The following is a statement by Dr. Rosalie Bertell, upon her acceptance, along with Dr. Alice Stewart of The Right Livelihood Award in 1986. Dr. Bertell mistakenly states "less than five per cent of the poisons contained at the Chernobyl reactor escaped into the environment", because in 1986, there was nothing yet substantiative to offset the growing myths about the degree of devastation that had occcured in Yet Another Nuclear Accident. Documentation published by Vladimir Chernousenko, Scientific Director of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences' Task Force for the Rectification of the Consequences of the Accident, in his 1991 book, Chernobyl, Insight from the Inside, cites the fact that,

. . . Radiation emission was no less that 80% of the core (with a total of 192 tons), which amounted to 6.4 x 10^9 Ci.[16] If we divide the figure by the population of the whole earth (4.6 x 10^9 people) then we get 1 Ci per person.[17]

... there are 9,000 excess deaths a year in the US attributable to the routine operation of commercial nuclear reactors. I was able to document 100 excess deaths of low birth weight infants born downwind of normally operating `state of the art' nuclear reactors in their first five years of operation in Wisconsin. These are only small glimpses at the tragic story, since many who are casualties do not die.... We need a new word to describe this random damaging of life. I would suggest using `nucleogenic' or `technogenic' illness to describe these induced abnormalities.

With these global problems in mind, I would like to make some suggestions for action by the people of the United Nations in behalf of future living on this lovely habitable planet:

1. Co-operation and participation in international meetings and conferences dealing with the plight of radiation victims . . .
2. Begin to dismantle the pseudo-scientific establishment which has rationalized nuclear addiction with self-appointed and self-perpetuated global advisory bodies. The International Commission on Radiological Protection needs to be dismantled first and replaced by an International Institute for the Safeguarding of Communities and Workers from Preventable Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. . . .
3. The International Atomic Energy Agency needs to be relieved of its mandate to promote nuclear energy. It might be retained temporarily to assist in the dismantling of this industry globally. However the monitoring of health and safety relative to this industry needs to be placed within a new agency not mandated to promote nuclear technology. . . .
4. Begin phasing out the United Nations Security Council which merely reinforces the dominant position assumed by the nuclear nations in the face of international disorder. . . .

Nucleogenic Illness: The Work of
the International Institute of
Concern for Public Health

ROSALIE BERTELL
December 1986

I have been told that the Vikings travelled both to North America and to Russia, demonstrating a desire to discover new lands and peoples, as well as to bridge global differences. While travelling in Sweden, I noticed also that the women of these Viking explorers managed large farms and produced food, shelter and clothing for the family. Swedish development relied equally on establishing security and co-operation at home, and expanding consciousness and concern through adventurous sallies forth to foreign and sometimes very distant lands. The recognition of the work of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health by the Right Livelihood Foundation focuses global attention on the necessity of developing security for the global village, meeting its need for clean air, water, food and a healthy habitat, as well as fostering clarity of vision on co-operation and development. These provide an essential balance to the high technology atmosphere of First World research as it sallies forth into outer space and sub-microscopic life.

Since Chernobyl, the fragility of human health, our food supply and the threat to domestic tranquillity in the face of lethal nuclear fallout has become apparent to all. Yet less than five per cent of the poisons contained at the Chernobyl reactor escaped into the environment. The remainder has been buried under a cement mausoleum, in spite of the failed US attempt to do the same at Runit Island, Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Forty years into the Nuclear Age, the Chernobyl accident found nations in panic and disarray, with conflicting public health and radiation protection criteria, empty assurances for the public at risk, and questionable practices of disposal of contaminated food. Milk was dumped on farm and pasture land; workers were sent out to harvest contaminated crops without proper clothing or respirators; and in Sweden military exercises were planned for a region of the country which had experienced the highest nuclear fallout.

Radiation-induced cancers resulting from Chernobyl and the 1,600-plus nuclear weapons explosions or accidents which have already occurred on this planet constitute only a small fraction of the tragedies caused. There will be embryonic, foetal and infant deaths, congenital diseases and malformations, various degrees of genetic damage to future generations, and a variety of human tragedies officially lumped together under the phrase `ill health' in radiation protection literature. Most of these will not be officially recognized as problems in a world grown callous about random murder by technology.

A report, soon to be published from the US Council on Economic Priorities based on vital statistics has conservatively calculated that there are 9,000 excess deaths a year in the US attributable to the routine operation of commercial nuclear reactors. I was able to document 100 excess deaths of low birth weight infants born downwind of normally operating `state of the art' nuclear reactors in their first five years of operation in Wisconsin. These are only small glimpses at the tragic story, since many who are casualties do not die. Let me read from the sworn affidavit from a woman who was a non-fatal casualty at Three Mile Island during the time of the serious nuclear reactor accident in 1979:

I provided the following information to Jane Lee and Majorie Aamodt on May 11, 1984.

On Friday evening, March 30, 1979, I was standing on the front porch of my home. My home faces south. It was raining, and the wind was blowing. All of a sudden the cat that had been let out began to howl in a most unusual way. I had never heard a sound like that from this or any other cat. I called the cat by name, however it did not come home . . . I went over to the bannister and leaned over to call the cat again. . . . Suddenly, the wind stopped; there was a movement in the limbs of the trees next to the porch, and a wave of heat engulfed me. The gust of heat brought the rain over me. Then the wind started again. This all happened in about one minute. I was so startled that I went in, taking the cat, who had by now come up on the porch. I wiped my arms and legs with the towel. I noticed that my arms and face were pink. I applied a lotion because my skin felt tingly.

On Saturday morning, my skin was a darker pink, and there was an itch at the front of my scalp. This was the only part of my scalp that was not covered by a scarf. When I went to church on Sunday, my friend commented that I looked healthy and sunburned. On this day, hard little lumps, a little bigger than a pinhead appeared on my forehead and into the hairline. . . . About three weeks later, I noticed that a lot of grey hairs had appeared across the front of my hair. When I washed my hair that week, my comb was full of hair.

. . . In the subsequent weeks, the skin on my forearms and neck turned darker and was scaly. This condition lasted for several years. There is some permanent discoloration, however it is not prominent. My forearms were, and continue to be, very sensitive to the sun, becoming itchy with exposure. I try to avoid sunlight. I have also noticed that if my arms are injured, the bruise will last longer than was normal for me prior to the event described above.

Of greater concern to me presently is the loss of the function of a kidney. Toward the end of November 1983, I was in renal failure. My doctor described my condition as an unusual case. He stated that one of my kidneys had died. I was in Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of two doctors. I have not fully recovered, and I have not been able to resume my customary social and household activities.

I live on a farm with my husband. We were not able to evacuate during the accident, although I wanted to leave, because my husband would not ask anyone else to stay to do his job of caring for the animals. Despite our continual attention to the cattle, we experienced the first deformed calves ever born on our farm the following spring. The calves' heads hung to one side until they were six months old. Their necks appeared twisted. I also noted that the Norway maple by our home had deformed leaves which were curled at the edges.

No doubt many similar stories could be told in the Soviet Union, in Sweden, and Europe since Chernobyl. With no biological testing of victims it is hard to prove causality. None of these problems are considered serious in the eyes of nuclear experts because they have not yet caused radiation-induced cancer deaths. We need a new word to describe this random damaging of life. I would suggest using `nucleogenic' or `technogenic' illness to describe these induced abnormalities.

In the face of such lack of sensitivity to human health considerations, concern for the future viability of the human race, placed under great stress by militarism and high tech, is rational, not irrational. Human passivity has permitted between 10 and 20 million deaths or serious casualties due to the nuclear fuel or weapon cycle since 1945, not including the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These conservative estimates do not include deaths and cripplings especially among indigenous people and in the developing world due to the financial burden of the arms race and warped First World economic priorities.

Careless damage of the biosphere compounds the problems, as people physically less able to cope than their parents and grandparents will try to live in an increasingly hazardous environment. The increasing hazard stems from the intractable problems of uranium, nuclear, and other military pollution and waste. The raised voices of the exploited at this moment in history are indicative of the deepest and best survival instinct.

With these global problems in mind, I would like to make some suggestions for action by the people of the United Nations in behalf of future living on this lovely habitable planet:

1. Co-operation and participation in international meetings and conferences dealing with the plight of radiation victims (for example the first European Conference on the Medical Management of Radiation Recipients held in Amsterdam in 1987, and the first international conference on this topic held in New York also in 1987). The Institute believes that visibility of the radiation victims and alerting the medical community to their problems is essential for motivating changes in governmental behaviour. Those most seriously injured by national ambitions and rivalry need a platform for making known the severe negative impacts of such policies before the eruption of nuclear megadeath.

   At such meetings there will be a forum for physicians, scientists, lawyers and others intent on healing the incredible nucleogenic and technogenic sickness with which we abuse ourselves, our brothers and our sisters in the name of progress and national security. Only `common-security', a phrase attributed to the late honoured Swedish Prime Minister, Olaf Palme, is acceptable in a global village.

2. Begin to dismantle the pseudo-scientific establishment which has rationalized nuclear addiction with self-appointed and self-perpetuated global advisory bodies. The International Commission on Radiological Protection needs to be dismantled first and replaced by an International Institute for the Safeguarding of Communities and Workers from Preventable Exposure to Ionizing Radiation. Unlike its predecessor the ICRP, this new institute should be appointed by relevant scientific and public health organizations, be subject to scientific peer review, be responsible for public health recommendations rather than risk/benefit tradeoffs, and be composed of persons trained in epidemiology, public health, toxicology, and worker health problems rather than of radiation users.

3. The International Atomic Energy Agency needs to be relieved of its mandate to promote nuclear energy. It might be retained temporarily to assist in the dismantling of this industry globally. However the monitoring of health and safety relative to this industry needs to be placed within a new agency not mandated to promote nuclear technology. An international energy agency should be established and mandated to implement the resolutions of the United Nations Conference on New and Renewable Sources of Energy held in Nairobi in 1981. Unbiased scientific data on non-nuclear energy technology must be quickly made available to developing nations. High pressure selling of unwanted First World nuclear technology to already exploited developing countries will exacerbate present health, environmental and financial difficulties.

4. Begin phasing out the United Nations Security Council which merely reinforces the dominant position assumed by the nuclear nations in the face of international disorder. If we truly want to assume stature as a mature global family of nations we need to extend responsibility to the people of the world through a representative assembly, rather than assign abnormal political power to countries with weapons of mass destruction. We need to invest power in international treaties, conflict resolution mechanisms and the World Court.

5. Demand the cancellation of the United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (PUNE) scheduled for 1987. High technology, not wanted in the developed world, should not be pushed on the developing world especially under United Nations auspices. Food irradiation will be a major issue at the PUNE conference. Inconclusive research done on well-nourished laboratory animals is being used to substantiate promises of healthful food to populations already severely decimated by hunger, malnutrition and starvation. Food irradiation delivers stale food disguised as nutritious, polluted with unique radiolytic by-products, to children suffering from deprivations which are already life threatening. Published research from India indicates that malnourished children fed irradiated wheat developed polypoidy, a cellular phenomenon also observed in cancer, during viral infections, in senility, and after radiation exposure. Long term health implications, problems of transportation of irradiation sources, worker health and safety, and disposal of the radioactive waste from this new industry are poorly addressed, if at all, by the proponents of food irradiation.

It is my sincere hope that the awarding of the Right Livelihood Award to Dr Alice Stewart, and to myself, will mark a close to the era of global nuclear expansion and deception with respect to the hazards of ionizing radiation. I hope and pray that it will be the beginning of reality therapy, of healing the pre-World War III radiation victims, of the dawn of an era of serious efforts to consciously build the infra-structure of the forming global village. Domestic or common security is still the `sine qua non' of human survival and development. It can never be sacrificed for adventure, profit or political gain.

The people of the global village are longing to share in the benefits of human endeavour, not the garbage; to share in the wholesomeness of life and not to be handed death. It is my heartfelt wish that the good begun here will flow forth as a river of life, justice and hope for those people most broken and needy in our global village. May it mark a firm choice for the Global Encouragement and Co-operation System initiated in Sweden, and an end to the Threat and Forcible Control System which has been a global plague for centuries and culminates in worldwide hostage-holding to nuclear terror.

Over and again we hear the clarion call that we must take evolution in our hands and do that which bumbling nature, in its fifteen billion years of incredible creation, has obviously not had the intelligence to do. While the ego-intellect loves such arrogant, bootstrap nonsense, operations of this sort plunge us from one personal, social, and ecological catastrophe to another, and we are apparently incapable of catching on to our error. As architect Henry Bergman once said, "Each and every problem we face today is the direct and inevitable result of yesterday's brilliant solutions."
-- Joseph Chilton Pearce, Evolution's End, pp. xvi-xvii