TL: AUTHORITIES LIED OVER IMPACT OF CHERNOBYL IN TURKEY SO: Greenpeace Mediterranean Melda Keskin DT: 26 April 1996 Keywords: Nuclear Russia Turkey Chernobyl power food politics problems disaster/ AUTHORITIES LIED OVER IMPACT OF CHERNOBYL IN TURKEY Istanbul, April 26, 1996 (GP) - Turkish authorities have lied to their own people about the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, a Greenpeace report published in Istanbul said. The disinformation policy has been going on since the nuclear power plant exploded in the Ukraine on April 26, 1986. This resulted in tons of contaminated food being consumed by millions of people. Officials, including ministers and scientists, systematically suppressed information about Turkish areas and food contaminated by the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, it said. The Greenpeace report, published on the tenth anniversary of the nuclear disaster, quoted confidential memos from Turkish officials and the few credible Turkish scientific studies on the impact of Chernobyl in Turkey. There are hardly any comprehensive studies or scientific data at any official or academic institution in Turkey on this issue. "Turkish ministers and other officials downplayed the impact of Chernobyl," said Melda Keskin of the Greenpeace Mediterranean Office in Istanbul. "They forbid scientists to carry out independent studies, allowed only a handful of politicians to make public statements on the issue and allowed contaminated food to be sold." "The profit-oriented commercial approach of the authorities suppressed any concern about human health and the environment. The sale and export of contaminated tea and hazelnuts, and not public health, was the main concern of authorities," Keskin added. Contaminated vegetables, tea, hazelnuts and cheese were sold. This means that radiated food will effect people for many years to come. Scientific studies proved that Chernobyl cesium isotope levels in water at new Black Sea sediment were about two orders higher than bomb fallout levels. The Black Sea received large amounts of river input, mostly from the Danube and Dnjepr Rivers. Both these rivers drained watersheds heavily impacted by Chernobyl fallout, including freshwater directly from the Chernobyl site itself. The Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) knew about the contamination in the Black Sea region. But it did not warn people who grow tea in this region or factories processing the tea. Between May and December 1986, when tea is harvested, people were left without a warning. Contaminated tea processed and packed during this period of eight months was sold on the market. Best quality tea was sold most likely in Germany and consumed by Turkish workers living there. Turkish scientist Dr. Yuksel Atakan, who lives in Germany, published in 1990 a study showing that tea from Turkey was heavily contaminated. Results of measurements in Germany of tea bought in Turkey in June 1987 varied from dangerous levels of 6,000 to 30,000 Bq/kg. The Turkish Prime Ministry's office had bluntly claimed: "You can drink the tea now. Radiation looses ist impact when tea is steeped. Even 20 glasses of tea a day are harmless." Cahit Aral, Turkish Minister of Industry and Trade, said in June 1986: "All meat, milk, water, fish, vegetables from all over our country are totally clean. There is no radioactive contamination harming human health." By the end of 1992, Mr. Aral confessed: "The government has indeed hidden the facts and figures on the impact of Chernobyl in Turkey." He justified this policy with the following argument: "We did take our revenge on the Soviet Union for the nightmare of Chernobyl by exporting contaminated hazelnuts to Russia." Mr. Aral confirmed that the same hazelnuts were given for free to Turkish soldiers. Hazelnuts were also distributed in primary schools in Turkey. "Today, the very same people who tried to suppress information about the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster are promoting nuclear power in Turkey," said Keskin. "Ten years after Chernobyl, its tragic consequences are just beginning to emerge. Greenpeace fears that pro-government scientists will try again to downplay the worst industrial accident in history." Greenpeace demands that Turkish authorities allow intensive and independent scientific research on the impact of Chernobyl in Turkey. The full consequences on peoples' health and on the environment must be assessed. All information on this issue should be made public, and the plans to construct a nuclear power plant in Akkuyu near Mersin should be scrapped.(1) Authorities are expected to decide next May which company will built Turkey's first nuclear power plant. Fur further information please contact: Melda Keskin, Nuclear Campaigner of the Greenpeace Mediterranean Office, Tel. ++90-212-2607073 or ++90-542-2317249; Dr. Mario Damato, Executive Director Greenpeace Mediterranean, Tel. ++356-803484; or Press Officer Fouad Hamdan, temporarily based in Hamburg, ++49-40-30618447. Attention editors: You can order the Greenpeace report "THE IMPACT OF THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER ON TURKEY" from us. NOTES: 1. Prof. Dr. Nejat Aybers, Former Head of the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency, said: "Nuclear energy is a real friend of the environment... Let the venerable environmentalists please listen: A nuclear power accident does not kill people. It does not even cause radiation sickness. How did these 31 people die in Chernobyl? They went up the roof of the reactor. They are rescuers, firemen. They have burned." (source: Panel on "Nuclear Energy and the Environment", International Nuclear Energy Forum, 12-15 October 1993 in Ankara, TMMOB Chamber of Mechanical Engineers Publication no: 168, p.219 and 221) It is obvious that political expediency and the interests of nuclear cartels override radiological protection. Unfortunately, Turkish authorities plan to build nuclear power plants although many countries are moving in the direction of energy efficiency and alternatives. Sweden plans to close down all its nuclear reactors that supply 46% of ist electricity between 1998 and 2010. Turkey is very close to the two of the world's most dangerous nuclear power plants: Kozloduy in Bulgaria and Medsamor in Armenia. As radiation knows no boundaries, any accident that occurs in one of these will certainly affect populated settlements in Turkey. It would be simple and also distressing for the reader of this report to imagine the consequences of such a disaster in Turkey should it happen in a nuclear power plant inside or outside this country. ---------------------------------------------------------- GREENPEACE MEDITERRANEAN REPORT THE IMPACT OF THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER ON TURKEY 1. INTRODUCTION: This report evaluates the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on Turkey. This major incident in a nuclear power plant showed the world that there are no borders when a nuclear accident occurs. The radioactive cloud spread around the world shortly after the 4th reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine exploded at 1:24 AM on April 26, 1986: * April 27-30: Scandinavia, Finland, Belgium, * April 28-May 2: East and Mid-Europe, South Germany, Italy, Yugoslavia, Ukraine and Eastern Regions, Turkey (Black Sea) * May 1-4 - Balkans, Rumania, Bulgaria, Turkey (Thrace) * After May 2 - Black Sea and Turkey Ten years after the accident there are almost no comprehensive studies of scientific data at any official or academic institution in Turkey. The few exemptions are quoted in this report, along with foreign scientific reports. 2. DOWNPLAYING THE IMPACT AND LYING TO THE PUBLIC: During the first months after the explosion of the Chernobyl plant, Turkish authorities prohibited any official announcement of scientific data or results of research. The only person allowed to make any official statement on the issue was H. Cahit Aral, the Minister of Industry and Trade. Universities and other scientific institutions were discouraged from working on the issue by official orders. It became clear that the profit-oriented commercial approach of the authorities suppressed any concern about human health and the environment. The sale and export of tea and hazelnuts made in Turkey, and not public health, was the main concern of authorities. In 1993, the Turkish parliament discussed about setting up an investigation committee on this issue, but these plans were never realized. 2.1. OFFICIAL CENSORSHIP AND PROPAGANDA RULES: On May 14, 1986, two weeks after the accident was officially announced to the world, a letter (EIBD-III-750.278-1133) stamped "Secret" from the Minister of Foreign Affairs Vahit Halefoglu to the Prime Ministry calls for the Turkish Radiation Safety Committee (TRGK) to be set up. In this letter, the European Community ban till the 31st of May on imports of food from the eastern European countries was mentioned. The aims of the TRGK were listed as: - monitoring closely the radiation impact of Chernobyl with regular measurements - announcing the results of the measurements internally and externally, "especially to do away with the impact and with theimpression that could lead to negative consequences on our exports and tourism The main concern of the officials was to take measures to protect business, and not to solve health problems. On May 26, 1996, a "Secret" and "Urgent" letter (#19-383-10415) from Hasan Celal Guzel (Undersecretary on behalf of the Prime Minister) goes further: The goal was "to prevent the emergence of one-sided statements and propaganda". Mr. Aral is appointed head of the Turkish Radiation Safety Committee (TRGK). "Nobody except Minister of Industry and Trade Mr. Cahit Aral could make statements on these issues," the letter said. The first TRGK meeting took place on May 29, 1986. Officials from several ministries, the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TEAK) and two military officials were present. No independent scientist or representative of scientific institution was invited. The attendees were: 1. Ministry of Industry and Trade - Akin CAKMAKCI (undersecretary) 2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Erdim TUZEL; Ayse OGUT (Head of Energy Office 3. Ministry of Health and Social Aid - Dr. Haluk NURBAKI (Numune); Dr. Korkut AKOGUZ 4. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Village Works - Ismail (Vice-Undersecretary) 5. Ministry of State - (Ahmet KARAEVLI); Dr. Arif Nuri TUC; Zeynep Yontem 6. Prime Ministry - Gurcan YOLEK; Niyazi YESILYURT (Advisor of Mr. Vehbi DINCERLER) 7. Undersecretariat of Treasury Foreign Trade - Ugur ERCAN (Export General Director); A. Hamit CEMILOGLU (E.G.D.) 8. Ministry of Culture and Tourism - Guman KIZILTAN (Vice-Undersecretary); Oktay ATAMAN (Tourism General Director) 9. Turkish Atomic Energy Agency Chairmanship - Prof. Dr. Ahmed Yuksel OZEMRE (Chairman); PhD Hasbi YAVUZ (Vice-chairman);Ozer OZERDEN (Head of the Radiation Safety Office) 10. Engineer-Colonel Ihsan ISHAZK (Land Forces Commandership Tech. Office Vice-President) 11. Engineer-Captain Necip BAYKAL (Ministry of National Defence - Head of the R&D Office) The President of TAEK, Ahmed Yuksel OZEMRE, informed the meeting about the work accomplished to monitor the radioactivity and claimed: "Radiation in Turkey is at naturel background levels." 2.2. THE OFFICIAL DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN STARTS: On May 29, 1986, Mr. Ozemre publicly said that the radiation cloud effected Turkey starting April 30, and that according to meteorological data, winds from Kiev would effect the western half of Turkey for a week. TAEK cooperated with the Turkish army's General Staff Commandership to monitor radiation. Radiation levels in air one meter above the ground rose to 2,5 times in Istanbul and 12 times in the Karapinar region. With the rain on May 3, radiation contaminated the ground around the city of Edirne in Thrace. High radiation levels were detected on a 2 km part of the highway to the Bulgarian border. He also said that authorities decontaminated the area by "loading all the radioactive mud into barrels, carried them to Canem, washed the highway for three days and reduced radiation levels from 12.5 millireontgen/H to 17 microreontgen/H which is background levels". Ozemre said that contaminated milk with I-131 was used only to make cheese to be consumed 3-4 months later. He did not give any further details. There were no other official statement or decision about this issue. Even if the half-life of I-131 is 8 days, the Cs-137 and 134 with half lives of up to 30 years. This means that in the milk and cheese consumed by Turkish people, radiation would effect them internally many years. In Italy, a ban was introduced on the consumption of fresh milk for about the first three weeks of May 1986. Radiation levels of up to 2000 Bq/lt in cows' milk were reported. Whenever levels of Iodine were high, the levels of Cs-137 and Cs-134 were also high. [Source: Radiological Aspects of Chernobyl in Western Europe, R.H. Clarke, the NEA Newsletter, fall 1986, p.10.] The first public announcement by Cahit Aral, the Minister of Industry and Trade was: "All meat, milk, water, fish, vegetables from all over our country are totally clean. There is no radioactive contamination harming human health." On June 24, 1986, the Turkiye newspaper reported: "There is no radiation in Turkey." Mr. Aral was quoted as reminding that nobody is entitled to make statements on radiation except him. He said: "You should know as you believe in your religion, your faith, there is no such danger in Turkey". On July 3, 1986, the TRGK met for the second time. Mr. Ozemre told the committee that the Soviet Union permitted people to swim in the Dnjepr River, Ukraine. He stated that it is difficult for the Black Sea to be polluted. However, people from Inebolu in Turkey do not swim in the Black Sea and do not eat meat, milk, vegetables and fruit. Some European countries like Germany and Austria exagerated the issue and created panic to make some political profit. France, Switzerland and Turkey acted more calmly, he added. Dr. Nurbaki from the Committee explained how a radiation, carbon-14 and radon gas, is essential for life. He said that there are health benefits of thermal springs with high levels of radioactivity. Nine days after receiving the info on the Clarke Report that documents the presence of radiation in the Black Sea, the TAEK and the military officials are silent. Ozemre and TRGK continued deceiving the Turkish public and issued their second announcement on the impact of Chernobyl. A press release of Minister of Industry and Trade Cahit Aral said: "It is determined through measurements that are taken in Turkey twice a day that the radiation level is at background levels like before the Chernobyl accident... Our committee declares that radiation is at background levels at the Turkish costs, on land, water and air. As stated by the TAEK earlier, there is no problem regarding radiation effects on health, in our water, milk, vegetables, meats and cereals." On July 9, 1986, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sends a letter [(EIBD-III)-750.278-1573-652] (B) to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, (signed by M. Asula in the name of the Minister) stamped "SECRET". In this letter, the info about the presence of radiation in the Black Sea is repeated. Two notes written by hand are added at the end: 1) Increase the control of fish and sea food 2) Let's wait for the report? On the same day, the Official Gazette [9 July, 1986, #19159, p.77] reported that in Turkey the general radiation in the air is 6-14 microroentgen/h and this was the background level like before the Chernobyl accident. On July 17, 1986, Major General Fuat Senel sends a letter in the name of the Head of the General Staff [3584-185-86/EMN.S.1.] stamped "SECRET" to the Ministry of Industry and Trade and to the Atomic Energy General Directorate, with the enclosed letter from Prof. Dr. Izdar regarding the clarke report. A note in handwriting is added at the end: "Info will be held secret (let's wait for the report) 28 July 1996." On August 28, 1986, a letter dated Aug. 14, 1986 sent by the Ministry of Industry and Trade to YOK is forwarded to all the universities in Turkey. This letter was given to researchers by getting their signatures to confirm they had received them. In the letter, all publication on radiation outside the knowledge of TRGK are forbidden. On September 2, 1986, Prof. Dr. Izdar writes to TAEK another letter [#2141] (D) referring to the letters of: 1) his institute, June 25, 1986; 2) Naval Forces Commandership, Navigation, Hydrography and Oceanography Office, July 1, 1986; 3) TAEK, July 7, 1986; He asked if they could study the report and decide if it is appropriate to have it published in Turkey and abroad. On September 17, 1986, the Ministry of Industry and Trade issued a press release saying that all the 1986 crop of Turkish hazelnuts from the eastern Black Sea region will be bought and will not be taken out of the region. In the following days, the national media reported about this decision and about the opposition against it: Sept. 18 - Milliyet: All hazelnuts confiscated. Sept. 19 - Cumhuriyet: Hard reaction to ban on hazelnuts. Sept. 19 - Izmir Ticaret: Hazelnut producers protest Aral. Sept. 24 - Izmir Ticaret: Hazelnut unwanted by EEC sold to USSR. Sept. 24 - Milliyet: The producers applied to Evren (President). Sept. 29 - Yeni Asir: Aral: Hazelnuts will be destroyed required. Sept. 30 - Hurriyet: No radiation in hazelnuts. Following enormous pressure, the ban on hazelnuts is lifted. Fiskobirlik, a state-owned company, could not buy the hazelnuts from the producers. It delayed payments for two months, and production stopped in 41 factories in Ordu. Some 5,000 workers lost their jobs. TAEK, CNAEM and nuclear scientists from universities met and denounced the information about radioactivity in hazelnuts. Mr. Aybers, head of the Istanbul Technical University's Faculty of Nuclear Science, stated that he did not think that the Black Sea could be contaminated due to the Chernobyl accident. He also claimed that water from Chernobyl was collected in pits before reaching the Dnjepr River. Radioactive water could therefore not mix with the Black Sea. He also stated that no radioactivity above normal limits was found in the Black Sea/ On September 26, 1986, Mr. Izdar writes a letter [#0921/EYZ/070-2375] to the Rectorate of the Dokuz Eylul University, referring to letters of: 1) the rectorate, 2 September 1986, 2) the rectorate to TAEK, 25 June 1986, 3) TAEK, 7 July 1986, 4) himself to TAEK, 2 September 1986. Mr. Izdar said that the research was done within the knowledge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Council of Higher Education (YOK). The report of the research was ready and sent to TAEK for printing permit on September 2nd. He added that they will go on taking samples, and the Cekmece Nuclear Research Center (CNAEM) will also take samples as it was the case with the samples taken on 16-24 September 1986. Mr. Izdar accepted the censorship on all publications of measurements, results and impacts of radiation imposed on the scientists by the Ministry of Industry and Trade letter [1-01-398] dated August 14, 1986. According to this letter only the TAEK and TRGK are allowed to make public statements on the Chernobyl disaster and its impact on Turkey. On October 14, 1986, [TBMM B:13, 14.10.1986, O:1, p.577-599] deputies ask the government embarrassing questions during a parliamentary session: - Why is there an embargo on hazelnuts if they were clean? - If they are contaminated, why is the embargo lifted? - Exporters cooperating with German import firms offered to bring equipment to measure radioactivity. Why was this been refused? - Why did the related Ministers not visit the Black Sea region? Mr. Osman Bahadir from the former Free Democratic Party Group asked: "To what extent waters of the Black Sea were contaminated by radiation? Is there a radioactive contamination of fish or not?" [TBMM B:13, 14.10.1986, O:1, p.586]. Mr. Aral, before talking about contaminated tea, gave "scientific explanations" and praised radiation of a different kind: "Let's think of a plant. Radiation coming from the sun effects the leaves and the phenomena called photosynthesis occurs... If there is no radiation from the sun there would be no plants, no life..." [TBMM B:58, 22.1.1987, O:1, p.141-142] On January 26, 1993, the Turkish parliament turned down a demand to investigate the Chernobyl issue. There had been similar unsuccessful attempts in 1986 and 1987. 3. THE TRAGIC REALITY: 3.1. INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC RESULTS: On June 13-22, 1986, two scientists from Hamburg University and two scientists from Woods Hole Oceanography Institute in the USA, joined the research team from Dokuz Eylul University's Oceanography and Technology Institute in Izmir. They took part in research at the Black Sea near the city of Sinop. This report is refereed to as the "Clarke Report" in the later correspondences. On June 23-28, 1986, the scientists involved had a workshop (Particle Flux in the Ocean) in Izmir/Turkey. The results were published on October 1987 in Germany. On June 24, 1986, Hugh D. Livingston, from the Woods Hole Oceanography Institute sent the results to Prof. Dr. Erol Dizdar, Head of the Oceanography and Technology Institute in Izmir and to Dr. S. Honjo by telex: "Chernobyl cesium isotope levels in water at new Black Sea sediment trap site are about two orders of magnitude higher than bomb fall out levels. Isotopes directly measurable in water, filterable particles and plankton include cesium-137, cesium-134, ruthenium-103, ruthenium-106, cerium-141, cerium-144, barium-140, lanthanum-140, zirconium-95 and niobium-95. Radionuclide levels permit the initiation of a variety of different kinds of tracer studies including large particle tracer fluxes in Black Sea, Baltic, Norwegian and Barents Sea. Transuranic elements and strontium-90 should be readily measurable following radiochemistry. Could you please make sure that my remaining samples are air-freighted from Izmir to Woods Hole without delay. I would appreciate and hand-carrying of samples which would be practical without being burdensome." One day later, on June 25, 1986, Prof. Dr. Izdar informs the following authorities with a letter [#1604] regarding the telex message about radioactivity measurements in the Black Sea. The letter is marked with: "IT IS SECRET": a) Naval Forces Commandership, Navigation, Hydrography and Oceanography Office in Cubuklu-Istanbul b) Turkish Atomic Energy Agency (TAEK) c) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chairmanship of Aviation and Navigation Problems d) Naval Forces Commandership, Southern Naval Region Commandership in Izmir On October 1, 1986, the US Department of Energy publishes the "Chernobyl Fallout Study in the Black Sea and other Ocean Areas" by Hugh D. Livingston, W.R. Clarke and S. Honjo from the Woods Hole Institution, USA, p. 214-223; E. Izdar and T. Konuk from the Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology Dokuz Eylul University Rectorate, Turkey; E. Degens and V.Ittekot from the Geologogisches Palaontol Institute, Germany. Environmental Measurements Laboratory, a compendium of the Environmental Measurements Laboratory's Research Projects related to the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident. It said: "The release of massive quantities of radionuclides to the lower atmosphere from the Chernobyl nuclear power station accident on April 26, 1986, has environmental radiological implications that extend into the future. The Black Sea received large amounts of river input in the northwest, mostly from the Danube and Dnjepr Rivers. Both these rivers drain watersheds heavily impacted by Chernobyl fallout - the latter including the freshwater environment directly around the Chernobyl site itself." (p.214) "Aboard the Dokuz Eylul University's research vessel K. Piri Reis the scientists recovered sediment trap moorings and occupied a number of stations for sampling. These include 4 stations in the Black Sea, one in the Bosphorus where Black sea surface waters flows toward the Mediterranean, one in the Sea of Marmara and one in the Aegean Sea." (p. 215) "These trap samples will provide a record of the transport of large particle of Chernobyl radionuclides that were deposited into the Black Sea sediments." (p.216) "Cs isotope ... levels in the Black Sea are quite remarkable. Typical North Atlantic surface water concentrations containing only bomb fallout Cs-137 have recently been around 18 dpm/100L (3 Bq/m3). Black Sea values have probably been even lower because of low Cs river run-off. The values in the Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea are lower because of lower disposition there. "It is important to note that these high concentrations were in the surface water collected two months after disposition. Considerable mixing and dilution are likely to have occurred during this period." (p.217) __________________________________________________________ _______ Station Date Number 1986 Position Location __________________________________________________________ _______ 3 June 14 39 14.2'N; 25 20.0'E Aegean Sea 7 15 40 45.5'N; 28 09.2'E Sea of Marmara 9 17 41 16'N; 29 11'E Black Sea - mouth of Bosphorus 9A 17 41 09'E; 29.05'E Bosphorus 10 18 41 47.6'N; 30 24.9'E Southern Black Sea sediment trap site 13 19 42 15.7'N; 32 33.5'E Southern Black Sea former trap site 15 18 41 14.3'N; 30 23.4'E Southern coastal Black Sea __________________________________________________________ _______ TABLE 1, K. PIRI REIS Cruise, June 1986: Station Locations, p.220. _________________________________________________________________ _ _______ Location Station No. d.p.m./100 Liters Bq/m3 _________________________________________________________________ _ _______ Black Sea 10 852 +/- 69 142 +/-12 Black Sea 15 359 +/- 21 60 +/- 4 Black Sea 13 212 +/- 30 35 +/- 5 Bosphorus mouth 9 438 +/- 16 73 +/- 3 Bosphorus 9A 394 +/- 19 66 +/- 3 Sea of Marmara 7 196 +/- 34 33 +/- 6 Aegean Sea 3 85 +/- 9 14 +/- 1.5 __________________________________________________________ _______ TABLE 2 Cs-137 Concentrations in Surface Water Collected by R/V K. PIRI REIS; p.221. _________________________________________________________________ _____________ Cs-134 Concentration Location Station No. d.p.m./100 Liters Bq/m3 Cs-134/Cs-137 __________________________________________________________ _____________ Black Sea 10 400 +/- 17 67+/-3 0.47+/- 0.02 Black Sea 15 180 +/- 18 30+/-3 0.50+/- 0.05 Black Sea 13 89 +/- 5 15+/-1 0.42 +/-0.06 Bosphorus mouth 9 210 +/- 18 35+/-3 0.48+/- 0.04 Bosphorus 9A 181 +/- 16 0+/-3 0.46+/- 0.04 Sea of Marmara 7 80 +/- 10 13+/-2 0.41+/- 0.05 Aegean Sea 3 32 +/- 6 5.3+/-1.0 0.38+/- 0.07 __________________________________________________________ ______________ TABLE 3, Cs-134 Concentrations and Cs-134/Cs-137 Ratios in Surface Water: R/V K. PIRI REIS, p.222. Ken O. Buesseler wrote "Chernobyl: Oceanographic studies in the Black Sea", in OCEANUS, Vol. 30, No. 3, Fall 1987. The research team studying the Black Sea included the author and colleagues from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) along with West German and Turkish scientists. On page 23-28 he wrote: "For marine scientists, the Chernobyl accident resulted in the deposition to the oceans of a unique mixture of fallout radionuclides. The Black Sea is the closest body of salt water to the reactor site. It received considerable direct atmospheric fallout from Chernobyl. Additional Chernobyl radionuclides were and are being carried to the Black Sea by the Danube and Dnjepr rivers - their drainage basins include many of the high fallout areas of Eastern Europe and the accident site itself. Based on their chemistry, the Chernobyl fallout radionuclides can be broadly grouped into two categories. The highly soluble elements such as the cesium isotopes and the more particle reactive elements such as cerium, ruthenium, plutonium, americium and curium. Because Chernobyl fallout contains in abundance the shorter lived cesium-134 isotope in addition to the cesium-137 (about half as much cesium-134), it is possible to easily separate the pre and post- Chernobyl cesium signals. We found in the black Sea that surface cesium-137 had jumped from 15 to 340 bequerels per cubicmeter in the surface waters near the mouth of the Bosphorus. WHOI's sediment trap (an essentially large, cone-shaped funnel that collect settling particles as they fall through the water column. With an electronic switching device, it is possible to obtain a time series of sediment trap samples from a single trap deployment, by rotating new sample collection cu? into position at the base of the funnel) was moored at 1071 meter in the southwestern region of the Vlack Sea from June to September 1986. This has provided a set of preliminary data on Chernobyl radionuclides." On the issue of particle flux, a "Comparison of Chernobyl Nuclide Deposition in the Black Sea and in the North Sea" was written by S. Kempe, H. Nies, V. Ittekkot, E.T. Degens, from Hamburg; K.O. Buesseler, H.D. Livingston, S. Honjo, B.J. Hay, S.J. Manganini from Woods Hole; E. Izdar & T. Konuk from Izmir. It was published in SCOPE/UNEP Sonderband, Heft 62, p. 165-178, October 1987: "Using gamma spectrometry, Cs-137, Cs-134, Ru-103, Ru-106, Ce-144, Ce-141, Nb-95 and Zr-95 were detected in settling sediments with highest activities due to Ru-103. "Conclusions: These observations suggest that fallout at the two trap stations did not stem from the same air mass. Germany, Great Britain, and the North Sea have been contaminated mainly by fallout liberated on April 27 (source: Gesellschaft fuer Reaktorsicherheit, 1987), i.e. shortly after the initial explosion and heat excursion of the core when more volatile elements were still available for emission. After May 1, contaminated air traveled south, now carrying higher proportions of fragmentary nuclides, such as Cerium and Ruthenium isotopes. These air masses contaminated the Black Sea. Direct measurements of Cs-137 activity in seawater gave values between 0.07 and 0.3 Bq/kg in May/June in the North Sea (Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, 1987) and an average of 0.17 Bq/kg during the June R/V PIRI REIS cruise in the Black Sea surface waters down to the depth of 35 m (Buessler et al., 1987). Ru-106 and Ce-144 activities in the Black Sea were 0.008 and 0.01 Bq/kg and similarly low values have been found in the North Sea. These low values are misleading if assessing the importance of Chernobyl event for the marine chain. Total specific activity measured in cups NS3 sum up to 670 000 Bq per kg particulate matter (activity standardized to May 1), i.e. up to a million times higher than ambient seawater and 1,000 time higher than European Community standard for human food of 600Bq/kg. Thus marine organisms both in the water column and on the sea floor were faced with unusually high activities during the plankton bloom in may and June 1986." In "Scavenging and Particle Disposition in the southern Black Sea - Evidence from Chernobyl Radiotracers" by K.O. Buesseler, H.D. Livingston, S. Honjo, B.J. Hay, T. Konuk and S. Kempe, Deep Sea Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 413-430, 1990, one can read: "By the end of this annual cycle, much of the Chernobyl Ru-106 and Ce-144 have been scavenged from surface waters and removed to depth on sinking particles; however, there is significant release of these tracers into the mid-waters during this process." Eight years after the Chernobyl disaster, the report "Chernobyl Radioactivity on the Black Sea Coast of Turkey" was written by Inci G. Gokmen, M. Akgoz, A. Gokmen from the METU-Middle East Technical Univercity Department of Chemistry. It was supported by TUBITAK (Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Institute and METU Research Fund. Regarding samples collected on August 1994, it said on p. 3 that when Cs-137 activities of surface soil were compared at 7 locations it was observed that for all stations 1990 data was the highest. At stations 1, 8 and 9, the 1994 cesium activity was even greater than that of 1986 value measured by TAEK. These variations might be due to differences in the surface soil collection sites. The average Cs-137 activity for 21 surface soils in the eastern Black sea region (576+/-534 Bq/kg) was much higher than the average obtained from 14 surface soil samples collected from less contaminated regions in Turkey (33+/-33 Bq/kg). Moss samples seem to have higher Cs-137 activity than litter and surface soil taken from the same locations, with corresponding average Cs-137 activities of 3091+/-4824, 316+/-301, 576+/-534 Bq/kg for 22-moss, 12-litter and 21-surface soil samples, respectively. In future studies, activity transfer coefficients for the plants and migration kinetics in the soil will be carried out and similar studies will be extended to the Thrace region. After the accident, TAEK figures were so low that researchers 10 years later, find much higher levels of activity in Turkey. Ironically, late Dr. Olcay Birgul, Dr. Inci Gokmen, Dr. Ali Gokmen, and Dr. Aykut Kence from METU received the 1988 Public Health Award from the Chamber of Medicine of Ankara for "the scientific work they accomplished uncompromisingly despite all the pressure and the hindrance, on radiation that threatens our lives considerably." 3.2. CONTAMINATED TEA: The TAEK knew there was contamination in the Black Sea region right from the beginning after the Chernobyl disaster. However, it sent no official warning to the people who grow tea or to the factories processing the tea. The Caykur state-owned company got the first information on contamination in December 1986. Between May 1986 when tea is harvested and December people were left without a warning - during a period of eight months. Tea workers, mostly women, work in the harvest in wet tea plants up to their waists, local people use rain water for all their daily needs. The most contaminated tea processed and packed during these 8 months was sold on the market (best quality tea sold most likely in Germany and consumed by Turkish workers living there) without any protective{ measures taken. Even after December, when the tea at Caykur was controlled, small private factories continued to sell contaminated tea, sometimes with fake Caykur packages with false production dates of before the accident, cheaper than normal. So both the expensive and the cheap tea was radioactive. As a comparison, in Scandinavia and some other European countries advice was given by 2nd or 3rd May that fresh rainwater should not be used. Levels of activity in rainwater were such that if it were consumed the ICRP accident dose levels could be reached within a day [Radiological Aspects of Chernobyl in Western Europe, R.H. Clarke, the NEA Newsletter, fall 1986, p.9-10.]. On December 16, 1986, the Caykur General Directorate carried out measurements in the Tea packaging facility. Note: Blends are prepared: 15 sacks of 1985 crop plus 10 sacks of 1986 crop. Blended tea averaged 30-35 microroentgen/h. Turkish tea was not controlled for the first 8 months after the accident. Then in December 1986, TAEK officially admitted that it contained up to 89 000 Bq/kg radiation. Dr. Yuksel Atakan, (MS in Physical Engineering) a Turkish scientist living in Germany, published on April 1990 a study called: "The impact of the Chernobyl radiation on the Environment and Human beings". He wrote on page 101: "Samples taken on/measured at the Speyer Chemical Research Institute:. December 17, 1986 Cay Cicegi 29 530Bq/kg " Altinbas 10 500 " " Rize Cayi 8 350 " " Cay Cicegi 28 970 " Results of measurements (in Germany) of tea bought in Turkey, various samples of June 1987: 6000 - 30 000 Bq/kg (total Cs). On December 20, 1986, the Hurriyet newspaper quoted the Prime Ministry's office as saying: "Final Report: You can drink the tea now! Radiation looses its impact when tea is steeped. Even 20 glasses of tea a day are harmless." On December 30, 1986, TAEK decided to destroy the 58,000 tons of contaminated tea (12 500-89 000 Bq/kg) by burial. This decision would only come into force after appearing in the Official Gazette on January 19, 1988 (one year after the decision, and 20 months after the contaminated tea had been harvested). The amount of tea was 44 773 tons. In August a second decision mentioned 58 000 tons. Much tea was stolen over the years, forcing authorities to have the tea colored. Some of the contaminated tea could be buried only seven years later, and there are reasons to be concerned about radioisotopes leaking into the ground. The option of burning the tea which would spread the radiation into the air, was dropped. The radioactive tea Turkish people drank amounted to about 130 000 tons! Then President Evren, late Premier Ozal, then Minister Cahit Aral and then Head of TAEK Ahmet Ozemre repeatedly said publicly that it is safe to drink tea. Posing for newspapers and TV, they drank tea. These leaders are responsible for the impact radioactive tea had and still has on consumers. Aral said: "A little radiation does you good." Ozal claimed: "Radioactive tea is more delicious, more tasty." On January 5, 1987, a letter [004] stamped "PERSONAL - SECRET" from Mr. Aral to the Caykur-Rize General Directorate asked for measures required by the TAEK: - Tea with 40 microroentgen/H radiation is to be packed - Tea with 40-80 microroentgen/H is to be stored in a separate depot and then blended with uncontaminated tea by TAEK experts - Tea with >80 microroentgen/h radiation is to be locked in a depot. Mr. Aral said that this way the tea of 1987 with high activity would be stored, and its future use would be decided according to the sales of the 1987 production. On January 16, 1987, the report "Radioactivity Measurements in Tea" by Dr. Olcay Birgul, Dr. Inci Gokmen, METU Chemistry Dept., Dr. Aykut Kence, METU Biology Dept., presented to the Dean of the Faculty of Science-Literature. They measured tea brought by concerned citizens (even tea of former President General Kenan Evren) to the university. The report said: "Some Cay Cicegi packages dated 1985 showed high radioactivity. The percentage of Cs that passes to the water from the tea is about 65% which is much higher than the 3% known to public. A person drinking 5 glasses of tea per day will be receiving a yearly dose of 61-105 millirem. Receiving a dose of 105 mrem/a year is above recommendation made by ICRP 1990.There is no threshold of radiation and every measure should be taken to minimize the radiation exposed to. 1) Pregnant woman and children should be warned to reduce their tea consumption. 2) Washing the tea with boiling water reduces the activity by half, consumers should be warned by media. 3) More radioactive tea should not be sent to the market, blending of contaminated tea with clean tea should be stopped and the radioactive ones should be destroyed. 4) Radioactive tea sent to the market should be collected. 5) Chernobyl radiation was taken from various sources. This means a possible drawback in terms of public health. Because of this, radiation taken from applications especially like medical roentgen films should be minimized. The writers of this report express their belief that the prohibition of radiation measurements and announcements applied to the universities by the Prime Ministry Radiation Safety Committee through YOK should be abolished." A table showed tea samples and their activities: - Cay Cicegi: 29 active samples out of 31, average 9,600, maximum 36,800 Bq/kg; - Rize (green package): 8 active samples out of 8, average 18,000, maximum 33,400 Bq/kg; - Lipton: 9 active samples out of 9, ave. 14,700, max. 28,800 Bq/kg; - Other 24 active samples out of 41, ave. 11,800, max. 38,700 Bq/kg. On January 19, 1987, a letter was sent to CNAEM by Caykur Tea Enterprises General Directorate - Radiation Control Report (Rize 100. Yil Tea Packaging Factory, fresh tea factories and the tea gardens in the vicinity) January 4-17, 1987. It said: "Since excessive piling takes place in the fresh tea factories, there has been mixing of the shoots. Moreover, it is measured that the tea samples sent by the factories to be measured by CNAEM before, are also mixed. Because of this, it is measured that the first shoots of some factories happens to be OK, while all three shoots from some factories are highly active. Whereas, through the measurements we had with our Reuter-Stokes device, we have seen that in general, third shoots of all factories have low activity; from the other factories except a few, first shoots have high and second shoots have medium activity." On January 22, 1987, Mr. Fikret Ertan from the Democratic Left Party Group criticized during a parliamentary session Mr. Ahmet Y. Ozemre, the then Head of TAEK. Mr. Ertan said: "He binds himself by saying there is no danger for Turkey even before the radiation cloud reaches Turkey... His only task is to prevent people from panicking." [TBMM B:58, 22.1.1987, O:1, p.152-153] On January 27, 1987, the Hurriyet newspaper reported: "New Alatma on tea issue! We are disclosing the METU report that the Prime Ministry prohibited." During the same day, TAEK head Mr. Ozemre wrote to Prof. Dr. Mehmet Gonlubol, Rector of METU refering the study on radioactivity in the tea. This letter is copied to: Prime Minister, Head of YOK, Minister of Industry and Trade and the Head of Radiation Safety Committee, Minister of Health and Social Aid, Minister of State (M. Tinaz Titiz), Minister of Foreign Affairs: "After the Chernobyl accident, the dose taken in Turkey in 9 months per person is 22 millirem. And this is the dose of an X-ray taken. The zealousness, under the disguise of being scientific, to manipulate science to a low and despicable cause like irritating the public, could be a means to create panic among pregnant woman and to kill a lot of babies before they are born. This behavior, let alone honoring the so-called scientists who wrote the report, has constituted a mischance for METU... We acknowledge with deep sadness that people with malice took shelter in the METU, and are destroying the moral esteem of an establishment like METU, which serves our country." On January 29, 1987, Mr. Aral announced: "There is no radiation contamination that would threaten human health in the seawater and seafood of the Black Sea." He reacted to the Hurriyet article and said: "The news is definitely wrong. The findings of the mentioned report, belongs to a research done not 24 hours later, but 7.5 months before my statement." A day before the Hurriyet report, Mr. Aral said that there was "no danger of contamination, especially not in tea". On February 13-14, 1987, the scientists who prepared the report were asked to meet at CNAEM with observers from the Ministry of Health and Social Aid. They left the meeting refusing to sign official documents. Their demand to provide the public with correct figures and necessary warnings was turned down. On February 24, 1987, Prof. Dr. Adil Gedikoglu, Head of the Nuclear Physics Department at the Karadeniz (Black Sea) University sends his study of the impact of Chernobyl Accident on the tea produced in Turkey to Mr. Aral. In the introduction of the study, it is stated that most of the agricultural products in Turkey were more or less contaminated after the Chernobyl accident. Since there is not a threshold dose for radioactivity, radiation from tea in Turkey is quite a lot for the people who drink an average of 5 glasses of tea per day. Tea from 1987 has no radioactivity. So it can be advised to collect and destroy the contaminated tea from 1986. On February 27, 1987, Ozemre writes to Mr. Aral that this study is wrong because the formula used is for external irradiation not of internal irradiation. On March 5, 1987, Mr. Aral writes to Prof. Gedikoglu: "TAEK will investigate the report." On March 31, 1987, Prof. Gedikoglu again writes to Mr. Aral: "My dose calculation is faulty. To be more exact, it reflects a different approach than the TAEK and METU reports. I corrected it and it is enclosed. I demand your permission for the scientific publication." It should be noted that although he still states that there is no threshold dose of radiation, "the dose found is not at a level to create panic". If the radioactive tea is going to be drunk, he said, it should be held in boiling water for one minute and drained before the steeping. This time he does not mention the need to destroy the contaminated tea. On April 2, 1987, TAEK writes to Mr. Aral about the report. Beside the long calculations, it is claimed that Turkish tea never had 15 000 Bq/kg radioactivity. It is said that after TAEK started controlling the Caykur Facilities in Rize radioactivity was under 6000 Bq/Kg. On April 13, 1987, Mr. Aral writes to Prof. Gedikoglu: He had the report studied by TAEK. The last declaration by TRGK is also enclosed in the letter. Prof. Gedikoglu is supposed to review his research and then send Mr. Aral a new version. On a leaflet "Genetic Effects of Radiation and the Chernobyl Accident" prepared by Dr. Aykut Kence, METU Department of Biology), it is claimed that: "Even by advising to wash the tea before steeping it, people would be protected from a dose of 5000 person-SV. In Finland, which is much more effected than Turkey, the collective dose to be taken from food is estimated to be a maximum of 2400 person-SV. In Norway, the yearly collective dose from all sources like air, earth and food is 1100-1600 person-SV. A dose of 33 millirem in one year, is equal to 1 million person-rem for a 30 million population is equal to 1 million person-Sv or 10,000 person-Sv. In other words, to apply a low dose like 33 millirem/person to a large population, in respect to the genetic effects, is like exposing each one of one million people to a dose of 1 rem or each one of 10 000 people to a dose of 100 rems (1 Sievert). For example, for tea, very low doses per person, can reach 10 000 person-Sv as a result." TAEK method of blending the contaminated tea with clean tea obviously served only commercial purposes. The collective risk remained the same even if the individual risk decreased. From the genetical point of view, it does not make a difference if the population gets the dose in one year or two years. To expose each one of the 50 million people to a dose of 50 millirem can not be underestimated. The health of people and of unborn babies have been intentionally put in danger by the authorities. Moreover, saying that in Turkey people got 50 or 60 millirem, does not mean anything, when one considers the contamination in Thrace or in the eastern Black Sea regions. In Europe, "hot spots" were found 400-2000 km from Chernobyl because the radiation did not have a homogeneous dispersion. Prof. Dr. Tolga Yarman (nuclear engineer) calculated that people living in Rize and Trabzon (eastern Black Sea) got a dose of 1,00 millirem/year from various sources (Chernobyl Event and Turkey 7 Years Later - Forum - Jan. 16, 1993, Ankara, p.37, 38) On April 22, 1987, a Letter [#1-01/225] from Mr. Aral to Caykur General Directorate said: 3) Depots that are free after the 1986 crop had been consumed should be washed with lots of water. Contamination on the floor and walls should be removed before the new crops are stored there. On June 4, 1987, a letter [RGD: 10 500- ] stamped "SECRET" from Mr. Aral to Cay Kurumu General Directorate - Rize said: "...20,100 tons of 1986 crop should not be sent to the market but should be stored under the control of TAEK along with the 44,773 tons of tea still waiting in the depots." On June 22, 1987, CNAEM tea measurements stamped "SECRET", showed that only 11 out of 49 samples are at background levels. Rize, Lipton, Karcay packages sold on the market in Istanbul showed total activities of around 12,000-13,000 Bq/kg. On August 11, 1987, Mr. Aral responded to a statement by a university professor, saying that radiation limit on liquid and solid foods were much lower than European countries. "The limit used for tea is the 370 Bq/kg used for milk in Europe. All of the dried tea that could give activity above this limit in liquid form is safe." On December 31, 1992, Turkish TV1 quoted Tea Establishments General Directorate Tuncer Erguven in Rize as saying that there are no radioactive contamination in tea sold on the market or stored. After the second half of 1986, 58 thousand tons of tea from Caykur that showed radiation above limits were stored under the control of TAEK. Some of it was buried in the vicinity of the factories. In depots in Ankara, Istanbul and Isikli there are still 24,000 tons of radioactive tea. By the end of 1992, Mr. Aral blundered into a confession during an informal press briefing: "The government has indeed hidden the facts and figures on the impact of Chernobyl in Turkey." He justified this policy with the following argument: "We did take our revenge on the Soviet Union for the nightmare of Chernobyl by exporting contaminated hazelnuts to Russia." He confirmed that the same hazelnuts - a luxury item in the average Turkish diet - has been distributed for free to Turkish soldiers. (Source: A little radiation does you good, Umit Ozturk, Index on Censorship 1/1996, p.101-104.) These nuts were also distributed in primary schools in Turkey. 3.3. IMPACT ON HAZELNUT PRODUCTION: On March 9, 1987, the TRGK press release 87/1 said: The World Health Organization (WHO) limit was 2,000 Bq/kg. However, European Community dropped this limit to 600. TAEK controlled the hazelnuts for export and 140 tons out of 101,000 tons of hazelnuts were returned. From this export $327 585 862 of foreign currency was attained; 60% more than last year. A contract was with the Soviet Union was worth $23 689 575 of hazelnuts (without shell). 3.4. HEALTH IMPACT: On May 22, 1987, the head of the TAEK's Health Physics Department wrote a letter [SAP:151-642-87] to CNAEM regarding: News in papers about the increased births of dead and handicapped children and spinal chord damage is observed in many of the babies born dead. However, >15 rad can cause increase in malformations due to the effects on the embryo and fetus; >10 rad requires an abortion; <5 rad is at a negligible. Average dose persons received in Turkey is about 30 milirad. Marriage of relatives are more important." Seven years after the Chernobyl accident, authorities tried to downplay the heath effect of the Chernobyl disaster. YOK asked in a letter, several faculties of medicine in Turkey to report on the health effects of Chernobyl [B.021.TAE.0.11.00.01-10800-1]. The date was Friday 5 January, 1993. In a record time of three, Hacettepe University Rector, Prof. Dr. A. Yuksel Bozer, answered in a letter [B.30.2.HAC.0.00.01/354]: "The report prepared and signed by seven professors from our university is enclosed. I present you my gratitude for the confidence you have shown to our university and our faculty." This letter was send on Monday 8 January 1993. These professors allegedly managed to compile an 18-page report with statistics from the archives of the university's hospital on the health effects of the Chernobyl disaster only in 2 days during a weekend. Their report said: "In the Ukraine during the 5 years after the accident, there were no meaningful increase in cancer cases. Studies in Russia, Germany and England also show that there is no increase in childhood cancer. There are no meaning full increase in childhood cancer cases from the Black Sea region in Turkey or any genetic-related diseases related to Chernobyl... In the next 50 years, dangers, more important than radiation like malnutrition and infection, await our children. Besides, the damage emanating from cigarette smoking parents to their children and their environment is incomparably higher than the risk resulting from Chernobyl." However, a graph in the report showed a sharp increase in thyroid cancers in Belarus (~60) and the Ukraine (~30) in 1991. (Chernobyl's Thyroid Cancer Toll, Science, Vol. 270, 15 Dec. 1995, p. 1758-59) On Jan. 19, 1993, Prof. Dr. A. Dumanoglu, Rector of the Karadeniz (Black Sea) Technical University released the "Working Report of Cancer Cases Related to Radiation in the Eastern Black Sea Region". According to this report, radiation was not at a level to effect the human health. Radioactive tea was confiscated, people were told to wash vegetables and fruits with lots of water. As a result of the Chernobyl accident, cancer cases in the Black sea region did not increase in the past 8 years, he claimed. The KTU Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Internal Diseases and Dept. of Pediatry, made three different studies (before/after 1986): Dept. of Int. Diseases: LEUKEMIA INCREASED FROM % 0.7 (before '86) TO % 2 (after '86) MULTIPLE MYELOME FROM % 0.2 (before '86) TO % 0.9 (after '86) Dept. of Pediatry: LEUKEMIA INCREASED FROM % 0.4 (before '86) TO % 0.1 (after '86) "In another study at this region, an increase in the neural tube defect and anencephaly have been found," it added. The writers of this report are H. Mocan, H. Bozkaya, M.Z. Mocan et al. There is only one table (Incidence of Neural Tube Defects and Anencephay in Trabzon, eastern Black Sea region, Turkey) and no results. When you add up the figures you find: NTD (PER THOUSAND BIRTHS) ANENCEPHALY 1981-1986 2.12 1.29 1987-1989 4.39 2.50 "We believe that the results of these three studies cannot solely be explained by radiation and other various causes should be investigated." Regional differences: A group of a 100,000 people were exposed to radiation over the average of the country. 0-1 yr. infants ------ 0.350 mSv (ave. 0.147 mSv) Adults --------------- 0.594 mSv (ave. 0.500 mSv) "According to this, to make an estimation towards the coming years would not have a scientific certainty." The scientists concluded: "The increase of cancer or birth anomalies in regions exposed to radioactivity from Chernobyl in Turkey and in the eastern Black Sea region cannot be related to radioactivity only. Insufficient hygienic conditions, insufficient nutrition, traffic chaos, environmental pollution problems, marriage among close relatives and the geological structure of the region causes the area to face more important dangers than radiation. One should also be careful not to create situations that could push the people in the eastern Black sea region to panic before sufficient scientific study conclusions are obtained on this issue." They suggested: "In KTU, a laboratory with all kinds of equipment would be appropriate, so that activity in various plants, vegetables and fruits can be measured." On January 21, 1993 Trakya (Thrace) University, Faculty of Medicine, presented their study results to the public. They claimed that they measured radioactive Iodine on those who live in the region of Edirne "on the day of the accident and on the following days". One should note that world public opinion was informed about the Chernobyl disaster two days after the reactor had exploded. The faculty said there was no important increase of radioactivity. On earth, milk and similar products there was an increase in radiation. Their findings were in accordance with those in the IAEA bulletin: No increase in hematological cancer cases in children or adults, no increase in thyroid cancers. (1 in '85, 1 in '86, 4 in '88, 1 in '89, 3 in '90, 4 in '91, 5 in '92). At a WHO conference in Geneva on November 1995, experts on thyroid cancer for the first time reached a consensus that radiation from Chernobyl was to blame for many cases. In the most contaminated area, Gomel (200 km north of Chernobyl, the number of children who contracted the disease, increased from less than 1 per million before 1986 to more than 200 per million in 1994. Since the accident doctors have diagnosed 680 thyroid cancers in children, 10 of whom have died. (source: WILL IT GET ANY WORSE? New Scientist, 9 December 1995, p.14). The 680 cases now confirmed in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia since the accident in 1986 are just the start. As many as 40 % of the children exposed to the highest levels of fallout from Chernobyl when they were under a year old could go on to develop thyroid cancer as adults. (source: Dillwyn Williams, professor of histopathology-University of Cambridge, President of the European Thyroid Association in "TERRIFYING OUTLOOK FOR CHERNOBYL'S BABIES", New Scientist, 2 December 1995, p.4) "In the long run there will be increases in skin cancer, breast cancer and lung cancer caused by hot particles from Chernobyl," said Keith Baverstock, radiation scientist at the WHO. Increases in breast and lung cancer occur only 20 years after the A-bomb explosions. Increases in multiple myeloma, gastric and colon cancers took 30 years to appear. The Chernobyl disaster is responsible for an unknown increase in the rate of catarats, cardiovascular disease and hyperactive thyroid glands, Alexei Okanov, Public Health Research Center in Belarus said. Radiation may have damaged the developing brains of fetuses in the womb. Preliminary findings of a WHO study suggested that children from the contaminated areas are suffering more mental retardation, more behavioral disorders and more emotional problems. "The problem of prenatal irradiated children is unfortunately going to be a priority," said WHO researcher Angelina Nyagu, Ukranian Academy of Medical Scientists. These findings reinforce those from the Japanese city of Hiroshima, where the 1,100 children exposed to radiation in the womb also suffered a higher than average rate of mental retardation. The US army destroyed Hiroshima with an atomic bomb during World War II in 1945. The nuclear friendly IAEA claimed that radiation exposure will result in a marginal and probably "undetectable" increase in cancer. Many scientists at the Geneva conference regarded the IAEA's intervention as tactless at best. According to Baverstock, the IAEA's view that cases of thyroid cancer will amount to "a few tens in a million per annum" is simply wrong. In 1995, the number of children in Gomel who contracted the disease reached 240 per million. Wendy Paile, researcher at the Finnish Center for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, criticised the IAEA's recommendation that distribution of stable iodine should begin only after the average radiation dose to the population exceeds 100 milligrays. She said the trigger level should be reduced to 10 milligrays. The IAEA's recommended trigger level implies that it is considered acceptable to permit the number of children developing the disease to rise 100-fold to 100 per million before any countermeasures are taken, she said. (source: "WILL IT GET ANY WORSE?" New Scientist, 9 December 1995, p.14-15) Asked by Greenpeace about the health impact of the Chernobyl disaster on Turkey, Prof. Dr. Munir Kinay, Dokuz Eylul University-Izmir, Head of the Radiation Oncology Department and member of the European Radiation Committee said on March 7, 1996: "Usage of radiation in diagnosis (X-rays, etc.) and treatment is hardly controlled in Turkey where everyday new roentgen clinics open in normal flats, operating without the appropriate protection measures. Technicians even take x-rays at a patients home. Moreover, dangerous hospital wastes including radioactive materials are dumped along with the household waste. With the great migration from the rural areas to the big cities and the lack of earlier medical records, it is impossible to keep track of Turkish health statistics." "Therefore, it is very difficult to imagine how the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency TAEK hopes to deal with all sorts of hazardous radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant, where it is clearly unable to deal with the present applications of radiation in Turkey." On April 9, 1996, Dr. Metin Aran, chemotherapist at the Turkish Cancer Foundation and General Director of the "Bulten" quarterly which is first published in January 1996 told Greenpeace: "There are no reliable cancer statistics in Turkey. Cancer was included in the category of illnesses which are to be declared officially, only in 1985! There are no figures we can use from the period before 1985. The Office of Fight Against Cancer under the Ministry of Health has a booklet called Cancer Registry Report of Turkey 1991-1992 (publication no. 552, 1994, Ankara). There are neither the financial resources nor the expertise to be able to conduct serious research when statistics are concerned. You cannot believe those who say there is no increase in cancer illnesses in Turkey after the Chernobyl accident. You should neither believe those who say there is an increase in cancer." The other problem Dr. Aran emphasized in an ironic way was: "In Turkey, you often don't hear about a study made by your colleague in the next room! This could be due to a kind of competitive attitude or lack of communication or disinterest in the scientific circles." The sad thing stated by the Head of the Office of Fight Against Cancer, Dr. Cemil Kusoglu, in this 1994 book is that since 1983 the number of cancer cases declared to them never went over 20 thousands. The reason for this is the passive method used in Turkey. He explains that some reports estimate the incidence of cancer cases per year is as 150 per 100,000, i.e. each year there will be 90 000-100 000 new cases. The Ministry started using computers in 1993, and data from 1992 is evaluated in computers for the first time. This way the method of "keeping tally" is abandoned. 3.5 DECEIVING TOURISTS: On February 24, 1987, Dr. Mustafa Asula, Turkish Ambassador and vice-under secretary in Hamburg, sends a letter [EIBD-III-750.278-461-151] to the Turkish Ministry of Industry and Trade, regarding Radiation in the 1987 Tourism Season. The "Verbraucher Zentrale" (Consumers' Center) had asked the Turkish consulate in Hamburg to provide information about the coming tourism season. The Information sent from TAEK to The "Verbraucher Zentrale" was: 1) Turkey is the country with the lowest levels regarding the total amount of Cesium activity in consumed food, among the and OECD countries 2) "Ground deposition" peak value in Turkey is 3 Bq/m2, it is accepted as background. Studies conducted in cooperation with the Aegean University's Marine Sciences and Technology Institute showed that there are no increase of radioactivity over the background level and no contamination in our seas due to the Chernobyl accident. 4. GREENPEACE DEMANDS Today, the very same people who tried to suppress information of the consequences of the Chernobyl accident from the Turkish people are promoting nuclear power in Turkey. They claim it is safe, not expensive and clean. They used all means to hush up the facts about Chernobyl's impact on Turkey and on the world. When an increase in cancers or birth defects are brought up, they point to the fact that there are no proper statistics in Turkey. Ten years later, the terrible consequences of Chernobyl are just beginning to emerge. Greenpeace draws attention to the that pro-nuclear scientists who try again and again to d ownplay the worst industrial accident in history. Prof. Dr. Nejat Aybers, Former Head of the Turkish Atomic Energy Agency, said: "Nuclear energy is a real friend of the environment... Let the venerable environmentalists please listen: A nuclear power accident does not kill people. It does not even cause radiation sickness. How did these 31 people die in Chernobyl? They went up the roof of the reactor. They are rescuers, firemen. They have burned." (source: Panel on "Nuclear Energy and the Environment", International Nuclear Energy Forum, 12-15 October 1993 in Ankara, TMMOB Chamber of Mechanical Engineers Publication no: 168, p.219 and 221) It is obvious that political expediency and the interests of nuclear cartels override radiological protection. Unfortunately, Turkish authorities plan to build nuclear power plants many countries are moving in the direction of energy efficiency and alternative power. Sweden plans to close down all its nuclear reactors that supply 46% of its electricity between 1998 and 2010. Turkey is very close to the two of the world's most dangerous nuclear power plants: Kozloduy in Bulgaria and Medsamor in Armenia. As radiation knows no boundaries, any accident that occurs in one of these will certainly affect settlements in Turkey. It would be distressing for the reader of this report to imagine the consequences of such a disaster in Turkey should it happen in a nuclear power plant inside or outside this country. Greenpeace demands: - Turkish authorities should allow intensive and independent scientific research on the impact of Chernobyl in Turkey - All information on this issue should be made public - The plans to construct a nuclear power plant in Akkuyu near Mersin should be scrapped - Turkey should formulate and implement energy efficiency programs and alternative energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric, instead of investing in coal and nuclear thermal plants. 26. April 1996 MELDA KESKIN ENERGY CAMPAIGNER GREENPEACE MEDITERRANEAN OFFICE