By Renfrey Clarke
MOSCOW — On April 19, a week before the 10th anniversary of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, leaders of the G7 group of industrialised nations met in Moscow with the presidents of Russia and Ukraine for a two-day summit on nuclear safety. The assembled leaders proceeded to give a firm thumbs-up to nuclear power.
"The G7 gave a strong endorsement to nuclear power as a sustainable form of energy, calling for upgrades of substandard reactors rather than closing them down", the English-language Moscow Times reported.
Environmentalists in Moscow were aghast. "We're still shell-shocked", Greenpeace activist Josh Handler was quoted as saying. While reiterating an earlier pledge to aid the shutdown of the remaining reactors at Chernobyl, the G7 leaders had made no moves to encourage the closure of the 13 similar RBMK-type reactors still operating in Russia and Lithuania. "It doesn't matter how many upgrades you do", Handler objected. "The RBMK design is fundamentally flawed."
Skimming a wide range of nuclear-related questions in only five hours of formal talks, the G7 leaders never intended to debate these issues in depth. But during the period of the summit, serious discussion of nuclear safety did take place — at an alternative Moscow summit sponsored by the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council and by the Centre for Russian Environmental Policy.
Here, the long-term costs of the Chernobyl disaster — and the broader danger posed to humanity by the nuclear power industry — received a thorough accounting.
Speakers at the alternative summit made clear that the costs of Chernobyl have only begun to be paid, and the suffering has only begun to be endured. For example, cancer cases resulting from the accident are not expected to reach their peak until the year 2005.
As renowned Russian biologist Alexei Yablokov observed recently, the Chernobyl disaster has been the worst technologically caused catastrophe in the history of humankind. And as Yablokov also remarked, "Chernobyl will stay with us for many generations to come, practically forever".
One message that emerged clearly at the alternative summit was that the Chernobyl disaster released far more radioactivity than was reported at the time. In February, the Nuclear Energy Agency published an assessment indicating that more than 140 million curies were dispersed into the environment, more than three times the initial estimate by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The World Health Organisation recently cited a figure of some 200 times the radioactivity released in the 1945 nuclear bombing of Japan.
These conclusions are borne out by studies of chromosomal mutation in the human population around Chernobyl. This research shows mutation rates four to five times higher than in control regions, a finding consistent with much heavier exposure to radioactivity than was admitted in 1986.
The number of people subjected to significantly increased radiation levels was also much larger than initially supposed. The United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs states that an area of some 160,000 square kilometres, with a population of about 9 million people, was contaminated at a level of more than 1 curie per square kilometre. According to the IAEA, some 825,000 people are still living in areas that suffered contamination of more than 5 curies per square kilometre.
The Soviet authorities stated that 31 people died within a week from the immediate effects of the disaster, though the real figure was almost certainly higher. Greenpeace records that of 444 people directly exposed to radiation on the site of the accident, 134 have since contracted serious illnesses.
In all, about 800,000 "liquidators" took part in trying to mitigate the effects of the disaster. Many studies now show that the general health of these people has deteriorated. According to figures compiled by the Belarus government, former liquidators in that country suffer from thyroid cancer at 40 times the normal rate.
The number of additional deaths among the liquidators is difficult to calculate, but there is reason to think that it already totals many thousands. Where the cause of death is not directly linked to radiation exposure, it is often alcoholism or suicide, reflecting long-term psychological trauma.
Among the broader population in the contaminated areas, the main effect on health so far has been a dramatic increase in child thyroid cancer. In Belarus, where about 70% of the radioactive materials released in the explosion and fire eventually settled, the previous rate of thyroid cancer had been about one case per million children per year. By 1994 the rate for Belarus as a whole was 36 per million children. In Gomel Province, the most heavily contaminated area, the rate was above 100 per million.
A study by European Commission researchers recently found that there had been no observable increase in leukemia cases. But scientists expect the incidence of leukemia and other cancers to rise markedly in coming years. High rates of non-malignant illnesses are already present: Alexei Yablokov notes "deep and vast immunological and cytogenic impairments ... increasing incidence of cataracts, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, disease of respiratory organs ... urogenital system disease".
The Belarus health ministry has recorded a 161% increase in birth defects in babies born between 1986 and 1993. Yablokov states that more than half the children born in the contaminated territory display mental retardation in psychovocal and other forms. The cause in many cases is genetic damage suffered by the children's parents.
Vladimir Shevchenko, a specialist on the genetic effects of nuclear fallout, reported recently that the population of the Chernobyl region could expect 8400 birth "anomalies" among the second generation of victims of the accident. "In addition", Shevchenko stated, "up to 1000 children per 100,000 are likely to suffer chronic ailments later in life related to their parents' exposure to radiation, including asthma, diabetes and cardiovascular disorders".
The Chernobyl plant is now surrounded by a thousand-square-kilometre exclusion zone so contaminated that it will be uninhabitable by human beings at least for 300 or 400 years.
This area is not a lifeless wasteland; paradoxically, the exodus of the people has allowed many animal species to increase their numbers. But the environment in the zone, as in broader areas that suffered contamination, is anything but normal. The populations of various species are skewed because of differing abilities to tolerate radiation, and because animals high on the food chain ingest large doses of radiation with their prey.
Meanwhile, mutations occur at elevated rates. Genetic damage accumulates, and the proportion of weak individuals increases.
Despite efforts at containment, radionuclides are increasingly reaching the ground water in the area surrounding the Chernobyl plant. Spring flooding washes contaminants into the Pripyat River, and from there into the Kiev Reservoir, where increased radiation levels cause periodic scares.
The social and economic costs of the disaster have been astronomical. About 500,000 people were evacuated after the accident, and for about 375,000 of these, the resettlement has been permanent. On an area the size of Holland, in three countries, only limited forms of agriculture are possible.
Most of the economic burden has been carried by Belarus, one-quarter of whose territory is contaminated. Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko told a conference in March that as much as 25% of his country's state budget is being spent directly or indirectly on overcoming the effects of the disaster. In February the government's "Chernobyl minister", Ivan Kenik, estimated the total cost to Belarus of the accident at US$235 billion by the year 2015. On this basis, Greenpeace estimated that the cost by 2015 for the three countries most affected would be at least $300 billion.
Meanwhile, the danger from the remnants of the Chernobyl No. 4 reactor has not passed. The concrete and steel sarcophagus built around the destroyed reactor building, which was intended to last 30 years, has developed cracks and is deteriorating rapidly.
Ukrainian environment minister Yuri Kostenko warned in March that heat from the nuclear fuel that remains inside the sarcophagus could build up to a critical point, causing "a thermic explosion" and further massive contamination. The cost of building a second sarcophagus is estimated at US$1.6 billion, and the time required at 10 years.
Under pressure from western public opinion, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma agreed in April 1995 that the two reactors still operating at Chernobyl would be shut down by the year 2000. Negotiations resulted in the signing in November 1995 of a memorandum according to which Ukraine would receive US$2.3 billion in grants and loans in order to close the plant. The largest item in this package was for the completion of two partly built nuclear reactors, intended to compensate for the lost generating capacity.
By April 1996 the total offer had been raised to US$3.1 billion. In the past, the Ukrainian government has argued that the total cost of the shutdown is likely to come to US$4 billion. The truth is that no-one can provide more than a vague estimate, since decommissioning a Chernobyl-type reactor has never before been tried.
Although Ukrainian authorities agreed on the year 2000 as the optimum date for the shutdown, they went on to give repeated signals that they did not take this time frame seriously. In February, the Moscow daily Izvestia reported that a plan for closing the plant had not even been drafted. Meanwhile, the G7 countries were stalling on handing over the funds that had been pledged.
At the Moscow summit, Kuchma appeared to take a more deliberate attitude toward the closure of Chernobyl. Receiving promises that funds for the shutdown would begin flowing this year, and that the G7 countries would study ways of replacing the sarcophagus, Kuchma reportedly stated that the Chernobyl No. 1 reactor would be shut down permanently later in 1996.
The odds are nevertheless considerable that the danger of another reactor catastrophe at Chernobyl will continue to terrorise Europe until well into the next century. Although the G7 governments have promised aid, they would clearly relish an excuse not to hand it over. Kuchma and his officials, meanwhile, have shown a readiness to use the dangers of the plant in a kind of aid blackmail. This game of obstruction and counter-obstruction could well continue for years after 2000.
One of the ironies is that the Chernobyl reactors could be taken off stream relatively quickly, without power supply problems in Ukraine being exacerbated, if appropriate energy conservation measures were implemented. At present, Chernobyl accounts for only about 5% of Ukraine's electricity output.
The reactors that remain in service at Chernobyl are only two of a still-numerous breed. At Sosnovy Bor in north-western Russia there are four RBMK reactors, upwind of the 4 million people in St Petersburg and only 50 kilometres away. At Ignalina in Lithuania, two giant RBMK units, among the largest reactors in the world, are known for their shoddy construction.
There has been no suggestion that any of the RBMK reactors apart from those at Chernobyl will be shut down for many years to come. Now the position taken by the G7 leaders, by suggesting that aid will be available for "upgrading" measures, has tended to push the closure dates for these other reactors still further into the future.
The grim inheritance from the technological adventurism of the Soviet regime is thus being worsened by the irresponsibility of today's world leaders. The effect may well be to ensure that the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986 is not the last of its kind.