Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Congressional Hearings Transcript

22
we're a part of that organization, and let others also contribute to
that.
I don't think the United States has to do everything, but I think
we have to do a lot. Don't misunderstand me. But we have to
choose what to do and choose the priorities very carefully.
Mr. Smith. What about testing of the aquifer?
Dr. Feshbach. Well, the testing of the aquifer is going on now.
So far, it hasn't been determined to be dangerous. We have an embassy
there, we have a lot of people there from various organizations.
A lot of commercial organizations are there, and they'll stay
there in the immediate future. But, if there's a further accident,
then it may become very different.
Mr. Smith. In talking about lung cancers, as mentioned in your
testimony, has there been an increase in bronchiolar, alveolar carcinoma,
which is the
Dr. Feshbach. I don't have such precise data from there. I wish
I did, so that I would know precisely what kinds of cancer that they
have. Somebody literally asked me that question two days ago, over
the weekend. A cancer specialist was in town for a big meeting,
and I told him I don't have those data.
Now, maybe they're available, maybe they're not available. But
I hope, if I could go to Kyiv, or to Minsk, whatever, as the case may
be, to do some work, I would ask those kinds of questions. But now
I don't know the answer.
Mr. Smith. OK Could you provide information, because, obviously,
that's a plutonium-based cancer.
Dr. Feshbach. Yes. I would want to know it, too.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Dr. Feshbach. And I'd certainlv be happy to.
Mr. Smith. Could you tell us, aoctor, why the mortality rate estimates
vary so widely?
Dr. Feshbach. Oh, sure. But one must separate what is a direct
consequence of the Chornobyl event from natural causes of death.
For the former, the number of liquidators or clean-up personnel
that, as I tried to describe, is now almost a three times differential,
from 300,000 to 800,000. Not, obviously, exactly three times, but a
little less.
But it's also the question of whether, as many allege, including
myself, that this is specifically due to Chornobyl, or not due to the
Chornobyl event.
How many people would have died otherwise? It's very hard to
determine it. But, when you see differential rates of this level, of
30 times versus, let's say, 10 times, you always have to be sure
that it's not a statistical anomaly—that it's not because there are
better diagnostics and not because we're paying more attention to
this issue. Rather, there's something that we missed before, that
they're now getting currently. It happens in the United States, too.
I mean, something may happen so you go out and look for salmonella.
So, you go out and look for this problem, or that problem,
and you may find that the increase is there, but it's because the
prior figure was not as accurate as it should have been. Certainly,
this seems to be the case much more than before, and we need to
know. It's part of the secrecy of the system.