Publication date: 18 April 2006

Summary
In the past twenty years it has become clear, that nuclear energy conceals dangers, in some aspects, even greater than atomic weapons: the ejecta from this one reactor exceeded the radioactive contamination caused by the nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by one hundred times. It has become clear that one nuclear reactor can contaminate half of the Earth and that no longer, not in one single country, could citizens be assured that the state will have the forethought and wisdom to protect them from nuclear misfortunes.

Chernobyl power station and the sarcophagus around the exploded reactor. Ukraine, September 1996

In the run up to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe (26 April), Greenpeace today issues a major study on the consequences of the accident on human health.

The report, drawing on the contributions of more than 50 research scientists, including research never before published in English from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, seriously challenges official estimates about the number and scale of human casualties resulting from the disaster.

Despite wide variations in available data, results of recent studies included in the report estimate that over a quarter of a million additional cancers will be caused by the accident, or which nearly 100,000 will be fatal. Epidemiological data from the Russian Academy of Sciences suggests that some 60,000 people have died in Russia alone as a result of Chernobyl and that including the other highly affected countries of Ukraine and Belarus would take the total death toll to date to 200,000.

The report condemns earlier claims, most notably that of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in last September's Chernobyl Forum report which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident, as a 'gross simplification of the breadth of human suffering'.

Twenty years after the explosion at Reactor 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant which discharged radiation more than 250 times that released by the Hiroshima bomb, several million people, by various estimates from 5 to 8 million, still reside in contaminated areas closest to the disaster site in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

Although early casualties from the immediate blast were relatively small - 31 plant workers, firemen and rescuers or 'liquidators' as they came to be known were killed in the days following the explosion, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered repeated ill health and many more have died earlier than they might have done had the accident not occurred.

In addition to causing cancer, radiation also impacts on the body's immune and endocrine systems, leads to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood diseases, causes respiratory and digestive problems ,chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal abnormalities and birth defects. Studies included in this report acknowledge that as well as the direct impact of radiation, health conditions in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were also seriously affected by a complex set of socio-economic factors resulting from the loss of land, relocation of 300,000 people, economic crisis, lack of access to information and political factors.

Greenpeace recognises that the wide range of estimates into this 'excess mortality and morbidity' resulting from the Chernobyl accident spans an extremely wide range depending upon precisely what is taken into account. It concludes that rather than being a time to close the book on the disaster, more and better coordinated research into the longer-term health consequences needs to be carried out.

Key findings from the report include:

• Cancer has increased sharply in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Between 1990 and 2000, there was a 40% increase in all cancers in Belarus and a 52% increase in the Gomel region. In Ukraine there was a 12% increase and in the Zhytomir region morbidity increased almost 3-fold. In the Russian Bryansk region, cancer increased 2.7 times.
• It is estimated that the Chernobyl accident will cause some 270 000 excess cancers worldwide, of which 90,000 will be fatal. Some 14,000 of these deaths will be from thyroid cancers, 8,000 from leukeamias and 71,000 from solid cancers.
• Thyroid cancer has seen the most dramatic increase of all cancers with far more and far more aggressive cases than originally predicted. It is expected to peak for youngsters in the period 2001-2006 but new cases are expected to appear for the next 30 years.
• Chromosomal aberrations have increased by a factor of 2-6 in the higher contaminated regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia

Blake Lee Harwood, campaigns director at Greenpeace UK says

"This Greenpeace report shows that there is a very wide range of fatal casualty estimates for the Chernobyl disaster with credible scientific observers giving figures that number in the hundreds of thousands. It's clear from the wide range of estimates, the many holes in the data set and the variability in potential health effects that no hard and fast conclusions can be reached at the moment. However, it's likely that the true human cost of the Chernobyl disaster will be many times greater than that estimated by the International Atomic Energy Authority.

"It is shocking that the IAEA should have attempted to end the debate over Chernobyl impacts by claiming a final figure of four thousand cancer deaths. The IAEA should be stripped of its responsibilities in relation to civil nuclear power and there should be a coordinated international scientific effort to establish a better assessment of the true impacts of Chernobyl."

The Greenpeace report is issued as a new photography exhibition opens in London to mark the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl. Fallout: The human cost of nuclear catastrophe held at the Oxo Gallery on London's South Bank, features poignant images of individuals and families whose lives have been devastated by Chernobyl and other nuclear disasters.

Lee Harwood continued: "These photographs are a timely reminder that behind the statistics are human lives, families and individuals, who have paid the ultimate price in the name of nuclear power. Anyone unconvinced about the dangers of nuclear power as a solution to our future energy needs should see this show, and then make up their mind."

Notes

The full report and executive summary of 'Chernobyl Catastrophe: Consequences on Human Health' can be downloaded here.

Or contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

Chernobyl fallout exhibition - Annya

Ten former Environment Ministers from across Europe, including MP Michael Meacher, are today (11 April 2006) calling on the United Nations to drop its support for nuclear technology in the run-up to the twentieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

In a letter to Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Mohamed El-Baradei, Director of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the politicians called for a reform of the IAEA's "conflicting and outdated mandate".

This demand highlights the contradictory roles the IAEA plays in the international arena. On one hand, the IAEA is tasked with stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and providing technical assistance to support the nuclear disarmament process. On the other, the IAEA's mandate promotes nuclear power. The former environmental ministers are calling on the UN to propose amendments to the IAEA statute at the forthcoming IAEA Board of Governors and General Conference in mid September.

Satu Hassi, Member of European Parliament and former Finish Environmental Minister, said: "The risk of nuclear arms proliferation seems to be growing rapidly. To be able to function effectively, the IAEA should end its schizophrenic role.

"It cannot effectively prevent nuclear arms proliferation when it, at the same time, promotes nuclear energy technology, which produces material for bombs. Therefore the time has come to make end of this double role of IAEA."

Felicity Hill, Nuclear Political Advisor for Greenpeace, said: The United Nations should dedicate this reform to the thousands of people in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus whose lives were scarred forever on the morning of the 26th of April 1986.

"The 20th anniversary of the biggest nuclear disaster in history is an opportunity to remove the threat of nuclear disasters from the planet, starting with reforming the IAEA. Atoms for Peace sounds like a nice ideal, but we all know that the reality of atomic energy is anything but peaceful."

Dominique Voynet, Senator and former French Minister for the Environment, said: "The IAEA acts as a true promoter for the nuclear industry worldwide. By deliberately ignoring the interlink between civil and military nukes, it contributes to the proliferation of fissile materials.

"Nations are also responsible in this dangerous interaction. France particularly, must end its sales policy of nuclear materials and technologies to whomever is willing to pay. This trade jeopardizes world peace."

Notes:

Signatories of the Ministers' letter are the following former Environmental Ministers:

1. Former Ukrainian Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Sergiy Kurykin
2. Former Russian Minister of Environment, Victor Danilov-Danilian
3. Former Belarusian Minister of Environment, Anatolii Dorofeev Anatolii Dorofeev
4. Former Italian Minister of Environment, Edo Ronchi
5. Former Danish Environment and Energy Minister, Svend Auken
6. Former Belgian Minister of Environment, Magda Alvoet
7. Former Czech Minister of Environment, Ivan Dejmal
8. Former Finish Minister of Environment and Development Cooperation, Satu Hassi
9. Former French Minister of Environment and Regional Planning, Dominique Voynet

Click here to read the Ministers' letter.

BNFL shipment: Pacific Pintail

Despite international opposition two armed British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) ships set sail from Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria this morning, on the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster (1). The two vessels are bound for Japan to collect nuclear material containing enough plutonium to build 50 nuclear bombs. The dangerous cargo is to be delivered to the controversial Sellafield nuclear plant, which is currently the focus of a major campaign by Irish celebrities calling for its shutdown.

The 'MOX' a mixture of plutonium-uranium oxide is being returned following its shipment to Japan in 1999, after it was revealed that the manufacturer, BNFL, had falsified safety data during its production. The scandal will cost the British taxpayer around £13 million.

Greenpeace has this week written to the UK Government and BNFL calling for the transport to be abandoned, on the grounds that not only is the shipment a health and security risk but that bringing the material into the UK would be in defiance of both international and UK law (2). The MOX has no foreseen use and will be stored at Sellafield as nuclear waste.

Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Pete Roche said,
"The UK and Japan have started the countdown to this dangerous shipment on the anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. They could not have chosen a more fitting date to remind the international community of the arrogance and risk-taking nature of the nuclear industry."

"When the BNFL MOX fuel first arrived in Japan the country was experiencing its worst ever-nuclear accident at Tokai-mura. The nuclear industry has clearly not learned from its mistakes, and continues to show total disregard for public safety, international security and the environment".

The plutonium shipment would also violate an undertaking given by the UK Government to Irish Government at an international tribunal last November. Following a challenge against the newly approved Sellafield MOX Plant by the Irish Government, the UK told the Tribunal that no imports of MOX fuel relating to the Sellafield MOX Plant would go ahead before October.

The two vessels, the Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Teal, one acting as an armed escort, the other carrying the plutonium, would face a barrage of international opposition if they make their journey. The ships plan to pick up the plutonium MOX material, at Takahama in Japan in June, and return it to the UK in early August. The nuclear industry is keeping the route a secret but it if it goes ahead it is likely to take one of three possible routes:

• via the Panama Canal, Caribbean, Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea
• via the Pacific, Cape Horn, Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea
• via the Pacific, Tasman Sea, Cape of Good Hope, Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea.

Caribbean countries have already this year voiced their "implacable opposition" to nuclear shipments through their region and Latin American countries have also voiced protest. During a shipment of MOX to Japan through the Tasman Sea last year, a flotilla of small yachts sailed from Australia and New Zealand to oppose the PNTL vessels. The flotilla protest was supported by the New Zealand Government.

There are also serious concerns about the safety of the shipment. The cask in which the plutonium is to be transported has not yet been licensed by the Japanese authorities. An earlier licence was revoked when it was discovered that levels of the single largest source of radioactivity in the cask, the radioisotope Americium-241, will be up to twice as high as originally estimated.

On its present schedule, the plutonium shipment will take place right in the middle of the FIFA World Cup in Japan. Greenpeace has already written to FIFA to warn that the resources needed to guard the shipments would divert security away from the tournament. Pete Roche added
"The industry is creating a floating terrorist target and an environmental hazard simply in order for BNFL to save face and get new contracts with its Japanese customers. This would result in yet more dangerous shipments of plutonium fuel, perhaps as many as 80 over the next decade."

"BNFL has already lied to the world about the falsification of safety data; countries along the routes have every right to be concerned that a company with such a dangerous and discreditable history should be in charge of the safety of this or any future shipments."

Notes to editors:

1. Today is the 16th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident, the worst disaster in the history of the nuclear industry. More than 100 emergency workers on the site of the accident on 26 April 1986 suffered radiation sickness and 41 of them died. There has been a significant increase in childhood thyroid cancer, normally a very rare disease, which has increased more than 60-fold in Belarus and 40-fold in Ukraine.
2. Under international law the shipment cannot go ahead unless authorised by the US. The US has given approval on the basis that the plutonium is to be recovered and returned to Japan in the form of fresh MOX fuel assemblies. Yet the UK government has told parliament that the faulty MOX is to be imported and stored at Sellafield while BNFL decides what to do with it. And the UK has promised the Irish Government and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), that there will be no transports associated with the Sellafield MOX plant before October 2002. The import must be in breach either of the US authorisation or the undertakings given to ITLOS.

Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255

Nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl accident on April 26 1986 spread radioactive contamination over Europe, with Wales being particularly badly affected. The levels of contamination led to Government restrictions being imposed on sheep holdings in North Wales. Hundreds of square kilometres of land in Wales are still operating under these restrictions because of the continuing high levels of contamination in sheep [1].

Environmental organisations are warning that safety problems at the Wylfa nuclear power station on Ynys M'n mean that the area would live under the threat of another nuclear accident if the station is ever allowed to restart. They are calling for its permanent closure [2].

The station was shut in April 2000 following the discovery of defects in welds on pipes inside the reactor pressure vessel. BNFL plans to get permission to restart the reactors by fitting 'restraints' to the outside of the pressure vessel. However, the nuclear industry's safety regulator admits that this measure would not stop the defective welds from breaking open, it would merely limit the extent of a radioactive release if they did break. [3]

A report commissioned by Greenpeace from independent consultant engineers Large & Associates concluded that a failure of the welds could ultimately lead to a severe accident and significant releases of radioactivity [4].

"The last thing that Wales needs is the threat of another nuclear accident spreading deadly radioactive contamination over the country. The only sane thing for BNFL can do is shut the station down for good, and allow the country to move towards a safe and environmentally sustainable energy future" said Bridget Woodman from Greenpeace.

Dylan Morgan from PAWB said "radioactive releases don't respect geographical boundaries. Experimenting with reopening Wylfa's reactors is a totally unacceptable risk for BNFL to take with the health and safety of the population of Wales."

A WANA spokesman warned "The British 'muddling through' approach to our older clapped out reactors threatens a catastrophe. We are sleepwalking towards the edge of a cliff."

Jill Stallard from CND Cymru stated: "The Chernobyl disaster has left one in three children in Belarus sick, and made an area the size of Britain permanently contaminated and uninhabitable . Restarting Wylfa is a risk too great to take. Nuclear power is past its sell by date, unsustainable and not the way forward for a nuclear free Wales for the future of our children and our children's children."

Neil Crumpton, energy spokesperson for FOE Cymru said, "As the tragic human and economic consequences of the Chernobyl disaster continue to unfold across the Ukraine and beyond, the least we should do is ensure any similar nuclear disaster does not happen in the UK."

Notes for Editors:
[1] The most recently published figures for Wales show approximately 530 square kilometres of land under Government restrictions, covering about 359 whole and partial holdings (More areas freed from Chernobyl Sheep restrictions, National Assembly for Wales press release, 21 January 1998). See map for details of affected areas.

[2] Groups calling for Wylfa's closure: PAWB (People Against Wylfa B/Pobol Atal Wylfa B), WANA (Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance), CND Cymru, FOE Cymru, Greenpeace

[3] Nuclear Safety Newsletter, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, October 2000

[4] Review of Ageing Processes and Their Influence on Safety and Performance at Wylfa Nuclear Power Station, Large & Associates, March 2001.

Nuclear power station waste pipes often flow untreated into the sea

Greenpeace called on the executive directors of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) meeting here today to delay their decision on whether to finance the two Chernobyl replacement reactors in the Ukraine, after a leaked government study revealed serious short-comings in the safety of the plants.

The study, commissioned by the Austrian government, described the half-completed reactors as "particularly hazardous" and said they would not reach Western safety standards. It found that the reactor design assumptions for earthquakes at the Khmelnitsky and Rovno sites had been underestimated by a factor of four.

The study also found:

• key safety upgrades on the two reactors will not be completed by the start-up date and may take years to finish because of the poor financial state of the Ukrainian economy and the operating company ENERGOATOM
• the priority repayment requirements of the EBRD loan would further aggravate the lack of funds for repair, maintenance and upgrades of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.
• the K2R4 project has an even lower safety standard than the controversial Temelin nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic over which Austria is threatening to veto Czech ascension to the European Union

"These reactors are dangerous, they are not needed, and the EBRD must now delay its decision on whether to finance them in the light of this safety study," said Tobias Muenchmeyer of Greenpeace International.

A number of Ukrainians joined Greenpeace today in London to call on the EBRD to delay the decision on whether to fund the K2R4. Natalya Preobrazhenskaya, 69, is a former biochemist who runs a medical centre for children affected by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. "I have seen 9 year-old children that have the diseases of middle-aged men," she said. "Why do we need these new reactors? Nobody voted for them. If the bankers give the money, we want to know their names, so that we can hold them responsible for this decision."

Ukrainian journalist Lyubov Kovalevskaya, 48, is a journalist from the former town of Pripyat which is two kilometres from the Chernobyl nuclear plant. She was at home when the plant exploded in 1986. Ms Kovalevskaya, said: "Supervision of nuclear safety is now a hundred times worse that it was in Soviet times. The bankers have forgotten that nuclear fuel was stolen from Chernobyl in the 1990s and they have forgotten the risk of earthquakes."

The EBRD directors meeting today are also considering inaccurate figures according to a study, commissioned by Greenpeace, which found that the latest least-cost analysis by the EBRD of energy projects to replace the Chernobyl reactor, gives a misleadingly inflated cost for the non-nuclear options.

The EBRD's key criterion for lending on the K2R4 project, is that it is the least cost investment in the Ukrainian energy sector. The study found that the EBRD when calculating the cost of the K2R4 project correctly included the massive fall in the value of the Ukrainian currency between 1998-1999, hence reducing its total cost. However the bank did not include the currency devaluation when calculating the cost of the non-nuclear energy projects such as a combined-cycle gas-fired power plant.

In May of this year Greenpeace had criticised a similar miscalculation in earlier EBRD documents on K2R4. In its latest document the EBRD states that it took into account Greenpeace's criticism, but still managed to repeat the mistake.

"The least cost criteria is crucial for the EBRD in deciding whether to proceed with the loan for K2R4. For the EBRD to repeat a fundamental mistake in calculating the cost of this project, which makes it appear cheaper than other energy projects, is either gross incompetence or a manipulation of the figures," Muenchmeyer said.

Notes to Editors:
The EBRD has been reviewing the economic, environmental and financial viability of the $1.48 billion K2R4 project since 1995 when the project was put forward by the G7 and EU. The last remaining reactor at Chernobyl is nowscheduled to close on December 15. The EBRD is due to make a final decisionon K2R4 on December 7.

Since the economic collapse of the Ukraine, following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1992 and the collapse of the Ukrainian currency in 1998, final consumption of electricity dropped from 201 terrawatt hours TWh (billion kilowatt hours) in 1991 to 118 TWh in 1999. This has resulted in a large number of power stations no longer being needed. This excess of capacity is twenty times larger than the operating reactor at Chernobyl. The Ukrainian operating company ENERGOATOM which currently collects only 7.9% of electricity sales in cash with 60-70% of transactions done by barter.

Further information:
Contact Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255