Semipalatinsk nuclear
testing: the humanitarianconsequences
Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with
Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

NUPI Report[Report no. 1, 2014]

Publisher:
Copyright:
ISBN:

Norwegian Institute of International Affairs© Norwegian Institute of International Affairs 2014978-82-7002-339-4
Any views expressed in this publication are those of theauthors. They should not be interpreted as reflecting theviews of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. The
text may not be printed in part or in full without thepermission of the authors.

Visiting address:
Address:
Internet:
E-mail:Fax:
Tel:

C.J. Hambros plass 2d
P.O. Box 8159 Dep.
NO-0033 Oslo, Norway
www.nupi.no
info@nupi.no[+ 47] 22 99 40 50[+ 47] 22 99 40 00

Semipalatinsk
nuclear testing: thehumanitarianconsequences
Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana
Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

Report prepared for the Second Conference on Humanitarian Impact of
Nuclear Weapons in Nayarit, Mexico, 13–14 February 2014.

Published by Norwegian Institute of International Affairs

ForewordIts dark legacy endures: poisoned rivers and lakes,
children suffering from cancer and birth defects…
Today, Semipalatinsk has become a powerful symbol of hope.
– Ban Ki-moon (International Herald Tribune 28 April 2010)

During the Cold War, there were widespread and well-founded worries
about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, andconsiderable public information about the subject. The world’s nuclear
arsenals are still massive – yet many people today seem to haveforgotten about the potential impact of these weapons. In some places,
however, the legacy of nuclear detonations is a real part of everyday
life. One such place is the area around the former Semipalatinsk
Nuclear Test Site (SNTS) in Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union
conducted more than 450 nuclear tests until the test site was closed in1991. This report shows some of the ways in which the nuclear activity
has affected people living in the region – and the measures undertaken
to improve the situation.
The report is intended to help fill the gap between scientific studies(in physics, medicine, etc.) that may be difficult for non-specialists tocomprehend, and more journalistic accounts that do not aim to present
systematized information about the situation. The language is kept as
accessible as possible, and the most salient issues regarding thehumanitarian consequences of the activity at the SNTS are covered.
This report is thus meant as a broad and systematic introduction to acomplex issue, but not an in-depth scholarly treatise. Those interested
in a deeper study should consult the list of recommended literature at
the end of this report.
We would like to thank our partners in Kazakhstan. At the Instituteof Radiation Medicine and Ecology (IRME) in Semey Tatiana Belikhina,
Kazbek Apsalikov and Boris Gusev played an essential role byproviding the data about the health impacts of the nuclear testing. At
the Institute of Radiation Safety and Ecology (IRSE) in Kurchatov city,
Sergey Lukashenko and Aleksandr Moshkov shared their expert
knowledge of the environmental situation at and around the test site.
Further, the advice provided by Professor Susanne Bauer has been of
great help. We gratefully acknowledge the support from the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and express our gratitude to Victor Jensen
and Indra Øverland for invaluable support.

Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................3
Executive summary.............................................................................5
The Semipalatinsk story ......................................................................6
Health impact .....................................................................................9Acute and early effects of irradiation (1950–1960) ........................... 12
Early long-term effects (1960–1985) ................................................. 13
Late long-term effects (1985–2010) .................................................. 14
The environmental situation today – impact on people ......................15
After SNTS closure: scavenging, and efforts to secure the area .......... 15
Current situation, future perspectives ................................................. 17
The SNTS as a symbol of hope ........................................................... 20
People's experiences – perceptions of the tests' impact......................22
The state support system for victims of the nuclear tests ....................25
Concluding remarks ..........................................................................28
Selected literature for further reading ................................................29
List of references...............................................................................31
Appendix..........................................................................................34

Executive summaryFrom 1949 until the site was closed in 1991, the Soviet Union
carried out more than 450 nuclear detonations at the
Semipalatinsk nuclear test site (SNTS) in Kazakhstan. Morethan 110 of the tests were conducted in the air and on thesurface of the earth. Over one million people have beenrecognized by the government of Kazakhstan as having suffered(in a broad sense) from the SNTS.

This report seeks to offer a humanitarian perspective on thelegacy of the nuclear testing at the SNTS. By presenting
research-based findings in an accessible language, we hope tohelp fill the gap between scientific (medicine, physics, etc.)studies that are difficult for non-specialists to comprehend, andmore journalistic accounts that do not aim to present
systematized information about the situation.



The humanitarian approach: We show some of the ways inwhich the nuclear testing has impacted and still affects people
living in the region, by investigating health consequences, theenvironmental situation around the test site, people’s
experiences, and the state support system.

The nuclear tests have had serious negative consequences forthe health of the local population. For many diseases, further
studies are needed to pinpoint the associations between
radiation and health problems.



The situation regarding radioactive contamination at andaround the former test site remains non-uniform, with varying
risks of radiation exposure. Much of the site presents no danger,
but some parts need to be safeguarded indefinitely.

People living close to the test site experience psychologicalstress.



The legacy of nuclear tests is evident even after more than 20
years after the closure of the test site and more than 50 years
after the last surface detonation. The SNTS stands as atestimony to the horrifying impact of nuclear weapons.

The Semipalatinsk story
The world learned about the horrifying power of nuclear weapons
when the USA dropped a uranium bomb over the Japanese city ofHiroshima on 6 August 1945 and a plutonium bomb over Nagasaki
three days later. For Stalin, the conclusion was clear: the new weapon
had completely changed the balance of power in the world, and theSoviet Union had no choice but to develop its own nuclear weapons.
Stalin appointed Lavrentiy Beria, the ruthless former chief of NKVD,
predecessor to the KGB, to supervise the Soviet nuclear bomb project.
The physicist Igor Kurchatov was chosen to head the programme andlead the work of the USSR’s finest scientists, including the later
dissident and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Andrey Sakharov. Huge
resources were put into the nuclear programme. By 1950, about
700,000 people were involved, more than half of them prisoners(Medvedev 1999, p. 61).
In order to test the planned atomic weapons, a designated test site
was necessary. On 21 August 1947, the Soviet government decided toestablish a test site in the north-eastern part of the Kazakh Soviet
Socialist Republic (KSSR). The Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site (SNTS)
occupied a territory of 18,300 km2, to the west of Semipalatinsk city(the city was renamed Semey in 2007).
Map 1. Kazakhstan with the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site. Map reproducedwith permission of the Institute of Radiation Safety and Ecology (IRSE)

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

It was in Semipalatinsk that Soviet efforts to create a bomb werecrowned with success on 29 August 1949, with the detonation of aplutonium bomb that was almost an exact copy of the US bomb
dropped on Nagasaki four years earlier. It was at the SNTS that the
USSR first dropped an atomic bomb from a plane, on 18 October 1951.
And it was here the USSR's first thermonuclear detonation was made in1953. Out of a total 715 Soviet nuclear tests, 456 were carried out in
Semipalatinsk.1 An estimated 111 of these were carried out on thesurface of the earth (25) or in the air (86) between 1949 and 1962,
until the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 banned such tests.2 It wasthese atmospheric tests that caused most contamination of theenvironment and radiation exposure to the public (estimated at asmuch as 95% of the total dose) (ibid.). After 1962 all tests at the SNTS
were conducted underground in tunnels and shafts, and thecontamination was generally limited to the test site itself, with some
exceptions (ibid). The last test was conducted on 19 October 1989. The
total yield3 of the atmospheric tests at the SNTS is estimated at
approximately 6.4 Mt – the equivalent of more than 400 Hiroshimabombs.4
When Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika opened up for protest
movements of various kinds in the Soviet Union, the ‘Semipalatinsk–
Nevada’ movement in Kazakhstan advocated closure of the SNTS. Then
first secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party and, after independence,president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, made the decision toclose the site in 1991. But while the test site has been closed, its legacy
remains.
One reason – not at least for secrecy purposes – for the initial choiceof Semipalatinsk as nuclear test site was the vastness and relative
remoteness of the Kazakh steppes. But atomic bombs do not restrict
their impact to the location of their detonation, and a large population
could potentially be affected. While people were not allowed to live on

1
2
3

4

130 tests were carried out at the Novaya Zemlya test site, and 129 tests outsidethese two test sites. See Bauer et al. 2013, p. 244.
Published figures of nuclear tests in the Soviet Union slightly vary. These figures
are from Grosche 2002, p. 53.
‘The ‘yield’ of a nuclear weapon is the amount of explosive energy the weapon can
produce. The usual practice is to state the yield in terms of the quantity of TNT thatgenerates the same amount of energy when it explodes…The Hiroshima atomic
bomb which the U.S. used in 1945 was the equivalent of 15 kt of TNT. The quantityof U-235 that completed fission was only about 800 grams.’ (Takada 2005, pp. 6–
7).
This is just a fraction of the estimated yield of the atmospheric tests at the remote
Novaya Zemlya test site in Northern Russia, at 239.6 Mt (Bauer 2006, p. 61). The
most powerful nuclear detonation to date was conducted at Novaya Zemlya: the‘Tsar Bomba’ with a yield of approx. 50 Mt – an explosive power of more than 3,000
times the Hiroshima bomb.

7

8

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

the territory of the SNTS itself, there were one million people residing
within 160 km of the nuclear test site, and there were several villages
close to the test site borders (Carlsen et al. 2001; Werner and PurvisRoberts 2005, pp. 5–6). Nuclear fallout from the testing spread evenfurther, also to the neighbouring Altai region in today's RussianFederation.5
That the world has avoided use of nuclear weapons in actual
warfare since 1945 does not mean that the weapons have not had
victims. During the Cold War ‘hundreds of thousands of American andSoviet citizens suffered exposure to dangerous levels of radiation as
their governments produced and tested nuclear weapons that could be
used if international tensions escalated into a “hot” war’ (Werner and
Purvis-Roberts 2005, pp. 5–6). The Institute of Radiation Medicine andEcology in Semey estimates that in the vicinity of the Semipalatinsk
nuclear test site, between 500,000 and one million people were
exposed to substantial radiation doses in the years 1949–1962, when
the last detonation above ground took place.6
There are no simple answers as to the degree of the impact of thenuclear tests on humans. Both the numbers of victims and the ways inwhich people are affected are disputed. But that the testing of nuclear
weapons at the SNTS has affected the health of a great many people aswell as their children is beyond doubt. Moreover, radioactive
contamination of the test site itself and some adjacent areas continue topresent potential risks for the population – although experts assert thatthese risks are often exaggerated. In addition to the actual impact on
health and observable dangers in the environment, the local
population continues to live in uncertainty – radioactivity is invisible
and difficult for lay people to comprehend.
On the following pages, various aspects of the humanitarian impactof the nuclear testing in Semipalatinsk will be presented and discussed.

5This report focuses on the situation in present-day Kazakhstan, however.

6

IRME 2013. Both lower and higher estimates exist; see also Brunn 2011.

Health impact
While the blast and heat of a nuclear explosion can destroy large cities,
it was exposure to radiation from nuclear fallout that was the mostpotent threat to human health from nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk.7
One estimate is that four tests alone (the first test on 29 August 1949,
one on 24 September 1951, the first thermonuclear test on 12 August1953 and one on 24 August 1956) in Semipalatinsk contributed morethan 95% of the collective dose to the population living close to the testsite (Grosche 2002, p. 53). There seems to be consensus amongscientists that, to a large extent, ‘the currently observed health effects
are a result of exposure during the period of testing, not a consequenceof exposure to residual radioactivity’.8
Map 2. Fallout trajectories of major atmospheric detonations at the SNTS

7

8

It is usually considered that 50% of the energy in a nuclear detonation is released
as an explosive blast, and 35% as heat. 15% of the energy is released as nuclear
radiation, approximately 5% of which is initial radiation, produced within one
minute of the explosion. Approximately 10% of the energy is emitted over time as
residual radiation in fallout, potentially carried over large distances as aradioactive cloud drifts away from the epicentre in a trajectory that depends on thewind and meteorological conditions and therefore is difficult to predict (Takada
2005, p.6; Borrie and Caughley (eds.) 2013, p. 6.)
Studies show that ‘about 64% of the dose received by the nearby populace fromfallout occurred during the first week, and about 85% during the first 3 months
after the explosion’ (Carlsen et al. 2001, p. 5, referring to Gusev et al. 1997).

10

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

During Soviet times, nuclear tests and their consequences for humanhealth were surrounded by total secrecy. In fact, until 1956 thegovernment did not even conduct studies about the nuclear testing’s
effect on the population living close to the test site. 9 There are no clear
statistics available about the acute effects of the testing.
At first, the Soviet state paid little attention to the impacts of nuclear
tests on the local population. Only once, prior to the most powerfulthermonuclear detonation in August 1953 (480 kT – some 30 times
more explosive power than the Hiroshima bomb), were the residents ofcertain nearby settlements evacuated from their home villages, for aperiod of almost two weeks. Even so, during the entire period theevacuees remained in areas with nuclear fallout from the test (IRME
2013). The immediate impetus for health studies came later, inconnection with an emergency situation caused by a surface nuclear
detonation on 16 March 1956, the radioactive cloud of which reached
the city of Ust-Kamenogorsk, 400 km from the explosion epicentre. The
city's population was exposed to nuclear fallout with radiation doses sohigh as to cause acute radiation poisoning. In response, the Soviet
leadership established a special medical institution and hospitalized
638 persons suffering from radiation poisoning. No information about
the fate of these people is available, however (ibid.).
In 1957, a permanent research institute was established in
Semipalatinsk to carry out research on the impact of the activity at the
SNTS on the population's health. It was given the neutral designation‘Dispensary No. 4’ in order not to draw attention to its real activity.
With the break-up of the Soviet Union, this ‘dispensary’ was succeededby the Institute of Radiation Medicine and Ecology (IRME). IRME is apart of Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Health and is responsible for studying
the health consequences of nuclear testing.10
It is difficult to establish the size of the population affected by the
nuclear testing at SNTS. In 1949 the total population of the
Semipalatinsk, Pavlodar, Karaganda and East Kazakhstan regions was
1.2 million. By 1962, this figure had increased to 1.7 million, due tomigration caused by Soviet agricultural reforms in Kazakhstan. (IRME
2013) On the basis of residency in areas close to the SNTS, Kazakhstaniauthorities have recognized 1.2 million as victims of the SNTS (seesection on the state compensation system). A frequently-cited estimate
puts the number of exposed people at about 500,000, but some
Kazakhstani experts consider the total number of people exposed to9

For information about the ‘Balmukhanov-Atchabarov expeditions’ that documented
health effects in 1956–1960 and claimed to find many cases of ‘chronic radiationdisease’, see e.g. Bauer et al. 2013, pp. 245–246; IRME 2013.
10 Also for compensation purposes: see the section about state support later in thisreport.

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

radiation to be about 1 million.11 In addition come the people in the
Altai region in the Russian Federation who were affected.12
In this section, we present data provided by IRME about various
health indicators for exposed population groups in Kazakhstan
compared to control groups.13 The data are based on research
conducted by IRME, including Soviet-era studies that were strictly
secret until the break-up of the USSR.14 IRME’s database and registers
are the main source for researchers studying the health impact of the
SNTS, and the institute has since the early 1990s had numerous
cooperation projects with researchers from Japan, Europe and theUSA.15The data from IRME are ordered into three periods: acute and early
effects (1–10 years from the start of radiation); early long-term effects

11 Katayama et al. 2006; IRME 2013; communication with IRME experts (2013).
12 The total number of affected people in the Altai region is difficult to estimate, but

one assessment is that 140,000 people in rural settlements and the city of
Rubtsovsk were exposed to doses of 50 mSv or higher. See Bauer 2006, p. 104.
13 Based on estimates of the doses of radiation to the population, the territories
adjacent to the SNTS have been divided into four categories of radiation risk.
1) Areas of extraordinary risk: eight settlements in three districts in
Semipalatinsk oblast', situated at a distance of 50–100 km from the SNTS.
Radiation dose higher than 1000 mSv.
2) Areas of maximal risk: settlements in four districts in Semipalatinsk oblastand one district in Pavlodar oblast', situated 150–250 km from the SNTS.
Radiation dose 350–1000 mSv.
3) Areas of increased risk: four towns and twelve districts in Semipalatinsk,
Pavlodar, Karagandinsk and East-Kazakhstan oblasts,.situated 300–400 km
from the SNTS. Radiation dose 70–350 mSv.
4) Areas of minimal risk: twelve districts in Semipalatinsk, Pavlodar,
Karagandinsk and East-Kazakhstan oblasts, situated 450–800 km from the
SNTS. Radiation dose 10–70 mSv.
For the first period in the following overview, the data are based on studies of the
population from the first two groups. For the two later periods, the data are basedon studies of the population from the three first groups. The control group isrepresented by population unexposed to radiation. Usually, the group was formed
from the population of Kokpektinsk district of Eastern Kazakhstan region, aterritory free of radioactive fallouts. In some cases, the control group consisted ofpeople who came from other places in territories close to the test site which werealso free from radioactive fallout. Comparisons between the exposed populationand the control groups are based on absolute numbers. For further details about
IRME’s studies, Tatiana Belikhina, head of IRME's research management
department, can be contacted at tatyan-ivanovn@yandex.ru.
14 Sources for IRME’s data are their examinations of the exposed population in Soviet
times, official data on birthrates, infant mortality, mortality among adults,
certificates of cause of death. See also Katayama et al. 2006.
15 A selection of research based on such cooperation: Bauer et al. 2005; Grosche etal. 2002; Grosche et al. 2011; Katayama et al. 2006; Kimura et al. 1998.

11

12

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov(10–20 years from the start of radiation); late long-term effects (20years and more).16
While the following pages reveal clear differences between the
exposed and non-exposed population, and many of these differences
can plausibly be assumed to be caused by the nuclear testing, thereader should keep in mind that there is scientific disagreement about
the level of radiation exposure as well as about to what extent radiation
has impacted on health (Simon et al. 2003).17 While researchers seemto have established a significant association between solid cancer andradiation dose (Bauer et al. 2005), there is consensus that further indepth epidemiological studies are necessary in order to establish therelationship between exposure to radiation and a range of healthproblems, and medical researchers continue to conduct such studies.18

Acute and early effects of irradiation (1950–1960)


Because health studies around the test site started late, acuteeffects were not investigated immediately after the first tests
started in 1949 (Grosche et al. 2002, p. 54). However, it ispossible to trace some indicators of early acute effects, based on
descriptive comparisons. One such effect is high infantmortality.19 Figures were 3.4–4 times higher than in the control
group and in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (KSSR) as awhole. The highest rate of infant mortality (100–110 cases per1000 infants) was reported from the settlements known to havebeen most exposed.

Congenital malformations among children in the exposedgroups were significantly more frequent than in the control
group. Prevalent types included congenital malformations of
the nervous system and facial malformations.

16 Unless otherwise indicated, all data on health impact are based on IRME 2013.
17 In 1998, Logachev et al. noted: ‘There is little doubt that people living in the STS

region suffer from a range of adverse health effects...However, the task ofdefinitively relating any of these effects to nuclear weapons testing will becomplicated by numerous confounding factors such as inadequate nutrition, poor
water quality, and unsanitary living conditions’ in Carlsen et al., 2001. Since then,many studies have been conducted, and some answers found.
18 For example, Shunichi Yamashita (chair of the Atomic Bomb Disease Institute at
Nagasaki University Japan, who has been visiting Semipalatinsk for 15 years) has
stated, ‘we need much more thorough epidemiological studies before we can makeconclusions about cause and effect.’ Quoted in Parfitt 2010, p. 1289.
19 According to IRME 2003, the data for infant mortality in the period from 1950–1960
were found in death certificates collected by civilian registrar’s/registry office(ZAGS).

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

As a major cause of death among children, the frequency ofleukaemia (cancer of the blood or bone marrow) doubled
compared to the years 1945 to 1948.

Early long-term effects (1960–1985)

During this period, infant mortality decreased to the levels
found before the nuclear testing started in 1949 – an indicationof the relationship between exposure to radiation and the highinfant mortality during the period discussed above.

The early 1970s saw a dramatic increase in mortality fromcancer. IRME’s descriptive comparisons show rates of mortality
from cancer in exposed groups as much as 3.5 times higher
than in control groups and in the KSSR as a whole. Prevalent
types included oesophageal cancer, stomach cancer, andcancer of the small intestine. In the late 1980s, the level ofmortality from cancer significantly decreased, but remained
higher than in the period prior to the onset of nuclear testing.



Cytogenetic studies carried out between 1962 and 1975
showed that among 420 people examined (ages 10 to 60 years,
with doses exceeding 250 mSv), the frequency of chromosome
aberrations substantially exceeded rates in the control group.20



Cardiovascular diseases were reported more often compared tothe control group and KSSR as a whole. The level ofcardiovascular disease among 40–49-year-olds in the
population exposed to radiation corresponded to the level
found among 50–59-year-olds in the control group. Despite
these figures from descriptive comparisons, studies using
analytical epidemiological techniques indicate that otherfactors might play a role. ‘Rates of mortality fromcardiovascular disease in the exposed group substantiallyexceeded those of the comparison group ... [However]… nostatistically significant dose–response relationship for all
cardiovascular disease, for heart disease, or for stroke wasfound...’ (Grosche et al. 2011, p. 660). The association between
exposure to radiation and cardiovascular disease in
Semipalatinsk needs further study.

Among women of reproductive age who were exposed toradiation in their childhood, malformations among their

20 Cytogenetic studies investigate radiation-induced chromosome aberrations:alterations in the cell at the chromosome level in specific phases of the cell cycle.

13

14

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

children were reported more often (10–12 cases per 1000
infants) than in the control groups (3–5 cases per 1000
infants). After 1985, the frequency of malformation among
infants has dropped significantly, most probably because the
new generation of women giving birth were not exposed toradiation from nuclear testing in their childhood. Since 1985,
the exposed population has not differed from the control groups
on this indicator.

Late long-term effects (1985–2010)


IRME's descriptive studies show that in the late 1980s there wasa second sharp increase in the incidence of cancer among theexposed population, up to three times higher than the level inthe control group and in Kazakhstan as a whole (420–430 cases
per 100,000 people compared to 140–145 cases in the control
group).

Among the causes of mortality from cancer, oesophageal
cancer, stomach cancer and intestinal cancer declined sharply
compared to the previous period. Simultaneously, the share ofdeaths from lung and bronchial cancer and breast cancer
increased. This tendency still continues.

A study of premature aging (‘gerontological effects’) was
conducted in 2000–2005. According to local researchers, theaverage age for diagnosis of oesophageal cancer, stomach
cancer, breast cancer, and lung and bronchial cancer was
between 6 and 9 years lower among people who had been
exposed to radiation and residing in areas close to the polygon
than among control groups. Life expectancy among the exposedgroup was several years lower than in the control group.21

An important line of research is now to examine the healtheffects among the large number of descendants of people who
were directly exposed to radiation living in the area today.

21 IRME 2013. IRME considers the results of these gerontological studies to beperhaps the clearest evidence of the consequences of nuclear testing for humanhealth in the exposed population today.

The environmental situation today– impact on people
What risks do the test-site area and radioactive fallout present forpeople today? How contaminated and dangerous are the adjacentareas? Here it is important to recognize that the radio-ecologicalsituation is not uniform throughout the test site and adjacent areas.
Tests of various kinds were conducted in different sections of the vast
test site, leaving a complex legacy. See Table 1 in Appendix for an
overview of nuclear testing activity, work being done to improve thesituation, and the current status of various testing grounds within the
SNTS.
The account of the radiation situation presented in this section isbased on information provided by the Institute for Radiation Safety andEcology (IRSE), a part of the National Nuclear Centre (NNC) of the
Republic of Kazakhstan. IRSE is the institute responsible for managing,studying and securing the test site. The NNC is the clear authority on
the issue and actively cooperates with international expertise in orderto get its findings verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). However, there exist other opinions about the dangers
presented by the environment, as we will note in this and the next
section. (See also Purvis-Roberts et al. 2007; Carlsen et al. 2001; Brunn
2011.)

After SNTS closure: scavenging, and efforts to secure thearea
After the closure of the SNTS in 1989 and the subsequent break-up of
the Soviet Union, the site was officially disbanded by the Russian
Ministry of Defence in December 1993. Kazakhstan was in economiccrisis and, according to experts interviewed for this study,22 it was not
yet able to exert control over the vast test site territory to ensureradiation safety and restrict access to dangerous objects.
This represented a serious problem, for two reasons. First, there
ensued a high level of illegal economic activity among the local
population. Metals looted from the test infrastructure and othermaterials were sold as scrap metal. Reportedly, many of those involved

22 Within the scope of this study six semi-structured interviews were conducted withlocal experts in Kazakhstan in 2013.

16

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

in this activity lived at the places where the metals were gathered. They‘drank the water that came up from the tunnels and presumablyreceived substantial doses of radiation… Registration and healthcontrol of these people were, for obvious reasons, not conducted’ (IRSE2013).
Map 3. Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site

Reproduced with permission from IRSE

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

Second, what was left at the test site was potentially dangerous not
only for scavengers (and those who bought the radioactive metals):
there were ‘tunnels and bore holes filled with plutonium residue –enough plutonium, if fully reclaimed, for terrorists or a state toconstruct dozens of nuclear bombs’ (Harrell and Hoffman 2013, p. 1).
Much work has been carried out, in particular in cooperation with the
USA and Russia. A riveting account of the massive efforts being madeto clean and secure the Degelen mountain massif can be found in thereport Plutonium Mountain (Harrell and Hoffman 2013), published by
the Managing the Atom project at the Belfer Center at Harvard
University.

Current situation, future perspectives
Clearly, there is no simple, single answer to the questions we posed at
the beginning of this section. We asked IRSE for a summary of thesituation, presented in the text box below.

IRSE summary of the situation and perspectives for the future
In the period since the closure of the test site, the Institute for Radiation
Safety and Ecology (part of the National Nuclear Centre of the Republic of
Kazakhstan) together with the international community has retrieved a large
amount of information regarding the radiation situation at the SNTS andadjacent areas.
We have identified all significant areas of radiological contamination, as
well as the main pathways and mechanisms for potential spreading ofradioactive materials. The findings allow us to conclude that at present the
SNTS does not negatively impact the population, with the exception of thezones of influence of the river Shagan and cases of illegal penetrations into theepicentres of conducted experiments. However, the radio-ecological situation
is not stable. Processes of migration of radioactive substances have been
identified, and this makes it necessary to conduct regular monitoring of theradio-ecological situation at the SNTS.
Undoubtedly, considering the volume and diversity of the tests carriedout at the SNTS, the information we possess is not exhaustive. However, it
allows us to have a tentative plan for further investigative work andremediation measures. This should result in up to 80% of the territory of the
SNTS being returned to the community for regular economic use. The
remainder of the territory, the remediation of which is economically infeasible,
should be enclosed and marked with warning signs about radiation danger. In
those areas, regular radio-ecological controls should be conducted. (IRSE 2013)

17

18

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

The main message from IRSE seems to be that they consider the testsite area today to present no danger to the population, unless unwise
activities are carried out in the most-contaminated areas. While they
hope that large parts of the territory will be returned to the community,
some of the most-contaminated areas should be enclosed and better
safeguarded.
As IRSE also points out, the borders of the SNTS were determined by
Soviet generals in the 1940s and do not reflect current realities. Muchof the territory formally belonging to the test site can be considered
acceptable for normal use, whereas some areas currently outside of thetest side should be closed to the public and carefully monitored. There
are plans to adjust the borders of the test sites to correspond to theactual radiation situation.23 The remaining areas should besafeguarded and monitored, in all probability indefinitely. According to
IRSE, one explanation of the non-uniformity of the radio-ecologicalsituation in the region is that different types of radionuclides(plutonium, tritium, uranium, etc.) have different migration
characteristics. This also makes it important to distinguish between
different types of radiation exposure risks from different radioactive
elements.24
There are numerous areas where access for grazing animals andpopulation should be restricted. This concerns the epicentral zones ofthe studied testing grounds, traces of radioactive fallout and emissions
resulting from accidents, local areas of contamination from radiological
warfare agents (‘dirty’ bombs containing radioactive mixtures), thearea of Atomic Lake25 and the river Shagan (within and outside of theborders of the test site), and the Degelen test ground as a whole.
Visitors to the test site have often expressed surprise at the lack of
warning signs and physical barriers.26 Work is underway to improvethis, but much remains to be done.

23 IRSE aims to return 80% of the territory to the community, perhaps even as much as

95%. Interview with Sergey Lukashenko, director of IRSE and deputy director of the
National Nuclear Center, 28.11.2013.
24 For instance, while tritium can easily migrate with underground water, plutonium
largely rests in place where a nuclear test was conducted. Strontium has similar
characteristics to calcium, so it can migrate with surface water and easily penetrate
into plants, posing radiation exposure risks. Interview with Sergey Lukashenko,
28.11.2013; e-mail communication with Aleksandr Moshkov, IRSE, 04.01.2014.
25 Atomic Lake was intentionally created on 15 January 1965 as a result of a 150 kt
underground nuclear detonation. ‘The result of the test was clear: The damage
created by industrial nuclear technologies was incomparably greater than thepotential economic benefits’ (IRSE 2013).
26 For three such stories, see Brunn 2011.

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

Example of trench/physical barrier (picture reproduced with permission from IRSE)‘Atomic Lake’ – intentionally created by a nuclear detonation in 1965 (picture
reproduced with permission from IRSE)

19

20

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

What about the territories near the test site, including several villages?
The overall conclusion from several international studies is that the‘radiation situation in the surveyed settlements varies, but it is notdangerous. Doses from external exposure are at background levels, andthe values of internal doses do not exceed allowable values. However,
the issue requires further research with respect not only to settlements,
but also individually to each person.’ (Lukashenko (ed.) 2011a, p. 33)
IRSE has elsewhere noted that they consider only the outlet of theriver Shagan to be of danger to the population, not other adjacentareas.27 The situation around the river Shagan is unstable due tomigration of tritium for long distances beyond the test site. In order tolimit high accumulation of tritium in humans and animals, access tothese dangerous territories should be banned. Migration of otherinduced radionuclides along the river Shagan has not been
identified.28
The village of Dolon is often mentioned in connection with residual
radionuclides. It was located close to radioactive fallout during theatmospheric nuclear tests – in particular some of the most dosecontributing nuclear detonations, including the first nuclear test on 28
August, 1949. Exposure levels were high during the first few days after
the fallout, but IRSE considers that the level of induced radionuclides
today only insignificantly exceeds the global level of fallout, and does
not see this as posing any threat to the population.29
These are difficult questions, however. The territory of the test site
has been examined more thoroughly than areas outside of it, and boththe level of radiation contamination in adjacent areas and the potential
health risks from low-level radiation exposure remain disputed (see e.g.
Purvis‐Roberts et al. 2007, p. 300). In addition, there can still be
individual hotspots in fallout areas, due to long-lived radionuclides.

The SNTS as a symbol of hope
In our conversations with IRSE staff we were told that people who visit
the test site often leave with a dual impression. On the one hand, theyrealize that the test site today is not as dangerous as they had expected.

27 National Nuclear Center of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2014): Questions andAnswers (Voprosy i otvety), available at: http://sts.nnc.kz/index.php?id=54&L=0,
accessed 4 January 2014; interview with Lukashenko 28.11.2013.
28 E-mail communication with Aleksandr Moshkov, IRSE, 04.01.2014.
29 Ibid.

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

On the other hand, they understand the horrifying power of nuclear
weapons.30
While the professionals responsible for the test site today go to great
lengths to stress that the area is not the Armageddon-like disaster thatit sometimes is made out to be, one fact remains. Even though surface
and atmospheric tests ended more than 50 years ago, and the test site
was closed more than 20 years ago, and despite the huge efforts tostudy and minimize potential risks, it is clear that some areas will neverreturn to nature, that the situation in others is uncertain andpotentially dangerous, and the local people have experienced healthrisks as well as psychological stress. It is to the perceptions of thesepeople that we now turn.

30 Interview with Sergey Lukashenko, 28.11.2013.

21

People's experiences – perceptionsof the tests' impact
As medical scientists attempt to establish the health impacts of the
SNTS and nuclear scientists map the current state of radiologicalcontamination and try to predict future developments, there is anotherimportant aspect of the humanitarian consequences of the nuclear
testing that tends to be overlooked: people's own experiences and how
they perceive their lives and the lives of their dear ones to have been
affected by the SNTS. Psychological well-being is an important part of aperson's health, and feelings of being a victim – regardless of thefoundation for this feeling – are detrimental to life quality and health.
Researchers have attempted to map the experiences of those who
lived near the SNTS at the time of the tests (in particular theatmospheric tests conducted until 1962). For example, a Japanese teamof researchers who had previously studied such questions in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki conducted questionnaire surveys in ten villages near thetest site in 2002–2004. Their questionnaire contained questions about
perceptions of health and effect of the nuclear tests, as well as an openended question where respondents were asked to freely describe theirexperiences from the nuclear tests – and their stories of what the tests
meant for their lives.
Survey results concerning how the respondents described how they
remember the actual nuclear tests can be summarized thus:

93% of respondents ‘somehow directly experienced the nuclear
tests’, also in ‘villages as far as 200 km away from the
hypocentre’, something the Japanese researchers attribute to
the power of the bombs detonated at the SNTS.



90% of the respondents reported seeing the flash and 70% thatthey felt a bomb blast, 18% felt heat, 28% saw the mushroom
cloud, 16% mentioned a ‘deafening roar’, and 7% ‘referred toanimals that had lost their hair’, a typical sub-acute radiation
injury. (Kawano and Ohtaki 2006)

The villagers made it very clear that they had not been informed about
the nature of the tests, or of the dangers linked to them (ibid., p. A201).
Other studies corroborate this picture. Two US researchers conducting
interviews in the region:

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

All of the villagers who were alive during the tests have vivid memoriesof military personnel showing up in the village by helicopter the day
before a test to warn them of upcoming ‘military exercises’… The
explosions were never described as ‘nuclear tests’ or ‘atomic bombs’…
[M]any villagers note that when they were young they thought the tests
were fun and exciting, and they rarely listened to these instructions [tolie down on the ground and to avoid looking at the bright clouds in theskies]. (Werner and Purvis-Roberts 2005)31

Importantly, when witnesses of the nuclear tests tell about theirexperience, they are predominantly concerned with the continuing
impact on their body and their health. Japanese researchers report that
33% of residents feel that they have bad or very bad health, and,significantly, that ‘70% of the residents strongly recognized a causal
relationship between their bad health conditions and the nuclear tests’(Kawano, Hirabayash et al. 2006, p. A209). The testimonies from thevillagers contain many heart-breaking statements about lives ruined by
the nuclear testing (see Matsuo 2004.)
The psychosocial situation in the Semipalatinsk region remains
complex. Today, long after the nuclear tests ended, people are worried
that exposure to radiation continues to affect their lives. Adding topeople’s uncertainty is the fact that the impact mechanisms ofradiation are difficult to comprehend – radiation is an ‘uncontrollable
risk’ that one is ‘unable to detect… without special scientificequipment’ (Purvis-Roberts et al. 2007, p. 292). In addition to actual
health problems caused by exposure to radiation, ‘people exposed toinvisible environmental contaminants, such as radiation, havedemonstrated traumatic psychological effects from the unknown healthimpacts’ (ibid.)
Moreover, to better comprehend the hardships endured by the
population living close to the SNTS, their experiences should also be
understood in the context of the broader socioeconomic situation. Afterthe breakup of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan's economy nearlycollapsed: inflation reached four-digit figures, unemployment was
high, and the future seemed anything but clear.32 For the population inregions close to the test site, the revelations in the late 1980s and early
1990s about the nuclear testing and its potential impact on their healthadded greater complexity to an already challenging situation.

31 Yet others report: ‘There was mixed advice given to farmers and herders. Somewere told to leave their buildings when blasts would occur, lest they be buried bycollapsing walls. Others were told to remain indoors.’ (Brunn 2011, p. 1796).
32 However, after 2000 the country witnessed a period of high economic growth,decreasing income inequality and unemployment.

23

24

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

The legacy of the SNTS, then, was not the only factor to affect thesituation of the population. Still, many local people seem to link
problems of all kinds – health issues in particular – to the nuclear
legacy: As one report puts it: ‘the villagers tend to attribute any illness
obtained in the village, from an upset stomach to a brain tumour, tonuclear testing and radiation exposure’ (Purvis-Roberts et al. 2007, p.
297). This psychological stress – although physicians and scientists
say it is often unfounded – surely has a real and negative impact on life
quality for the population around the SNTS.33
The surveys and interview studies referred to above indicate thatsuch stress is widespread. This is also the opinion of professionals, whowant to cure what they call ‘radiophobia’ with better education andenlightenment. An ingrained tendency towards victimization, blaming
the SNTS for misfortunes in life, is a large and even increasing problem
which medical experts seek to examine further.34 This is an issue of
immense complexity. Yet one thing is clear: the uncertainties about theeffect of the nuclear tests – not least among laypeople – makepsychological stress and fear an important and continuing legacy of thenuclear testing.

33 Interviews with IRSE and IRME, 2013. See also Purvis‐Roberts et al. 2007.
34 Interviews with IRME experts, 2013.

The state support system forvictims of the nuclear tests
Recognition of the humanitarian consequences of the nuclear testing in
Semipalatinsk has also been institutionalized: there exists a statesystem for recognition of victimhood, and compensations and benefits
for those defined as affected. Introduced in 1992, this state support
scheme required elaborating criteria ‘to define who would and who
would not qualify as a ‘victim’ of nuclear testing’ (Werner and PurvisRoberts 2007, p. 474).
The government has officially recognized 1,323,000 people as
having been negatively affected by the nuclear tests. Out these,
1,057,000 have received ‘radiation passports’ (poligonnoe
udostoverenie) officially confirming their status (‘Note on the issue ofHealth…’). This figure does not necessarily reflect the number of people
physically impacted by the tests, as the main principle for recognitionof victimhood and entitlement to compensation was originallyresidence in areas close to the test site. As two US researchers note:
As in similar cases of environmental disaster, there were discussions as
to whether victims should be limited to those who have developed
certain medical conditions associated with radiation exposure, orwhether victims should be defined by permanent residence near thetest site where exposure levels were significant. (…) [T]he governmentof Kazakhstan took the latter option, and divided ‘victims’ into four
subcategories: minimal risk; above-minimal risk; maximal risk; andextraordinary risk. (Werner and Purvis-Roberts 2007, p. 474)35

In addition to these four area categories some benefits are admitted toresidents of the so-called "territory of special privileged socio-economic
status" – defined by law as an area adjacent to the minimum radiation
risk area with a low radiation dose (measured over the entire nuclear
testing period), which nonetheless poses serious negative psychoemotional stress for people living there.36 Until 1995 residency was
the sole basis for compensation. Since 1995 additional compensation
may be granted to persons based on their individual health condition(see below).

35. See footnote 13 in the Health section for further information about these areas.
36 According to the 1992 law, the Bayanaul district of the Pavlodar region is the only

area to which this special status was assigned.

26

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

Due to the economic situation in Kazakhstan in the 1990s, thegovernment was partly unable to fulfil its obligations, and many had to
wait years before they received the compensation they were entitled to.
It should be noted that while the state support programme appears
comprehensive, there has also been criticism regarding the size ofcompensation payments (Werner and Purvis-Roberts 2007).
The key official mechanisms for dealing with the consequences of
the SNTS are based on the law ‘On social protection of citizens sufferedfrom nuclear tests in the Semipalatinsk nuclear test polygon’ from1992 (Law….№ 1787–Х11). The law prescribes the main measures
aimed at providing social benefits and protection to people who
suffered from activities at the polygon. Articles 10 and 11 define thestatus of people who suffered from nuclear tests and set criteria for
issuing ‘radiation passports’ that indicate to which of the four
categories they belong.37 Citizens with the status ‘suffered’ are entitledto:

a lump-sum monetary compensation

a higher pension (in areas of extraordinary and maximal
radiation risk)state employees receive a salary top-up

additional paid holiday – the extent of which is defined by the‘risk category’: extraordinary radiation risk area (14 days);maximal radiation risk area (12 days); increased radiation risk
area (10 days); minimum radiation risk area (7 days); territory
with special privileged socio-economic status (5 days). The
1992 Law specifies the districts which belong to these fiveareas.



women living in areas exposed to radiation are entitled tomaternity leave of up to 170 days (under easy delivery) and 184
days (in case of problems with complicated childbirth or amultiple birth).



children under the age of 18 living in areas exposed to radiation
are entitled to free treatment at health centres.

In addition to these benefits based on residing close to the test site, anInterdepartmental Expert Council has been established to make37 However, in the early 1990s, ‘the government could not afford to provide

compensation to everybody and priority was given, first, to those living in
extraordinary risk zone and, second, to the elderly living in Semipalatinsk City.’(Werner and Purvis-Roberts 2007, p. 474)

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

judgments on associations between the individual's exposure toradiation and medical conditions. An expert decision serves as legal
grounds for applying for additional social benefits. The Expert Council
has investigated 30,240 cases since its establishment in 1995. 38 These
have resulted in 24,100 positive decisions with respect to therelationship between disease (or death) and radiation exposure (IRME
2013). Thus, since 1995 the state support system has become a mixed
one, based on two different criteria: First, residency in areas close to
the test site during the years of nuclear testing (atmospheric andunderground tests); second, Expert Council decisions about assumed
link between the nuclear testing and an individual’s health condition.
Discussions are currently underway about amending the compensation
system, as it does not take into account people who moved tocontaminated areas after 1991.

38 The Expert Council was envisioned in the law of 1992, but started functioning in

1995.

27

Concluding remarks
Atmospheric nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk ended in 1962, the lastunderground nuclear test was conducted in 1989, and the test site
closed in 1991. This report has aimed to provide an introduction to thehumanitarian consequences of the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing. Since
the closure of the test site, much has been done to study the impact of
the SNTS. To those interested in a deeper study we offer a list ofrecommended literature on page 29.
Yet, as this report has also shown, many questions need further
exploration. For example, medical scientists continue to explore
associations between radiation and health problems. The radioecological situation in areas close to the SNTS should be further
examined in order to identify remaining risks for the population. Local
researchers are also increasingly concerned with the study of thepsycho-social situation in the region – how people cope with theexperience of living near a former nuclear test site. Certainly the legacyof the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing continues to impact the lives of thelocal population.

Selected literature for further
reading
Health consequences
Bauer, S., Gusev, B., Belikhina, T., Moldagaliev, T., Apsalikov, K. (2013): ‘The
legacies of Soviet nuclear testing in Kazakhstan: fallout, public health andsocietal issues’, in D. Oughton & S. O. Hansson (eds.): Social and EthicalAspects of Radiation Risk Management. Elsevier Science, pp. 239–258.
Grosche, B. (2002): ‘Semipalatinsk Test Site: Introduction’, Radiation andEnvironmental Biophysics 41 (1): 53–55.
Land, C. E., Zhumadilov, Z., Gusev, B. I., Hartshorne, M. H., Wiest, P. W.,
Woodward, P. W., et al. (2008): ‘Ultrasound-detected thyroid nodule
prevalence and radiation dose from fallout’, Radiation Research, 169:
373–383.
Simon, S. L. and Bouville, A. (2002): ‘Radiation doses to local populations
near nuclear weapons test sites worldwide’, Health Physics 82 (5): 706–
725.
Simon, S., Bouville, A. and Land, C. (2006): ‘Fallout from nuclear weapons
tests and cancer risks exposures 50 years ago still have health implications
today that will continue into the future’, American Scientist 94 (1): 48–57.

The test site and the environmental situation
Carlsen, T., Peterson, L., Ulsh, B., Werner, C., Purvis, L. and Sharber, A.
(2001): ‘Radionuclide contamination at Kazakhstan's Semipalatinsk Test
Site: implications on human and ecological health’, Human and Ecological
Risk Assessment 7 (4): 943–955.
Harrell, E. and Hoffman, D. E. (2013): Plutonium Mountain: inside the 17-Year
mission to secure a legacy of Soviet nuclear testing, report for Project onManaging the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA, 15 August 2013.
Lukashenko, S. (ed.) (2011): ‘Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site: present state’.
Available at:
http://irse.kz/index.php/publikatsii/buklety/sip/na-anglijskom-yazyke,
accessed 4 January 2014.

30

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

People’s experiences
Kawano, N., K. Hirabayash, M. Matsuo, Y. Taooka, T. Hiraoka, KN Apsalikov,
T. Moldagaliev, and M. Hoshi (2006): ‘Human suffering effects of nuclear
tests at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: established on the basis ofquestionnaire surveys’, Journal of Radiation Research 47 (February): A209A217.
Purvis‐Roberts, K., Werner, C. and Frank, I. (2007): ‘Perceived risks fromradiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: acomparison between physicians, scientists, and the public’, Risk Analysis
27 (2): 291–302.
Werner, C. and Purvis-Roberts, K. (2005): Unraveling the Secrets of the Past:

Contested Versions of Nuclear Testing in the Soviet Republic of
Kazakhstan. National Council for Eurasian and East European Research,
Washington D.C., available at:
http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2005_818_16_Werner.pdf, accessed 20
January 2014.

State support
Werner, C. and Purvis-Roberts, K. (2007): ‘After the Cold War: international
politics, domestic policy and the nuclear legacy in Kazakhstan’, Central
Asia Survey, 25 (4): 461–480.

More general accounts
Brunn, S. (2011): ‘Fifty years of Soviet nuclear testing in Semipalatinsk,
Kazakhstan: juxtaposed worlds of blasts and silences, security and risks,denials and memory’, in: Brunn, Stanley (2011): Engineering Earth. The
Impact of Megaengineering Projects, Springer, pp. 1789–1818.
Kassenova, T. (2009): ‘The lasting toll of Semipalatinsk's nuclear testing’,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, available at:
http://thebulletin.org/lasting-toll-semipalatinsks-nuclear-testing, accessed
20 January 2014.
Parfitt, T. (2010): ‘Nuclear tests leave Kazakhstan still searching for answers’,
The Lancet 376, no. 9749: 1289–1290

List of references
Bauer, S. (2006): The Local Health Impact of Atmospheric Nuclear
Weapons Testing: Cancer Epidemiology in Areas Adjacent to the
Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Bauer, S., Gusev, B., Pivina, L., Apsalikov, K. and Grosche, B. (2005):‘Radiation exposure due to local fallout from Soviet atmosphericnuclear weapons testing in Kazakhstan: solid cancer mortality in the
Semipalatinsk historical cohort, 1960–1999’, Radiation Research 164(4): 409–419.
Bauer, S., Gusev, B., Belikhina, T., Moldagaliev, T., Apsalikov, K. (2013):‘The legacies of Soviet nuclear testing in Kazakhstan: fallout, publichealth and societal issues’, in D. Oughton & S. O. Hansson (eds.): Socialand Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk Management. Elsevier Science,
pp. 239–258.
Borrie J. and T. Caughley (eds.) (2013): Viewing Nuclear Weapons througha Humanitarian Lens. New York, Geneva: United Nations, available at
http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/viewing-nuclearweapons-through-a-humanitarian-lens-en-601.pdf,
accessed
14
January 2014.
Brunn, S. (2011): Fifty years of Soviet nuclear testing in Semipalatinsk,
Kazakhstan: juxtaposed worlds of blasts and silences, security andrisks, denials and memory’, in S. Brunn: Engineering Earth. The Impactof Megaengineering Projects, Springer, 1789–1818.
Carlsen, T., Peterson, L., Ulsh, B., Werner, C., Purvis, L. and Sharber, A.
(2001): ‘Radionuclide contamination at Kazakhstan's Semipalatinsk
test site: implications on human and ecological health’, Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment 7 (4): 943–955.
Grosche, B. (2002): Semipalatinsk Test Site: Introduction. Radiation andEnvironmental Biophysics 41 (1): 53–55.
Grosche, B., Land, C., Bauer, S., Pivina, L., Abylkassimova, Z. and Gusev, B.
(2002): Fallout from nuclear tests: health effects in Kazakhstan’,Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 41 (1): 75–80.
Grosche, B., Lackland, D., Land, C., Simon, S., Apsalikov, K., Pivina, L.,
Bauer, S. and Gusev, B. (2011): ‘Mortality from cardiovascular diseases
in the Semipalatinsk historical cohort, 1960–1999, and its relationshipto radiation exposure’, Radiation Research, 176 (5): 660–669.
Gusev, B., Abylkassimova, S. and Apsalikov, K. (1997): ‘The Semipalatinsk
Nuclear Test Site: a first assessment of the radiological situation and the32

Roman Vakulchuk and Kristian Gjerde with Tatiana Belikhina and Kazbek Apsalikov

test-related radiation doses in the surrounding territories’, Radiationand Environmental Biophysics, 36: 201–204.
Harrell, E. and Hoffman, D. (2013): Plutonium Mountain: Inside the 17Year Mission to Secure a Legacy of Soviet Nuclear Testing. Report for
Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science andInternational Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, MA.
IRME (2013): Mediko-demograficheskie posledstviya ispytaniy yadernogo
oruzhiya na Semipalatinskom ispytatel'nom yadernom poligone(unpublished background paper).
IRSE (2013): Ekologicheskie posledstviya yadernikh ispitaniy na
Semipalatinskom ispitatel'nom yadernom poligone (unpublishedbackground paper).
Katayama, H., Apsalikov, K., Gusev, B., Galich, B., Madieva, M.,
Koshpessova, G., Abdikarimova, A. and Hoshi, M. (2006): ‘An attempt
to develop a database for epidemiological research in Semipalatinsk’,
Journal of Radiation Research, 47: A189–A197.
Kawano, N. and Ohtaki, M. (2006): ‘Remarkable experiences of the nuclear
tests in residents near the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site: analysis
based on the questionnaire surveys’, Journal of Radiation Research, 47,
no. Suppl A (2006): A199–A207.
Kawano, N., Hirabayash, K., Matsuo, M., Taooka, Y., Hiraoka, T.,
Apsalikov, K., Moldagaliev, T. and Hoshi, M. (2006): ‘Human suffering
effects of nuclear yests at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: established on
the basis of questionnaire surveys’, Journal of Radiation Research, 47:
A209–A217.
Kimura, A., Hyodo, H., Satow, Y., Tchaijunusova, N., Alexander, S. andGusev, B. (1998): ‘Leukemia in Semipalatinsk area of Former USSR’,
British Journal of Haematology, 102 (1): 37.
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on ‘Social protection of citizens who
suffered as a result of nuclear tests conducted in Semipalatinsk nuclear
test site’ of 18 December 1992 (№ 1787–Х11).
Logachev, V., Mikhalikhina, L., Darenskaya, N., Matuschchenko, M.,
Stepanov, Y., and Shamov O. (1998): Population Health in Regions
Adjacent to the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site, AFRRI Contract Report
98–4, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, MD,.
Lukashenko, S. (ed.) (2011a): Semipalatinskiy ispitatel'nyy poligon.
Sovremennoe sostoyanie, Pavlodar: Dom Pechati.
Lukashenko S. (ed.) (2011b): Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site: Present
State. IRSE, available at:Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences

http://irse.kz/index.php/publikatsii/buklety/sip/na-anglijskom-yazyke,
accessed 14 January 2014.
Matsuo, M. (2004): ‘A full-text English database of testimonies of those
exposed to radiation near the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site,
Kazakhstan’, Hiroshima Peace Science, 26: 75–99.
Medvedev, Z (1999): Stalin and the Atomic Bomb, available at:
http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/68Medvedev.pdf‘Note on the issue of “Health and social protection of population living
around the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site”’ ("Spravka po voprosu ‘Obokhranezdorov'yaisotsialnoy
zashchitenaseleniya,
prozhivayushchego v zone vliyania byvshego Semipalatinskogo
yadernogo poligona’"), available at:
http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=30026965, accessed 12
December 2013
National Nuclear Center of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2014): Questions
and Answers (Voprosy i otvety), available at:
http://sts.nnc.kz/index.php?id=54&L=0, accessed 4 January 2014.
Parfitt, T. (2010): ‘Nuclear tests leave Kazakhstan still searching foranswers’, The Lancet, 376 (9749): 1289–1290.
Purvis‐Roberts, K., Werner, C. and Frank, I. (2007): ‘Perceived risks fromradiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: acomparison between physicians, scientists, and the public’, Risk
Analysis 27 (2): 291–302.
Simon, S., Baverstock, K. and Lindholm, C. (2003): ‘A summary of evidence
on radiation exposures received near to the Semipalatinsk Nuclear
Weapons Test Site in Kazakhstan’, Health Physics Society, 84 (6): 718–
725.
Takada, J. (2005): Nuclear Hazards in the World: Field Studies on Affected
Populations and Environments. Berlin: Kodansha/Springer.
Werner, C. and Purvis-Roberts, K. (2005): Unraveling the Secrets of the
Past: Contested Versions of Nuclear Testing in the Soviet Republic of
Kazakhstan. National Council for Eurasian and East European Research,
Washington D.C., available at:
http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2005_818_16_Werner.pdf, accessed
20 January 2014.
Werner, C. and Purvis-Roberts, K. (2007): ‘After the Cold War: international
politics, domestic policy and the nuclear legacy in Kazakhstan’, Central
Asia Survey, 25 (4): 461–480.

33

Appendix
Table 1: Overview of major test grounds within the SNTS (Source: IRSE 2013)
The information presented here is simplified and not exhaustive. For further information, see Lukashenko (ed.) (2011): ‘Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site: Present State’.
Available at: http://irse.kz/index.php/publikatsii/buklety/sip/na-anglijskom-yazyke, accessed 14 January 2014.

Area

Test history and current state

Opytnoe pole

The atmospheric and surface tests were conducted at the ‘Opytnoe pole’ [‘Experimental field’] test ground between 1949 and 1962. It is these nuclear tests that led to greatest contamination of the test(‘Experimentsite and adjacent regions, and to the largest extent have impacted the health and life of the population in adjacent regions, indeed as far away as the Altai region in contemporary Russia.

field’)
Work carried out since site closure:Some physical barriers have been created.

In the most-contaminated areas: elimination of contamination by removal of the upper layer of soil. In less-contaminated areas, remediation is carried out by deep ploughing. The result is asignificant decrease of the concentration of artificial radionuclides in the upper layer of the soil.

Present situation:

The radiation situation is at the moment rather stable, but not uniform. Frequent steppe fires lead to a certain redistribution of radionuclides in the area.



Significant areas of the testing ground can be deemed ‘conditionally clean’, when the concentration of artificial radionuclides is comparable to the level of global fallout.

Balapan andAt the Balapan and Sary-Uzen test grounds, 129 underground nuclear tests were carried out in vertical boreholes, depth up to 500 meter. At the Balapan test ground one can find the infamous ‘Atomic

Sary-Uzen

Lake’, intentionally created on 15 January 1965 as a result of a 150 kt underground detonation.
Work carried out since site closure:With the aim of eliminating the test infrastructure and improving the radio-ecological situation at the Balapan test ground, a series of measures have been undertaken, including the destruction of
the engineering complexes over the boreholes. Entrances to tunnels have been removed.



Atomic Lake (river Shagan): Despite the difficult radio-ecological situation at the river Shagan and the large-scale migration of tritium contaminated water to territories outside of the test site, noremediation works have been carried out here.

Semipalatinsk nuclear testing: the humanitarian consequences 35
Present situation:

Excavation detonations at the test grounds Balapan and Sary-Uzen in boreholes no. 1003 and no. 125 led to significant radioactive contamination over an area of several hundred meters; fallout fromthe test in borehole no. 101 can be traced at a distance of several kilometres.

Emergency detonations in four boreholes caused considerable contamination of the surrounding areas.



As a whole, the radio-ecological situation at the test grounds Balapan and Sary-Uzen is stable. Migration processes have not been observed, except for the situation at the river Shagan.

At the outlet of the river Shagan from Atomic Lake, studies have shown that the concentration of radionuclides in the water does not exceed the threshold limit value for the population. But at the
portion of land 4 to 6 km from Atomic Lake extremely high concentrations of H3 have been discovered, stretching approx. 35 km, including territories outside of the test site borders. This is aconsiderable problem – in the floodplain by the river Shagan there is active animal husbandry.

DegelenIn the period 1961–1989, 209 medium-yield and small-yield underground nuclear tests nuclear tests were carried out in 181 tunnels in the Degelen mountain massif.
Work carried out since site closure:
Massive remediation works have been carried out. During the remediation work at the Degelen test ground, protective concrete structures of a total volume of more than 90,000 m3 have been created. For
more information, see Harrell and Hoffman (2013).
Present situation:
The situation at Degelen remains complex. In addition to water-bearing tunnels with high levels of radionuclides, there are there problems with contamination as a result of tunnels being used for tests
several times. In several cases, in order to re-use an object, contaminated tunnel infrastructure was dismantled and brought to the surface, causing contamination of adjacent territories. In general, theradio-ecological situation is unstable and changes with time.

4 and 4A

Not only nuclear tests were carried out at the SNTS. At the ‘4’ and ‘4A’ test grounds tests of radiological warfare agents (RWA) were conducted – ‘liquid or powder-like radioactive mixtures’, manufactured
from radiochemical waste.
Work carried out since site closure:Physical barriers are being constructed

Decontamination is a priority

Present situation:On the territory of ‘4’ and ‘4A’ more than 30 places with local radioactive contamination have been discovered.



The radiation situation in these places is unstable and is gradually changing. Strontium in these places can easily be transferred to vegetation and further to animals.

Nuclear tests were also conducted at the Tel'kem and Aktan-Berli testing grounds, and on several unnamed test grounds.

NUPI
Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt
C.J. Hambros plass 2D
Postboks 8159 Dep. 0033 Oslo
www.nupi.no | info@nupi.no
Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt [NUPI] ble
etablert i 1959, og er et ledende, uavhengig
forskningsinstitutt på internasjonal politikk ogområder av relevans for norsk utenrikspolitikk.
Formelt er NUPI underlagt Kunnskapsdepartementet, men opererer likevel som enuavhengig, ikke-politisk virksomhet i alle sine
faglige aktiviteter. Forskning utført ved NUPI
spenner fra kortsiktig anvendt forskning til mer
langsiktig grunnforskning.

Roman Vakulchuk, Senior Research Fellow,
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs(NUPI), Oslo, Norway.
Kristian Gjerde, Junior Research Fellow,
Norwegian Institute of International Affairs(NUPI), Oslo, Norway.

Tatiana Belikhina, Head of Research
Management Department, Institute ofRadiation Medicine and Ecology (IRME), Semey,
Kazakhstan.
Kazbek Apsalikov, Director, Institute ofRadiation Medicine and Ecology (IRME), Semey,
Kazakhstan.