Editorial

Perspectives on Chernobyl and Fukushima Health Effects:
What Can Be Learned From Eastern European Research?
Timothy Mousseau, PhD1;Anders Pape Møller, PhD2
1 University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC U.S.A.
2 CNRS, Université Paris-Sud, Orsay,
FranceCorresponding Author:
Timothy A. Mousseau
Professor of Biological Sciences
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208 U.S.A.
Mousseau@sc.edu
This is part of the first half of themonograph: “A Critical Analysis of theConcept of an ‘Effective Dose’ of Radiation”.
The monograph in its entirety features tworeview papers from prominent Russianscientist Alexey Yablokov looking criticallyat the current standards of human radiation
safety, accompanied by two editorials
presenting a point/counterpoint perspectiveon Professor Yablokov’s work. The second
paper and editorial will be published in thenext issue, due later this year.
J Health Pollution 5: 2-6 (2013)

It is now evident that much moreis known concerning the healthand ecological consequences ofradioactive contaminants than is being
acknowledged or appreciated by themainstream scientific and regulatorycommunities. This became apparent
following the 2005 publication of theinfluential Chernobyl Forum report, inwhich a large body of literature from
Eastern Europe was ignored and an
2

Journal of Health & Pollution Vol. 3, No. 5 — June 2013attempt was made to downplay efforts
to predict health outcomes for humanpopulations living downwind from the
Chernobyl disaster.1-5 The Chernobyl
Forum report suggested, largely in theabsence of supporting data, that thedisaster's net ecological consequences
for flora and fauna was positive becauseof reduced anthropogenic influences(i.e. the so-called DMZ Effect, named
after the phenomenon of wildlife
proliferation in the demilitarized
no-man's-land between North andSouth Korea) and that the reported
diverse array of human morbidities
in the region were largely the resultof stress and environmental factors
beyond radiation (e.g., smoking andalcoholism). Critical analysis of thisreport reveals that these statements
were included, and perhaps tolerated
by the majority of participants, becauseof a lack of Western peer-reviewed
scientific literature to refute them.
However, an evidence-based approach
to public policy development cannot
rely on ignorance as its foundation. If
information necessary for informed
public policy is absent or meager
then an appropriate response is toacknowledge this deficiency andcommission the needed research tomeet societal needs.
One positive outcome of the bias
exhibited by the Chernobyl Forumwas that it inspired a call to action
from many quarters, including
those interested in conducting
basic research. A diverse array ofinternational stakeholders (e.g., theChernobyl Research Initiative, led by
the authors of this editorial; multiple
research teams from the U.S.-based
National Cancer Institute; the EUsponsored Agenda for Research on

Chernobyl Health group led by Drs.
Keith Baverstock and Elisabeth Cardis;
and Dr. Nick Beresford's Centre for
Ecology & Hydrobiology in Lancaster,
England, among others) have been
involved in this revived interest in
Chernobyl. However, perhaps as aconsequence of the policy impactsof the unsupported and optimistic
outlook disseminated by the report,
there has been very limited investment
by any agency into basic researchsurrounding Chernobyl—and now
also Fukushima. The research efforts
precipitated by the Chernobyl Forum
report are dwindling and certainly
most of these efforts appear to beunsustainable due to a lack of funding.
It is perhaps revealing to examine thefunding priorities of the U.S. National
Science Foundation where, during
the past few years, more than $1B has
been directed towards research related
to climate change while less than
$1.5M has been invested in research
into the aftermath of Fukushima.
Less than $1.5M has been invested
in all Chernobyl research since 1987,
with essentially no new funding since2008.6 Given that most scientists
are essentially tradesmen selling
their research as wares, scientificinvestigation generally will not
happen unless it is commissioned via
a grant from a funding agency. Thisis especially true in the U.S. academic
environment, where researchers are
required to obtain grants to whollyor partially underwrite their own
salaries and where indirect cost
payments by granting agencies toresearch institutions are used to pay
for discretionary programs. This is
the fundamental reason for the lackof an extensive body of Western
literature concerning the health

Mousseau, Møller

Editorialand environmental impacts of theChernobyl disaster. Given predictionsof further cuts to U.S. federal funding
agencies, it seems unlikely that thistrend will change in the near future.
Thus it is very fortunate that in recent
years several scientists from Eastern
Europe and elsewhere have made aconcerted effort to survey, compile andsynthesize the significant literature
related to the effects of Chernobyl
that was published during the postChernobyl Soviet Union (1986-1991)
and post-Soviet Union eras (1991 andonwards), mostly in Russian or other
non-English languages, in journals
and proceedings that for the mostpart never made it past international
borders. Perhaps due to lingering
Cold War attitudes and/or perceived
deficiencies in the methodology ofSoviet-style science, the bulk of thisliterature was ignored and, despite thepotentially relevant content, played
little role in shaping the findings andimplied policy recommendations of
the Chernobyl Forum report.
Principal among the recent efforts is
the New York Academy of Sciences(NYAS) published monographwritten by Alexey Yablokov, Vassily
Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko,
and edited by Janette ShermanNevinger, entitled Chernobyl:
Consequences of the Catastrophe for
the People and the Environment.7
This volume is currently the best
available comprehensive compilationof the extensive literature from
Eastern Europe regarding the effects
of Chernobyl. When first publishedin 2009, it was met with acclaim by
the anti-nuclear community andwith derision by the pro-nuclear
establishment. These positions
were largely politically motivatedwithout regard to the merit of thisunique compilation. Sadly, pronuclear proponents prevailed in
influencing the NYAS to post a

Mousseau, Møller

Perspectives on Chernobyl and Fukushima Health Effects

Abbreviations

DMZ

De-militarized zone

NGO

IAEA

International Atomic
Energy Agency

Non-governmentalorganization

NYAS

ICRP

International Cancer
Research Partnership

New York Academyof Sciences

WHO

World Health Organization

disclaimer regarding the volume
and to discontinue the print version(although an online version isfreely available to NYAS members
and institutional subscribers to theAnnals of the New York Academyof Sciences). The monograph is notwithout shortcomings: the translation
leaves room for improvement and it
does not stylistically align with typicalWestern scientific monographs. For
the most part, it is an abbreviatedyet encyclopedic listing of the many
hundreds of research reports generated
on the various topics covered by
the book with little or no statisticaltreatment or assessment of the qualityof individual reports. However, thisin no way discounts the enormous
value of the empirical content,
most of which cannot be found in
English anywhere else. The skepticalmind would and should question
the perspective of any author wheninterpreting the thesis of a publishedwork, but the overwhelming volume
and content of research findings
reported by Yablokov et al. shouldcommand serious attention despite
any stylistic shortcomings or politicalbiases. At a minimum, this bookshould be used as an importantresource for more detailed analyses ofChernobyl consequences.

Figure 1 — Measuring radiation on the banks of a canal (formerly River Romashka),which empties into the River Tom, Chernilschikovo, Tomsk, Russia.
(Source: A. Toropov, 2008)

Journal of Health & Pollution Vol. 3, No. 5 — June 20133

Editorial

Figure 2 — In the past, signs marked the place where radioactive
waste entered the River Tom in Chernilschikovo, Tomsk, Russia.
Dumping ceased in 2008, yet it is believed there are low levels of
various radionuclides still present in the river bed. These migrate
downstream over time. (Source: Siberian Ecological Agency, 2006)

Some of the skepticism directed
towards the NYAS volume stems
from the disconnect between thediverse array of human healthissues that are reported versus theconventional wisdom espoused by
nuclear regulatory agencies and NGOs(e.g., IAEA and ICRP). Yablokov etal. suggest an eventual death toll in
the hundreds of thousands while theofficial IAEA and WHO estimates
are a few thousand in total. Similar
discrepancies have been foundbetween an array of recent reports
concerning impacts to wildlife (e.g.,Møller et al and the rosy picture
portrayed by the Chernobyl Forum
report).8-13 Interestingly, many parallels
have been found between effects on
animal populations and morbidities
observed in humans (e.g., increased
rates of tumors, lower male fertility,
elevated frequencies of cataracts)suggesting some support for the
hypothesis that, since birds and insects
4

Journal of Health & Pollution Vol. 3, No. 5 — June 2013

Figure 3 — Cows grazing on the banks of the River Tom
in Chernilschikovo, Tomsk, Russia, close to whereradioactive waste was dumped until 2008.
(Source: Siberian Ecological Agency, 2002)

generally do not smoke, drink alcohol,
nor become clinically depressed, atleast some portion of the observed
human health effects must be related
to radioactive contaminants andnot just stress related to relocation
following the disaster or otherenvironmental factors.14-17 That said,
the potential health implications ofstress for human populations should
not be minimized.18 Ironically, themuch larger impacts observed forfield-based studies on animals may
result from the significantly morestressful environment imposed bylife “in the wild” as compared to
the relatively benign conditions of
the laboratory environment wheremost radiobiology studies have been
conducted in the past.19 Ultimately,
from a health, environmental andeconomic perspective, the causes
of injury—be they physiological or
psychological—are irrelevant, althoughfrom a mitigation perspective, a bettermechanistic appreciation of cause-andeffect would certainly be important.
Given that the diametrically opposing
predictions of the health andenvironmental impacts of the Chernobyl
and Fukushima nuclear accidents areunlikely to both be true, the questionof why there are such large differences
begs to be answered. At present, apartfrom the general appreciation of thefact that biological systems, especiallythose involving humans, are much
more complicated than previously
understood, the answers remain largely
unstated. In this and upcoming issuesof the Journal of Health & Pollution,
Dr. Yablokov will explore some of
the likely sources of discrepancies
among different groups concerning
the health and environmental impactsof radiation. Principal among these
possible sources of disagreement is theway in which “effective dose” is usuallycalculated for exposed populations.

Mousseau, Møller

Editorial
Yablokov methodically explores themany assumptions, simplifications,and limitations of this concept andfinds it greatly lacking in realism. The
argument is made that the natural worldis much more complicated than can beaddressed by the current models usedby regulatory agencies, which generally
ignore the large heterogeneities thatexist for exposure, effects on different
biological tissues, and radio-sensitivities
of individuals. Given the interactions,sometimes non-linear, among
environment, radio-sensitivity, andpopulation processes (e.g., evolutionary
and ecological responses) that havebeen revealed from animal studies, it
is clear that simple and static models
for calculating dose are incapable ofrealistically capturing the range anddistribution of dose and effects formost human populations and it seems
likely that the concept of an "effective
dose" will need a significant revamp inlight of recent findings.20-21 Yablokov
is not alone in this assessment; others
have made similar and repeated calls
for modification of outdated ICRP
approaches.22
In this paper, Yablokov also explores
the need to reassess the expectedbiological consequences of lowdose radiation. Although it has been
widely appreciated that naturally
occurring low-dose radiation can bea significant contributor to humanhealth issues, these have largely been
ignored when it comes to addressing
regulatory limits to non-natural
sources. Curiously, regulators will
sometimes cite the fact that sincedoses of radiation from anthropogenic
sources (e.g., nuclear power plants) are
expected to be on average lower thandoses from natural sources, healthconsequences will not be measurable
and hence not of significance from a
policy standpoint. This perspective
would only be defensible if there were
no demonstrated consequences of
low-dosage radiation and dose effects

Mousseau, Møller

Perspectives on Chernobyl and Fukushima Health Effects

were not additive and heterogeneously
distributed. However, the mostrespected independent authority
concerning low-dose effects (i.e.
the National Academy of Sciences'
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation[BEIR] VII report) strongly supports
the linear no-threshold (LNT) model
for biological effects of radiation
based on a comprehensive review ofthe literature, and as documented
in Yablokov’s paper, there are now alarge number of reviews of the effects
of natural radiation sources that
effectively demonstrate that even low
doses can result in significant publichealth problems.23 For example, it iswell-known that natural radon sourcesin homes is a leading cause of lungcancer both in the U.S. and abroad,
although interactions between radonand smoking can sometimes cloud thisrelationship.24,25 Furthermore, a recent
meta-analysis of natural radiation
source effects (excluding radon) foundthat, overall, natural radiation sources,
such as those found in Kerala (India),
Ramsar (Iran), Guarapari (Brazil), andmany other places, have significant andmeasurable negative consequences forthe populations of humans, animals
and plants living in these naturally“hot” places.26 Thus, there is no a priori
reason to expect that low doses, nomatter the source, be inconsequential.
To ignore these effects because of
the statistical challenges of working
with small effects in large populations
should be considered inappropriate
given that risk equals effect size
multiplied by population. Given thelarge number of people exposed toradioactive contaminants, the affected
population is likely to also be large.
Yablokov’s final contribution to thisseries, to be published in the next issueof the Journal of Health & Pollution,
draws extensively from his NYAS book.
In it, he explores the wide range ofmorbidities that have been associatedwith radioactive contaminants in

Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. A key
message from this piece is that it isimportant to investigate the full rangeof health effects, not just cancers.
When taken collectively, there is adiverse array of studies that provide
strong evidence of large biological andpublic health impacts associated with
the Chernobyl disaster. These studies
have largely been overlooked and noteffectively considered when it comes toregulatory discussions of “safe” levelsof exposure to radiation. Many of these
non-cancer effects may not have yet
been demonstrated to directly associatewith human mortality (e.g., radiation
damage to chromosomes). But where
there is smoke, usually there is fire, and
it is intuitively obvious to any biologistthat genetic damage is often a prelude
to larger consequences for the organism
or its descendants. It is precisely forthis reason that health surveillance
programs of workers involved in the
nuclear industry and nuclear medical
fields utilize bio-dosimetric methods
involving estimates of genetic damage
that are presumed to serve as bioindicators of longer-term healthconsequences for exposed individuals.
Indeed, the very term “effective dose”
was designed to capture all negative
health outcomes from radiation
exposure, not just cancers.22
In the end, it would seem prudent toseriously consider the potential role
played by radioactive contaminants as
a contributor to the array of humanmorbidities that Dr. Yablokov has
uncovered within the previously hidden
scientific literature of Eastern Europe.
We should all be very grateful for thisinfusion of important information
to discussions related to the healthand environmental consequences ofradiological events. Lessons learned
from Chernobyl are particularly relevant
now as society grapples with a prognosis
for the impacts of the Fukushimadisaster and its implications for the
future of nuclear energy.

Journal of Health & Pollution Vol. 3, No. 5 — June 2013

5

Editorial
References

9. Moller AP, Mousseau TA. Species richness and1. Bennett B, Repacholi M, Carr Z, editors. Health

Chernobyl. Biol Lett [Internet]. 2007 Oct 22 [cited 2013

effects of the Chernobyl accident and special healthcare programmes [Internet]. Geneva: World HealthOrganization; 2005 Jul 26 [updated 2006; cited 2013
May 21]. 160 p. Available from: http://www.who.int/
ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/WHO%20Report%20
on%20Chernobyl%20Health%20Effects%20July%20
06.pdf
2. Alexakhin R, Anspaugh L, Balonov M, Batandjieva
B, Besnus F, Biesold H, Bogdevich I, Byron D, Carr
Z, Deville-Cavelin G, Ferris I, Fesenko S, Gentner
N, Golikov V, Gora A, Hendry J, Hinton T, Howard
B, Kashparov V, Kirchner G, LaGuardia T, Louvat
D, Moberg L, Napier B, Prister B, Proskura M.
Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident
and their aemediation: twenty years of experience:
report of the UN Chernobyl forum expert group"environment" [Internet]. Vienna: International Atomic
Energy Agency; 2005 Aug [updated 2006; cited 2013
May 21]. 246 p. Available from: http://www-ns.iaea.org/
downloads/rw/meetings/environ-consequences-reportwm-08.05.pdf
3. Cardis E, Krewski D, Boniol M, Drozdovitch V,
Darby SC, Gilbert ES, Akiba S, Benichou J, Ferlay J,
Gandini S, Hill C, Howe G, Kesminiene A, Moser M,
Sanchez M, Storm H, Voisin L, Boyle P. Estimates of the6abundance of forest birds in relation to radiation at
May 21];3(5):483-6. Available from: http://intl-rsbl.
royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/5/483.full
10. Moller AP, Mousseau TA. Reduced abundance ofinsects and spiders linked to radiation at Chernobyl
20 years after the accident. Biol Lett [Internet]. 2009
Mar 18 [cited 2013 May 21];5(3):456-9. Available
from: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/
early/2009/03/13/rsbl.2008.0778.full
11. Moller AP, Mousseau TA. Efficiency of bioindicators for low-level radiation under field conditions.
Ecol Indicators [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2013 May 21];11(2):424-30. Available from: http://cricket.biol.sc.edu/
chernobyl/papers/Moller-Mousseau-Eco-Ind-2010.pdf
12. Galvan I, Mousseau TA, Moller AP. Bird
population declines due to radiation exposure at
Chernobyl are stronger in species with pheomelaninbased coloration. Oecologia [Internet]. 2011 Apr [cited
2013 May 21];165(4):827-35. Available from: http://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00442-010-1860-5
Subscription required to view.
13. Moller AP, Bonisoli-Alquati A, Rudolfsen G,
Mousseau TA. Elevated mortality among birds
in Chernobyl as judged from skewed age and sex
ratios. Plos One [Internet]. 2012 Apr [cited 2013 May
21];7(4):1-8. Available from: http://www.plosone.

cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout fromorg/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.

the Chernobyl accident. Int J Cancer [Internet]. 2006 Sep

pone.0035223

15 [cited 2013 May 21];119(6):1224-35. Available from:

14. Moller AP, Surai P, Mousseau TA. Antioxidants,

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/fullradiation and mutation as revealed by sperm

4. Fairlie I, Sumner D. The other report on Chernobyl

abnormality in barn swallows from Chernobyl. Proc

(TORCH). Brussels: Greens/EFA in the European

Royal Soc [Internet]. 2005 Feb 4 [cited 2013 May

Parliament; 2006 Apr 6. 89 p.

21];272(1560): 247–252. Available from: http://www.

5. Mousseau TA, Nelson N, Shestopalov V. Don't

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1634966/pdf/

underestimate the death rate from Chernobyl.

rspb20042914.pdf

Nature [Internet]. 2005 Oct 20 [cited 2013 May

15. Moller AP, Mousseau TA, de Lope F, Saino N.

21];437(7062):1089. Available from: http://www.nature.

Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swallows

com/nature/journal/v437/n7062/full/4371089a.html

from Chernobyl. Biol Lett [Internet]. 2007 Aug 22 [cited

Subscription required to view.

2013 May 21]; 3(4): 414-7. Available from: http://www.

6. National Science Foundation Award Searchncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1994720/

Database [Internet]. Arlington, VA (USA): The National

16. Mousseau TA, Moller AP. Elevated frequencies

Science Foundation [Date unknown, cited 2013 Mayof cataracts in birds from Chernobyl. PLos One.

30]. Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch

Forthcoming 2013.

7. Yablokov AV, Nesterenko VB, Nesterenko AV.

17. Moller AP, Bonisoli-Alquati A, Mousseau TA. High

Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people

frequencies of albinism and tumors in free-living birds

and nature [Internet]. Vol. 1181. Boston: Blackwell

at Chernobyl. Mutation Res. Forthcoming 2013.

Publishing; 2009 [cited 2013 May 21]. 327 p. Available

18. Samet JM, Patel SS. The psychological and welfare

from: http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20

consequences of the Chernobyl disaster: a systematic

Chernobyl%20book.pdf

literature review, focus group findings, and future

8. Moller AP, Mousseau TA. Determinants ofdirections [Internet]. Los Angeles: USC Institute forinterspecific variation in declines of birds after

Global Health; 2011 Apr 18 [cited 2013 May 21]. 120

exposure to radiation at Chernobyl. J Appl Ecolp. Available from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.

[Internet]. 2007 Jul 13 [cited 2013 May 21];44(5):909-

com/search?q=cache:V58wvqkytIIJ:globalhealth.usc.

19. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

edu/en/Research%2520And%2520Services/Pages/~/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01353.x/fullmedia/BF7A48A9DE874F37BB6F390D4847D616.

Journal of Health & Pollution Vol. 3, No. 5 — June 2013

ashx+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
19. Garnier-Laplace J, Geraskin S, Della-Vedova C,
Beaugelin-Seiller K, Hinton TG, Real A, Oudalova
A. Are radiosensitivity data derived from natural
field conditions consistent with data from controlled
exposures? A case study of Chernobyl wildlife
chronically exposed to low dose rates. J Environ Radioact[Internet]. 2013 Jul [cited 2013 May 21];121:12-21.
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0265931X12000240 Subscription required
to view.
20. Moller AP, Mousseau TA. Assessing effects ofradiation on abundance of mammals and predator–preyinteractions in Chernobyl using tracks in the snow.
Ecol Indicators [Internet]. 2013 Mar [cited 2013 May
21];26:112-6. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12003767
Subscription required to view.
21. Moller AP, Barnier F, Mousseau TA. Ecosystems
effects 25 years after Chernobyl: pollinators, fruit
set and recruitment. Oecologia [Internet]. 2012
Dec [cited 2013 May 21];170(4):1155-65. Available
from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2
Fs00442-012-2374-0 Subscription Required to view.
22. Brenner DJ. We can do better than effective dosefor estimating or comparing low-dose radiation risks.
Ann ICRP [Internet]. 2012 Oct-Dec [cited 2013 May
21];41(3-4):124-8. Available from: http://www.icrp.info/
article/S0146-6453(12)00054-1/abstract Subscription
required to view.
23. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing
radiation: BEIR VII phase 2 [Internet]. Washington
DC: The National Academies Press; 2006 [cited 2013
May 21]. 406 p. Available from: http://www.nap.edu/
openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=R1
24. Lubin JH, Boice JD Jr. Lung cancer risk fromresidential radon: meta-analysis of eight epidemiologic
studies. J Natl Cancer Inst [Internet]. 1997 Jan 1 [cited
2013 May 21];89(1):49-57. Available from: http://jnci.
oxfordjournals.org/content/89/1/49.full.pdf+html
25. Zhang ZL, Sun J, Dong JY, Tian HL, Xue L, Qin
LQ, Tong J. Residential radon and lung cancer risk: an
updated meta- analysis of case-control studies. Asian
Pac J Cancer Prev [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2013 May
21];13(6):2459-65. Available from: http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22938404 Subscription required
to view.
26. Moller AP, Mousseau TA. The effects of naturalvariation in background radioactivity on humans,
animals and other organisms. Biol Rev [Internet]. 2013
Feb [cited 2013 May 21];88(1):226-54. Available from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469185X.2012.00249.x/fullMousseau, Møller