Reply to letter by Jargin on “overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published”

Abstract

It was with great interest that we read Dr. Jargin’s comments (Jargin 2010) on our recent publication that appeared in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (New York Academy of Sciences 2009). Apparently, Dr. Jargin criticism is based on four sections (Chapters II-3,5,7 and IV-13) of our book that in total includes 18 separate sections. If he had read those sections describing the task which the author wanted to accomplish with their publication, and the methods of the meta-review applied in the study, his two general questions (about the character of information used and about a seeming contradiction with the IAEA position) would have probably been unnecessary. Our book appeared as a reaction to reviews of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) devoted to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident (IAEA 2006), which are based on a limited selection of «international literature on the medical consequences of the Chernobyl accident» written in English. This restriction of literature does not seem justiWed to us, as IAEA and WHO representatives (“Chernobyl Forum”) have ignored thousands of Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian publications that deal with the negative health consequences of the Chernobyl accident. The main reasoning for us to publish (New York Academy of Sciences 2009) was—as is often mentioned in the text of the book—was to summarize those publications. In the Foreword, the Introduction and in Chapter II, it is mentioned that obliteration of those publications is not acceptable both from a moral and an ethical (note that in general, medical practitioners could only add short statements about their studies in numerous scientiWc and practical conferences) but also from a methodological point of view (when the sample number is very large, there is no necessity to use statistical methods developed for a small number of samples). In this respect, criticizing us with the fact that our conclusions are in disagreement with those of IAEA (2006) and the United Nations ScientiWc Committee on the EVects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 2000) cannot but be surprising. The book itself was written as a counterpart to reports of oYcial experts that may be connected to nuclear industry. In this respect, it is for example quite instructive that—as mentioned in our book—following an agreement between IAEA and WHO dated to 1959, WHO should “consult” with IAEA when publishing materials on radiation health eVects. It is clear that any data on serious negative radiation eVects are not advantageous for nuclear industries, and it aVects WHO publications. The task we wanted to cope with was to provide a scientiWc and practical analysis of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident and a description of the ways to alleviate them, but not to write an academic monograph. To perform such an analysis, one should not only include scientiWc publications but also other sources of information such as interviews with oYcial persons (for example, about the number of thyroid cancer operations in diVerent years or that of perished or sick liquidators in diVerent regions), oYcial documents and other important documentary evidence. To give just one example, in chapter 2 of Alexievich (2006), an unusual observation that requires future conformation is A. Yablokov Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, OYce 319, 119071 Moscow, Russia e-mail: Yablokov@ecopolicy.ru