Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

32
literature anywhere in the world that I'm aware of that shows
ic
an increase in cardiac defects as a result of radiation exposure.
There's no study published anywhere that shows that. So I think
that one of the issues—I mean, are we dealing with the medical
problems in the Ukraine, which are substantial, to my mind reallv
staggering, or are we dealing with a radiation effect? And I don t
want you to mix up the two here.
Dr. Werteleckyj. I have to clarify this, because I don't think the
point is well taken, because there are no such studies since you
cannot subject individuals to radiation and because there are no
published reports about heart defect issues. It does not mean that
Chernobyl is absolved as a possible cause of such defects. There's a
difference between no data and no effect.
Now, we cannot afford not to study Chernobyl, whether as members
of the human race or as citizens of the United States. We have
a poor understanding of carcinogenesis, cancer, and the effects of
radiation. We are limited severely only to one study population of
Nagasaki-Hiroshima, which is aging, otherwise we are to study experimental
models.
I think that Chernobyl is going to teach us fundamental scientific
facts that are going to benefit us and the rest of humanity. I
think that investigators with the use of biomarkers and moleculor
biotechnology are going to be able to unravel the differences of inherited
and radiation induced cancers cancers. I think that Chernobyl
is a unique opportunity, but we should not persue science without
a parallel humanistic dimension.
Senator Lieberman. Amen. I know we have to move on to the
second panel.
Mr. Purvis, you're an engineer. I'm going to see if I can ask you
to give me two numbers to questions. If I'm pushing you too hard,
you have a right to remain silent.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. The first one is you've expressed some concern
about the stability of the sarcophagus that's been erected at
Chernobyl. I don't know if you can do it numerically, but what is
the likelihood that there may be a collapse there in the next 10
years?
Mr. Purvis. As I understand it, the study that was done over
there by the people who built it kind of attributed something like
five years. It wouldn't be safe to wait for more than five years.
Senator Lieberman. So in a sense they would warrant it for five
years, but for no more?
Mr. Purvis. It's kind of like you have a bad problem in your
back yard and you go out one weekend and do something about it,
and then you're going to do something permanent.
Senator Lieberman. Yes, you know it's not forever.
Mr. Purvis. And the temporary solution, as I understand the
report, you might have five years.
Senator Graham. And the temporary solution was applied when?
Mr. Purvis. The temporary solution was in 1986, when the sarcophagus
was built.
Senator Graham. So it's been
Mr. Purvis. That's from, I guess—the study, I think, was in late
1990 or 1991. So you've got like until 1995. But the thing is, it's not