulating with the people who had resettled to"clean" areas but could not find work places there.
Nearly no jobs are created for the resettled. Quite often
the resettled, being unable to adjust to new living
conditions, return to their "dirty" homes and gardens.
In this relation the Russian government adopted in
January 1997 a decree on elaboration of a mechanism
to reimburse funds allocated for housing for the
resettled who had returned back.
Budget complications have affected not only the
problems of adult population rehabilitation, but
children rehabilitation as well. A special multipurpose
presidential programme "Children of Russia" has beenfunctioning in the Russian Federation for several years
already. One of its divisions is called "Children of
Chernobyl". Although the programme is a presidential
one, it was not fully financed last year. Within 9months of 1996, 24 billion 907.3 million roubles havebeen allocated for implementation of the programme"Children of Chernobyl". This investment for the
programme has constituted only 13 percent of theannual plan.

Considering the problems of state assistance to theChernobyl victims, one cannot but touch upon misuseof authority, as well as corruption in this sphere. It islong known that in some districts subject to radiation
effects as a result of the accident at the ChNPS, thebudget money allocated to solve the problems ofChernobyl victims was spent for other purposes. For
instance, in the Bryansk region of the RussianFederation the local authorities have used this money
for construction of a local airport, in the Zhitomir
region (the Ukraine) some money has been spent tobuild country-houses for officials. Several years ago in
Kiev in the Ukraine a corruption was disclosed inconnection with transfer of "Chernobyl" money fromthe sate budget to a private foundation of top-ranking
officials. This corruption involved members of the
Cabinet of Ministers.
Thus, the state assistance to the people affected by
the accident at the ChNPS over the last years in
newly-independent states has been subject to new tests
in the course of rebuilding of the socio-economic
system, adjustment of economic policies and decisionsof new national priorities. Due to these reasons many
"Chernobyl" problems remain unsolved. The primary
problems in the Russian Federation are:• Comprehensive monitoring of contaminatedsettlements is not accomplished;• Not all residents are provided with personal
protection means and special clothes;• Home-made "dirty" milk and milk products, as well
as home-grown vegetables and fruit with increased
radiation levels are still consumed;• Inflation and price increase do not allow residents ofcontaminated territories to obtain "clean" foodstuffs
and even essential goods;• Due to general economic recession, many Chernobyl
victims are deprived in recent years of their benefits
provided by law — compensation payments andgratuitous acquisition of medicines in drugstores;• 100-percent clinical observation of the adult
population living in the affected territory is notachieved;• Personnel is still scanty in medical establishments,
especially in remote villages;• Medical institutions are not fully equipped with allnecessary medical facilities;• Housing construction for the resettled has been
withheld;• Construction of social and cultural objects has been

The problem of consumption of "dirty" foodstuffs
grown in private gardens by residents of contaminatedareas is still acute. In the first place, it relates to milk
and milk products, meat, wild-growing fruit, berries,
and mushrooms. While at least some control of suchproducts was performed in the first years after theaccident, there is practically no control at present inthese areas.
Also unresolved is the problem of clean foodstuffs
supplies to the population living in the contaminatedterritories. For example, only 8-20 percent of "clean"milk, butter and vegetable oil, meat, vegetables, and261

victims of Chernobyl was out of question. Only theliquidation of Article 6 of the USSR Constitution by
the People's Deputies of the USSR, abolition of thecommunist party monopoly, adoption of a new article
on a multiparty system and public organisations,adoption of the law in 1990 on public organisations andmovements thrust the establishment of different civil
movements and organisations, including those aimed at
assistance to victims of Chernobyl.
It should be specially noted that the unofficial"green" movement in the former USSR emerged indifferent aspects owing to many publications about theconsequences of the Chernobyl accident, appearing inpress in late 80's after the first, more or less, freeelections of the People's Deputies of the USSR. The
elections gave a rise to real liberalisation of politicallife in the country. According to some data, 38
non-government ecological organisations (and all ofthem were without doubt controlled by the line of theCPSU) existed in the country in 1987. In 1991 thenumber of newly-formed non-government ecologicalorganisations increased by more than 5 times and their
total number exceeded 1,000 organisations.
The
first
non-registered(i.e.
illegal)non-government public organisations (at that time, theregistration system under the condition of the CPSU
monopoly did not yet exist) concerned in theconsequences of the Chernobyl accident emerged inlate 1986 — early 1987. In particular, thenon-registered (illegal) political club "Perestroika"
founded by the editor of journalist agency "Novosti
Zhitomirschiny", Yakov Zaiko and the author of thisreport in the town Zhitomir. One of the tasks of the club
was to spread by all possible means true information
about the life of the people in the affected territories.
Because of the taboo on such information in the official
communist press, it had to be printed on a type-writerand illegally distributed among the population. Since1988 the club "Perestroika" had been illegally
publishing using primitive equipment the newspaper"Stenogramma" (Shorthand) with a circulation of 100
copies. The newspaper critically touched upon political
topics and the situation in the northern districts of theZhitomir region affected by the Chernobyl accident. At
that moment glasnost was the most important task:
nobody in the country knew about the realdevelopments in the fourth reactor of the Chernobyl
NPS, and about the scale of the accident consequences.
Besides, the people who remained in the affected
territory found themselves in a total information
blockade — no one knew about them, their sufferings,
ailments, deaths. Thus no help could be rendered tothese people.
In 1988 the author of this report had the first chance
to publicly talk at a meeting with workers of the plant"Promavtomatika" on what was going on in the"Chernobyl" territories. Further, with democratisation

brought to a halt;• Jobs are not being created for the resettled.
A fact is evident — the governments are not able totackle with even the most acute social problems related
to resettlement of the population from the mostdangerous radiocontamination zones during 11 years
after the Chernobyl accident. It is also obvious that thetendency of the central governments to shrink theassistance is likely to remain. Apparently, the majorburden of assistance to the victims of Chernobyl will be
carried in future by local administrations and by theresettled themselves.

2. Public movement to assist the Chernobyl
sufferers
The first official public action was theannouncement of a "Chernobyl" account #904 sometime after the accident. Citizens of the USSR were
informed about this account by officials of the party
and Soviet ruling circles. The account number and allaccount information were broadcast on all radio andtelevision channels, and printed in all party, Soviet,
trade-union and official newspapers. The authorities
invited people to mercy. The Soviet citizens were
proposed to send money to this account for victims ofChernobyl. Nothing else could have happened at thattime. No one except the authorities had the right to set
up a special account (no matter what kind of account,
not even the "Chernobyl" one) in a bank. Citizens of
the USSR had no accounts in ordinary banks, only instate savings-banks. Except for the central state bank,there were no other banks in Russia.
When the deputies of the USSR started to speak
publicly about the Chernobyl problems in their first
Congresses and Sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the
USSR, the USSR government asked so-called"independent" experts of WHO and IAEA to come to
the Soviet Union and conduct so-called "independent"
study of the Chernobyl NPS accident consequences.
This commission was headed by a Japanese scientist,
I.Shigematsu. The conclusion of this commission
appeared perplexing to many: the Chernobyl accident
had posed no danger to human health and no change inthe health of people was found by the international
experts. Soon it became known that the Soviet
government had financed the visit of the international
experts, their stay, the best hotel accommodation andeverything else from the "Chernobyl" account #904
according to a direction of the Chairman of Council of
Ministers of the USSR, N.I.Ryzhkov. That brought thefirst official public action of mercy towards the victimsof the accident at the Chernobyl NPS to an inglorious
end.
Until 1989 no public association or organisation
was allowed in the former USSR except the communist
ones. Thus, any public movement for assistance to the262non-government organisations (in co-operation with
Russian organisations) as well.
The number of non-government organisations in
Russia involved exclusively with "Chernobyl" matters
is 25 (the list is supplemented). As a rule, theiractivities are aimed only at various help to the victimsof the Chernobyl accident, from lobbying of necessary
laws in the Council of the Russian Federation andscientific projects related to the consequences of theaccident at the ChNPS, to assistance to concreteorganisations, especially to children's homes, hospitals,
families and people.

of life in the USSR, the first meetings in support of therights of the people affected by the Chernobyl accident
have been organised by the "National Front ofAssistance to Perestroika". This Front had "grown" outof the small club "Perestroika" and was officiallyregistered by local authorities by that time. Thousandsof people came to these meetings. People of Zhitomir
expressed their solidarity with the victims ofChernobyl, demanded resignation of the government of
the Ukraine, truth about the consequences of theaccident at the Chernobyl NNP, and efficient help of
the authorities to the affected. A wave of meetings
against stifling of glasnost about the consequences of
the Chernobyl accident had moved over all districts of
the Zhitomir region affected by radiation, as well as in
Belarus (e.g. a "crusade" rally of people from theaffected territories to Minsk in 1990).
This is how started the public movement of citizens
for truth about the consequences of the Chernobyl
accident and for assistance to the victims. Only in 1991
appeared the first non-government organisations thatwere officially registered and acknowledged by theauthorities and the society. The major purpose of theseorganisations were to help the immediate victims ofChernobyl, especially children. They emerged at firstin Kiev, Minsk and Moscow, and acquired the status of
all-union and republican organisations. At that time the"Chernobyl" 24 hours TV charity was popular andefficient as a means to collect money for the affected.

The author of this report is also the president of yet
single in the Russian Federation private Charity
Foundation with a statutory objective to renderassistance to children-orphans victims of Chernobyl.
The Foundation regularly helps 150 orphans living in
two children's homes in the radiocontaminated territory(Russia), as well as to the children's hospital, the old,
the invalids, the families with many children in the
town Zhitomir and the village Bazar of the Narodich
district of the Zhitomir region (the Ukraine) — so far as
the customs barriers and the facilities of the Foundation
allow. Humanitarian actions of mercy by the Charity
Foundation include purchase and delivery of food,different
mixtures,juicesfor
destitutechildren-nurselings (unparented children live inchildren's homes from birth till the age of 12), as wellas medicines, syringes, footwear, books, toys, candies,biscuits, colour-TV's, etc.
The Foundation addressed the Moscow mayor,
Yu.M.Luzhkov requesting to assist in the constructionof a new children's home in "clean" area in order toresettle both of the children's homes from "dirty"
territory of the town Klintsy. A location for the new
children's home was found, the engineering data wereprepared, and the design of the house was drawn.
However, with the commencement of the war in
Chechnya all work was brought to a standstill.
As far as the abilities allow, the Foundation renders
help to a Zhitomir children's hospital which is treating
the children from the affected territories, finances heart
operations for children of families with low income
living in the "dirty" areas, as well as allocates one-timemoney grants to the old and the invalids from theaffected territories of the Zhitomir region (theUkraine).
The Foundation has several holders of fellowship as
well — it pays for education of gifted students from
Zhitomir in higher educational establishments.
Additionally, the publishing department of theFoundation edits, publishes, and distributes ecologicaland antinuclear literature (free of charge for the people
affected by the Chernobyl accident). All benefits are
spent solely for the purposes to help the people affectedby the Chernobyl accident. The Foundation carries

In 1989 dozens of foreign journalists gained accessto the affected territories. Articles about thecomplicated situation of the affected appeared in theWestern press. As a result, hundreds of organisations
for assistance to the victims of Chernobyl emerged in
the West, Japan and the United States. Domestic
non-government organisations began to associate with
the Western ones, thus merging into international
non-government organisations. In order to overcome
the bureaucratic barriers on the way of humanitarian
aid to the Chernobyl victims from Western and Japan,
it was better to work together. The enormous
humanitarian aid, generosity and heartiness of theJapanese towards the people affected by the Chernobyl
accident should be especially noted.
The years of 1989-1991 were the peak of the"Chernobyl" movement in the USSR and abroad. With
the collapse of the USSR the "Chernobyl" movementof mercy and aid to the victims of peaceful atom
significantly weakened. The problems of Chernobyl
were thrust aside by problems of building up the
independent states and solution of national problems.
According to the data of the present author, there are
currently more than 50 non-government anti-nuclear
domestic organisations in Russia that in one way or theother, directly or indirectly, render help to the people
affected by Chernobyl. There are several international263

at the Chernobyl NNP. These topics include:"Radionuclide content in the forestry products in theconditions of radiation contamination", "New
medical-biological criteria of life-standard influenceon the health state of the people in radiocontaminatedregions", "Development of methodology of
immunological monitoring for examination of aviation
specialists — liquidators of the consequences ofaccident at the Chernobyl NPS", "Development oftechnique to form resistance to stress factors" (within
the framework of the programme "Children of
Chernobyl").
In addition, the Moscow State University Scientific
Association of Chernobyl Invalids takes part in the"1997 Comprehensive Target Programme of Social
Assistance to Invalids, as well as Persons Injured as a
Result of the Accident at the Chernobyl NPS",
authorised by the government of Moscow.
One of the latest projects developed by the Moscow
State University Scientific Association of Chernobyl
Invalids is teaching children who came to Moscow
from the affected zones and encounter difficulties inentering higher and secondary professional
establishments. It is planned to provide additional help
to 500 children of former "Chernobylers".

such authority that its stuffs are invited to take part asjury-members in different national meetings andfestivals of "green" and other organisations, as well as
in different international conferences. The Foundation
established a special prize and awards the participantsof various international and national contests of"green" organisations and "green" press.
The Foundation has reliable partners in the Westand Japan. Co-operation is especially close with theJapanese "Chernobyl" organisations headed by Akiko
Wada (Tokyo) and Ikuo Kusaka (Ishinomaki). In
recent years they and their organisations have several
times provided via the Foundation significant support
to two children's homes patronised by the Foundation,
as well as to the old of Zhitomir. The Foundation also
maintains close co-operation with Japanese scientists
from the Research Reactor Institute of the Kyoto
University, T.Imanaka, H.Koide and K.Kobayashi,
who are members of the authors for a collective of afundamental publication launched by the Foundation— the first "Nuclear Encyclopaedia" in the world.
One should mark among the "Chernobyl"
non-government organisations the ones that comprise
victims of the Chernobyl accident living in the affected
territories, and struggling for their survival, as well as
non-government organisations of the participants ofliquidation of the accident who had as consequence
became invalid. The association "Chernobyl —Moscow State University" and the Moscow State
University Scientific Association of Chernobyl
Invalids, officially registered in 1991 and 1994,
respectively, have been more and more active lately.
The main objectives and tasks of the Moscow State
University Scientific Association of Chernobyl
Invalids
arecharityactionsaimed
atsocial-psychological, informational, legal, medical
assistance and material support to persons affected as aresult of the Chernobyl accident or exposed to radiation
due to other reasons; material, medical and social
assistance to people, their families, children, women,
invalids, families of perished and deceased;arrangement of payment for travel and medical
treatment for children, women and invalids, including
medical treatment abroad; provision of work places tothe association members by making new enterprises of
the association; provision of measures (within theframework of international co-operation) on
rehabilitation of territories affected by the catastrophe
at the Chernobyl NNP; financial support of scientificstudies related to different aspects of the consequencesof the accident at the ChNPS (social-psychological,
legal, medical, economic, ecological aspects), etc.
The research experience of these associations
presents certain interest. Since 1991 they have
performed research studies on almost 20 topics directly
or indirectly touching the consequences of the accident

While analysing the question of publicorganisations of help to victims of Chernobyl, one
cannot bypass another aspect of this problem.
Sometimes organisations or people who hampered
publishing of true information about the events at the
ChNPS after the accident and intentionally publishedfalse information about the situation of the populationin the contaminated territories, had started after the
breakthrough of the glasnost to found organisations ofassistance to victims of Chernobyl and declaredthemselves their best friends.
Such cynical case happened in Zhitomir in 1987.
The editor of the newspaper "Radyanska
Zhitmorischina", D.Panchuk had not permitted theauthor of this report (at that time a correspondent of thenewspaper) to visit the affected villages of the
Narodich district of the Zhitomir region. After theauthor had, nevertheless, travelled to these villages andwritten an authentic article — the editor had not
published it. Instead, an untruthful article of anothercorrespondent was published stating that everything
was fine in the affected areas. However, when the
Chernobyl topic became not dangerous to be written,
D.Panchuk jointly with other journalists of such sort
had quickly established within the regionalorganisation of journalists a foundation for assistanceto victims of Chernobyl. A fact is striking such that thispseudo-foundation found connections in Japan. The
Japanese people, not knowing with whom they wereactually having contact, came to Zhitomir withhumanitarian aid (many thanks for that), met those who264had been unhesitatingly implementing the party
decisions on classifying of the events in the affected
territories and who had been in real guilty of stresses,
illnesses, and deaths of their fellow citizens. The
people who admitted the classifying of Chernobyl wereinvited and visited Japan, met the Japanese public andtold how bravely they were writing truth about
Chernobyl, and gave interviews to the Japanesenewspapers. A greater cynicism more than this story
can not be imagined. The author of this report had to
explain the real state of things twice in the all-union
and the Ukrainian republican newspapers.
This Zhitomir story is, however, not alone. There
are a lot of other similar examples that oppressors of
the truth of Chernobyl had afterwards not only turned
into "advocates" of this truth at the level of publicorganisations, but occupied the highest positions in thegovernment of the independent states.

public organisations in Russia that provide
assistance to victims of Chernobyl
1. "SOS" Chernobyl ---- Obninsk division of theinternational association. Obninsk. Moscow region.
2. "Children of Chernobyl" ---- division of theBelorussian Committee. Moscow.
3. Public Association of Persons Affected as a Resultof the Catastrophe at the Chernobyl NPS. Moscow.
4. Division of the International Foundation for
Assistance to Victims of Chernobyl. Moscow.
5. "Raduga-XXI" ---- division of the international
non-government
humanitarianorganisation"Foundation "Chernobyl - help" of North America.
Moscow.
6. Foundation "Social Protection and Medical
Provision of the Chernobylers". Moscow.
7. "Spec.Chernobyl" Foundation. Moscow.
8. Foundation of assistance and rehabilitation ofinvalids, orphans, refugees and victims ofChernobyl. Moscow
9. "Chernobyler" ---- social protection foundation.
Moscow.
10.Union "Chernobyl" of Russia. Moscow, withdivisions over the country.
11."Chernobyl" ---- association of the Union.
Moscow.
12."Chernobyl-Help"theinternational---humanitarian organisation. Moscow.
13."Chernobyl, Children of Chernobyl" ----division of
the international association. Ul'yanovsk.
14."Union of Chernobyl Workers" ---- Russian
association. Voronezh region, settlement Ramon.
15."Chernobyl-Atom" ---- international association ofunions. Moscow.
16."Chernobyl-Hospital" ---- foundation. Moscow.
17."Chernobyl-Hope" ---- foundation for assistance toinvalids, injured, ill, overirradiated as a result ofChernobyl catastrophe. Moscow.
18.Chernobyl Safety Foundation. Moscow.
19."Chernobylenergozaschita" ---- association forsocial protection of citizens who took part inliquidation of the consequences of the accident at
the Chernobyl NPS. Moscow.
20.Chernobyl Mission" ---- public organisation.
Moscow.
21.Operative department at the Siberia regional
division "Chernobyl". Novosibirsk.
22."Chernobyl" ---- public association of invalids of
war and Chernobyl. Moscow.
23.Private Charity Foundation of Yaroshinskaya(assistance to people affected by the accident at the
ChNPS). Moscow.
24.Association "Chernobyl ---- Moscow State
University"
25.The Moscow State University Scientific
Association of Chernobyl Invalids. Moscow.

References
1. State Law of the Russian Federation "On Social
Protection for Citizens Who Suffered from theCatastrophe At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Plant". Moscow. 1995.
2. On Common Program and Situation Concerning
LiquidationofChernobyl
Catastrophe's
Consequences. The Resolution by Supreme Sovietof the USSR. Moscow. 1989. Author's archive.
3. An International Day of Environment. Expert's
Evaluations of Programs andDecisionsConcerning Liquidation of Chernobyl Catastrophe's
Consequences. Moscow. 1990.
4. A.Yaroshinskaya. Bluff and Poverty. Stolitza. 1991.
Moscow; Komsomolskoe znamya. #136.1991.
Kiev.
5. A. Yaroshinskaya. Chernobyl. Top Secret. Tokyo.
1993.
6. Statute of Scientist's Assosiation of Chernobyl's
Invalids of Moscow State University. 1994.
Author's arhive.
7. Social Ecological Movement of Russia. Moscow.
1995.
8. Information
about
Actionsof Belorussia
Charitable Fund "To Children of Chernobyl". 1995.
Manuscript is in author’s arhive.
9. World
Antinuclear
Movement.
NuclearEncyclopedia. Moscow. 1996.
10.A.Dumnova, E.Vosmirko. 11 Years after
Chernobyl. Zelenuy mir. #10. 1997, Moscow.
11.On Complex Program of Social Assistance forInvalids and People which Received Mutilations in
Condition with Chernobyl Catastrophe. The
Resolution by Moscow Government #95, 1997.
Tverskayay, 13. #11. 1997.
12.Blue Pages. Moscow. 1997.
List of Russian and International Non-government

265