Radiophobia. Why the fallout of unscientific myths from Chernobyl still prevail

This contradicts the general perception of many as well as common media narratives that have given rise to countless myths surrounding Chernobyl and radiation in general. Yet it is important to note that this study is just another one in a long list of studies on the health effects of the Chernobyl explosion. Since fear sells, this exaggeration is used by the media and the entertainment industry to catch our attention. The specific context under which this disaster happened contributes to the propagation of myths and fear. Indeed, knowing and spreading the facts and debunking the myths are an important task for the sake of scientific truth.

How the media portrayed the effects of the tragedy

The assessment of Chernobyl echoes an earlier nuclear tragedy: the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings. As a result of these calamities, the human body has been thoroughly examined from the survivors of these events. They have been studied in a long-term project very tellingly called the “Life Span Study”. From what we know there is a marginal increase (less the one per cent) in the mortality rate of those exposed to radioactivity when compared with the general population. Mirroring the findings of the recent Chernobyl study in Science, the children of Hibakusha, those affected by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, turned out to be genetically no different than the offspring of unaffected Japanese. Nevertheless, these children often faced life-long discrimination due to misconceived assumptions which, not surprisingly, caused notable psychological harm to them.

These important insights could have helped prevent the same thing happening after Chernobyl, yet the media, knowingly or unknowingly, failed to take heed. It is often pointed out that the volume of radioactivity released was 200 times more than the bombs in Japan. Yet, this account fails to mention that the radiation covered large, often uninhabited land strips, rather than a concentrated, urban space. Tellingly, a decade after the Chernobyl disaster the Irish Times wrote that “the human tragedy touches on the borders of incomprehension: whole families condemned to the slow, inevitable death of the members from cancers and other diseases, their lives overshadowed by their nuclear induced destiny”. Unfortunately, this type of narrative persists to this day.

In 2016, the BBC, which understands itself as a bastion of unbiased reporting and fact-reliance, issued a report on “Chernobyl’s legacy 30 years on”. A British charity conducting work in Belarus was interviewed and individual stories of strange birth abnormalities and genetic disorders were presented, thus implying that the Chernobyl accident was responsible. Similarly, the Daily Mirror, a British national tabloid, also portrayed stories of disabled children “decreed by Chernobyl’s toxic cloud”, which represents again a narrative which does not need additional elaboration. Similarly, the most acclaimed presentation of Chernobyl, in the form of the recent HBO TV series, is specifically inaccurate in its portrayal of radiation-related issues. As such, scientists have criticised the inaccurate portrayal of radiation effects – such that it is contagious like an infection. This example illustrates that no meaningful change to the narrative around Chernobyl has happened in culture. Portrayals like this on TV and from organisations like Greenpeace have helped maintain the alarmist, unsubstantiated message that 100,000 people have died due to radiation from Chernobyl.

Science debunked these myths a long time ago

One could argue that this misunderstanding has been done unknowingly, but as mentioned above, the scientific evidence that emerged soon after Chernobyl mirrors the findings in the 2021 Science study as well as the extensive research on the Hibakushas. Already in 1996 there were peer-reviewed papers arguing that there is no evidence of doses that could lead to the deterministic effects of radiation exposure. In 1999, a publication in the journal Teratology by FP. Castronovo Jr. collected and summarised the scientific evidence in that respect. The bottom line was that “there is no substantive proof regarding radiation-induced teratogenic effects from the Chernobyl accident”. One year later the United Nations stated that “the only substantiated public health impact attributable to radiation exposure has been a sharp increase in childhood thyroid cancer”, which turned out to have a 99 per cent survival rate and resulted in around ten (!) additional deaths. Subsequently, a large consortium of over 100 top scientists under the umbrella of the UN estimated in 2004 that the radiation from the Chernobyl accident might lead to around 4,000 premature deaths in total. In Poland alone there are around 50,000 premature deaths due to pollution annually that, incidentally, can lead to genetic mutations in children. Yet there is no HBO series on these effects.

Putting forward a direct link between Chernobyl and mutations and other health problems is violating the basic principles of scientific evidence – namely, confusing correlation with causation. It is not only wrong but harmful; In 2005, another UN report on Chernobyl stated that “mental health issues pose a far greater threat to local communities than does radiation exposure”. Already in 1995, comparative research on the physiological and psychological health between communities in Chernobyl-affected areas and other communities in the post-Soviet space were conducted. Their result was that physiological health was no different between those two communities, but that psychological health differed significantly. It is no secret that the Chernobyl accident and the displacement led to mental health issues in forms of depression, suicides, alcoholism and other problems that were also potentiated by the post-Soviet transformation. These studies and reports should have been a red flag for the media, as the repetition of their false narrative only increased the negative psychological health effects of those in affected communities. For the record, it must be acknowledged that several outlets reported on the recent findings of the Science study. However, it is worrying that it took so long despite previous, overwhelming evidence supporting these claims.

How do we explain the gap between media narratives and science?

The obvious gap between science on the one hand and media reporting and public perception on the other has two major reasons. First, it must be acknowledged that there is an inherent fear of the unknown in the human psyche. This gives rise to “radiophobia” due to the lack of understanding of radiation, as well as the lack of proper ways to directly sense it and its effects. This fear was alleviated by the Cold War and the corresponding risk of nuclear disaster. Fear can effectively be materialised and monetised with disaster horror movies to advantage our primordial instincts. As there is an inherent fear of radiation, radiophobia clearly sells. The success of the Chernobyl series is partly a result of our human nature.

With Chernobyl, of course, this effect was made worse by the secrecy of the Soviet system and those of its successor states, most notably Belarus. The contradicting statements of the Soviet leadership following the explosion led many people to believe that the actual fallout from events to be much bigger than officially stated. As a result, around a million excess abortions were conducted because of radiophobia triggered by Chernobyl. This shows that misguided fear can have real life consequences.

In the subsequent years, the perception of secrecy persisted, at least in the public domain. Although western researchers had relatively free access to conducting research on radiation in Ukraine and even in Belarus, mistaken beliefs in these societies never went away. Throughout much of its post-Soviet history, Belarus remains the least touristy country in Europe, and Ukraine has just started to attract western tourists. This lack of exchange and the absence of good communicators to challenge these common myths has contributed to the sharp imbalance between the scientific and popular narratives on Chernobyl.

It is mostly scientists themselves who are critical of the way they handled the accident – one saying “we didn’t explain scientific findings properly to the public both immediately after the accident and in the years since”. However, is it the job of researchers to communicate their findings to the broader public, or is it the responsibility of the media to use current and accurate information? At least in the case of Chernobyl, the media has for many years now promoted a false and harmful narrative which has caused a lot more harm than the actual nuclear accident in April 1986.o

Michael Martin Richter is a research fellow at the Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen within the EU ITN MARKETS (MSCA grant) programme.

belarus, Chernobyl, radiation, radiophobia, Ukraine