Mayak Disease

In 1973 a Soviet geneticist and biochemist named Zhores A. Medvedev came to live in England. His visit had been approved by the government of the USSR but during his stay in England, his Soviet citizenship was revoked. In 1976 New Scientist magazine invited Medvedev to write articles about science, and the role of science, in the Soviet Union. (Medvedev, Z.A., “Nuclear Disaster in the Urals”, Angus and Robertson Publishers, ISBN 0 207 95896 3, 1979, PP 3-8.)

New Scientist subsequently published two articles by Medvedev. The first was entitled “Two Decades of Soviet Dissidence”, New Scientist, vol 72, no. 1025 (1976), pp 264- 267. The second was “Facts behind the Soviet Nuclear Disaster”, New Scientist, vol 74, no 1058, (1977), pp 761 – 764.

The information contained in the two articles regarded the explosion of nuclear waste in the Ural region of the USSR. The articles described the health effects caused by this accident, which Medvedev claimed occurred in “1957 or 1958”.

As soon as the articles were published, Medvedev came under attack from the British nuclear establishment. Nuclear authorities in France, USA, and “many other countries” joined in the expert chorus of denial; impatient refutation was unanimous. Medevdev was wrong, these world nuclear authorities wrote, and was he publishing “rubbish”.

Medvedev writes: “This challenge to my veracity was what prompted me to do my subsequent research on the subject, I consider it appropriate to cite the text of the interview [with the Chair of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, Sir John Hill] just as it appeared in the [London] Times [November 8, 1976.] (ibid, pp 4 – 5.) Medvedev was writing these words in 1979, three years after the first of his articles had been published in New Scientist, and three years after the ink frenzy engaged in by World Nuclear Experts in rebuttal.

Clearly, Dr Medvedev had been upset by the international attack he suffered in 1976. Thirty eight years after he uttered the words, here again is Sir John Hill’s rebuttal of Dr. Zhores A. Medvedev, in full :

“Claims by a dissident Soviet scientist that hundreds of people died in a nuclear catastrophe in the Soviet Union in 1958 were dismissed as “pure science fiction” yesterday by Sir John Hill, chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

In an interview with the Press Association, Sir John described the allegations of Dr. Zhores Medvedev as “rubbish” and added: “I think this is a figment of the imagination.”

Dr. Medvedev, a biochemist, claimed in an article in the New Scientist that nuclear waste which was buried near the surface in the Urals blew up “like a volcano” in 1958. The resulting radioactive cloud spread across hundreds of miles and thousands of people became afflicted by radiation sickness.

Sir John said that while the Russians probably did bury low-level waste, as did Britain and other countries, “this sort of waste has a very, very low activity and could not possibly give that sort of explosion.”

Even if the Russians buried high-level waste – and Sir John did not believe they did, as they followed safety standards similar to those in other countries – “it could not give that sort of explosion, nuclear or thermal.” (ibid pp 5,6.)

Medvedev did not have access to the top secret Soviet documents which would either plainly prove or refute his published information. His 1979 book explains that Soviet secrecy meant the information on the environmental pollution which resulted from the 1957-58 accident in the Urals would not be plainly available. However, the consequences were reported in internationally published papers written by Soviet scientists. Medvedev states that the information is given false attributes in these papers. That is, the area studied and the nature of the contamination were deliberately falsified to conceal the disaster. The contamination was claimed to be “experimental” in these papers, deliberate studies for the sake of methodical, academic learning. The actual accident, the actual area affected never being mentioned. The vast bulk of the 1979 book by Medvedev is a discussion of such Soviet writings.

Was Sir John Hill correct in his rebuttal?

No he was not. Neither were the rest of the experts around the world who attacked Dr. Medvedev from their nuclear ivory towers:

Map of the The East Urals Radioactive Trace (EURT)

“The Kyshtym accident on the 29th of September 1957 resulted in the contamination of a large area of land with radioactive materials and, along with the Windscale accident a short time later, constitutes one of the first major accidents at a nuclear facility involving dispersal of radioactivity to the wider environment. Large areas with agriculture and rural settlements were contaminated to a high degree necessitating the development and implementation of various countermeasures to mitigate the consequences of the accident.”

Source: NRPA Bulletin 8.07, Statens stralevern, Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority at http://www.nrpa.no/dav/397736ba75.pdf

The tragic fact is that Sir John Hill, in his statement of 1976, was not interested in the truth. As Dr. Medvedev explains, he was interested in protecting the British nuclear industry because: “At that very time there was a heated controversy in the British press over nuclear waste that was to be shipped in from Japan.” (Medvedev, Z.A., “Nuclear Disaster in the Urals”, pp 5.

Comparing Hill of 1976 to Beddington 2011 is telling: “On the 15th of March 2011, the words of the Chief Scientist of Britain, Lord Beddington, were transmitted and streamed around the world by the BBC. I watched him speak on local TV in Adelaide. If there were a meltdown, he said, “you would get an explosion and radioactive material would be emitted. But it would be emitted to about 500 meters and it would be a relatively short duration of the order of an hour or so. Compare that with Chernobyl…” [1]

Believing the nuclear experts without question is a recipe for a severe case of cognitive dissonance. If there is one certainty it is this: the peoples of the former USSR have a very long tradition of living in environments spoiled by long term radiological contamination. And this tradition dates back to 1949 in my opinion.

Rather than follow the dictates of Beddington then, let us ask the question: How do Chernobyl and Fukushima compare to the chronic contamination from the Mayak disasters? – plural, for there were three events which contributed the contamination visualized in the map above.

These three events consist of the following:
1. Techa River contamination (1949-1956, ~ 100 PBq);
2.Kyshtym accident (1957, ~ 70 PBq)
3.An incident with dispersion of radioactive dust (1967, ~ 20 TBq). (Dmitriy Burmistrov, Mira Kossenko and Richard Wilson, “Radioactive Contamination of the Techa River and its Effects”, Department of Physics, Harvard University, USA. Online publication at:

In 1971 a significant book was published in Moscow. It is listed as follows:

Radiation sickness in man (outlines)
Author: A K Guskova; G D Baysogolov
Publisher: Moscow : Izdatel’stvo ” Meditsina ” , 1971.
Edition/Format: Book : English
Database: WorldCat Link: http://www.worldcat.org/title/radiation-sickness-in-man-outlines/oclc/867230784?referer=di&ht=edition
This book was an openly published, unrestricted book published in English. It was approved for publication by the Soviet authorities.

The book “Radiation Sickness in Man (Outlines)” by Guskova and Baysogolov was considered a very important book by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. For in 1973 the AEC took the trouble to re-publish it in the United States as follows:

Radiation sickness in man (outlines)
Author: A K Gusʹkova; Grigoriĭ Davidovich Baĭsogolov
Publisher: [Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Technical Information Center; Available from National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, Va., 1973]
Series: United States. Atomic Energy Commission. Technical Information Center. Translation series, AEC-tr-7401
World Cat link: http://www.worldcat.org/title/radiation-sickness-in-man-outlines/oclc/756952?referer=di&ht=edition

The publications of this book confirms that the USA knew of the Soviet diagnosis of Chronic Radiation Syndrome. No earlier than 1971 in the unclassified Soviet documents, no later than 1973 in the unclassified US documents. For the authors of this book are accepted by USSR/Russia and the USA as being the originators of the description and diagnosis of the illness “Chronic Radiation Syndrome”. (“Analysis of Chronic Radiation Sickness Cases in the Population of the Southern Urals“, Prepared Under Contract By:
Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia. Nuclear Agency Contract Number: DNAOOI-92-M-0658
Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 8901 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda. Maryland 20889-5603” dated August 1994, United States of America. Foreword. pp1)

Who is A. K. Gusʹkova? What did she discover about the effects of living in a chronically contaminated land?

Can she shed any light on Bura Bura disease? Has she, unlike Dr. Hida in Japan, been listened to by her government?

The Urals Research Center For Radiation Medicine was once one of the institutes of the type which Medvedev described as located in the Urals Forbidden Zone and which was totally secret. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union things have changed. The full name of the organisation is:

Urals Research Center For Radiation Medicine, Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia. Federal State Research Institution. It has been an open research centre for many years. It actively engages in joint research with other nations. The website for the Centre is:

The Urals Research Centre For Radiation Medicine describes the work of A. K. Gusʹkova as follows:
“Angelina Konstantinovna Guskova, (born 1924), radiologist, MD, professor, winner of the Lenin Prize (1963), a member of the National Commission on Radiological Protection (since 1959), expert of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (since 1967), corresponding member of the Academy of Medical Sciences (1986), Chief Scientific Officer/chief researcher of the Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency of Russia, Honored Science Worker of the RSFSR (1989), laureate of the Sievert Award for her contribution to radiation protection (2000).

The main line of scientific research and main practical achievements of A.K. Guskova can be represented as follows: development of fundamental etiopathogenetic classification of radiation sickness in humans (together with G. D. Baysogolov), direct involvement into the treatment, evaluation of its effectiveness and formation of the basic principles of therapeutic and diagnostic measures in radiation accidents of various types, and participation in the system of preventive measures for the staff of Mayak PA that led to the health recovery in the vast majority of people (88%) out of thousands exposed persons, participation in the work of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the preparation of the Committee’s reports concerning acute radiation effects, clinical radiation epidemiology, radiation effects on the nervous system, and involvement in the program on cardiovascular disease (radiation contribution to polyetiologic diseases). ”

I refer to the publication “Analysis of Chronic Radiation Sickness Cases in the Population of the Southern Urals“, Prepared Under Contract By:
Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia. Nuclear Agency Contract Number: DNAOOI-92-M-0658
Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 8901 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda. Maryland 20889-5603” dated August 1994, United States of America.

The full text of this report is available for download at :
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA286238‎ . This link is to the online repository of the US Defense Technical Information Centre. The document is approved for public release and is for unlimited distribution.

I refer to the Foreword of this publication and to introductory page i, which reads in part :

[At Mayak PA] Because of the long-term exposure to levels of ionizing radiation that were often orders of magnitude above those Western workers generally experienced, several individuals, according to the literature, reported, symptoms of sleep and appetite disturbances, difficulties with concentration and memory, irritability, and other “soft” clinical signs. Complete blood counts, when taken, revealed pancytopenia. Symptoms would improve and counts would return to normal only when the individual was removed from sources of radiation exposure. A team of physicians headed by Dr A. K. Guskova and Dr. G. D. Baysogolov coined the term “chronic radiation sickness” describe these effects, which they felt to be due to the unusually high levels of radiation received and the length of exposure. Their work is cited in this report.

“In 1989, the veil of secrecy was lifted. According to its records, the International Atomic Energy Agency was notified of the accident at Kyshtym (near Mayak), where an underground tank with highly concentrated wastes exploded in 1957 and contaminated a large area. Scientists from Branch 4 of the Institute of Biophysics, now the Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine (URCRM), were permitted to disclose the results of the dosimetric and clinical investigations conducted earlier.

Dr. A. A. Akleyev, Dr. M. M. Kossenko, and Dr. M. 0. Degteva visited the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) and presented some of their data. In June 1992, under the leadership of Professor V. N. Soyfer, a historic workshop was conducted at George Mason University in Fairfax. VA. This workshop, which was underwritten by AFRRI and the Department of Energy, brought together scientists and political figures from both the Russian Federation and the United States. As a result of those and subsequent discussions, AFRRI and URCRM collaborated in studying the effects of chronic radiation exposure on the Techa river village populations. It is hoped that the joint effort, which resulted in this report, will be the springboard for further research.”
(Source:”Analysis of Chronic Radiation Sickness Cases in the Population of the Southern Urals“, Prepared Under Contract By:
Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia Nuclear Agency Contract Number: DNAOOI-92-M-0658
Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited,
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 8901 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda. Maryland 20889-5603” dated August 1994, United States of America, pp i, ii.)

All we in the West have read, seen or heard about Chernobyl and its consequences has been presented only through the lens of Western Health Physics. The Chronic Radiation Syndrome described by Dr A. K. Guskova and Dr. G. D. Baysogolov has not been mentioned at all in the Western media in this regard as far as I am aware. The condition which resembles Chronic Radiation Syndrome in my lay opinion has, I believe, been wrongly labelled as “Radiophobia” by world nuclear experts and their media outlets in regard to the people who live in the Chernobyl affected areas of Ukraine and Belarus.

Despite the Soviet disclosures of 1971, and the Russian disclosures of 1989, 1992 and 1994, a prominent nuclear specialist, Dr. Marvin Goldman of Harvard University wrote the following in 1994. It is an early medicalization of the statements and reactions of the awareness, insights and experiences of the people living in the shadow of Chernobyl:

““We were able to use satellite images to delineate the Chernobyl damage to the adjacent radiosensitive pine forest that runs 8 to 10 kms west of the Chernobyl reactor . Infra red images were taken weekly by the Landsat 4 Thermic Mapper Satellite…..it was possible to discern living from dead pine trees. Thus, from an altitude of 700km, a crude spatial and temporal map of the heaviest hit region was developed……the trees had actually received doses of over 100 Gy.

“Children under 15 years of age rarely show thyroid neoplasms; the normal rate per 5 year interval is thought to be less than 0.5 per million children. With what appeared to be a very short latent period, about 4 to 5 years, (NOTE: as the most common, but NOT the shortest latent period, latency potentially covering decades at its longest, and less than a year at its shortest. I will come to this shortly. P. Langley) the comparable rate since 1990 seems to have increased up to 3 to 100 per million children..”

“Another consequence of the Chernobyl accident is related to communication, miscommunication, and a lack of communication. A serious cloud of doubt arose. Especially about the manner in which the initial official information was disseminated. Fear precipitated by exaggeration in the popular press was mixed with public pronouncements attempting to minimize the risks. This contributed to a resulting widespread radiophobia….” (Goldman, M., “The Russian radiation legacy: its integrated impact and lessons”, Environ Health Perspect
v.105(Suppl 6); Dec 1997 PMC1469939

In April 1958, a Copenhagen newspaper reported a “catastrophic accident” involving Soviet nuclear weapons tests and linked it to the Soviet unilateral suspension of nuclear weapons tests in March 1958. (Diane M.Soran, Danny B.Stillman, “An Analysis of the Alleged Kyshtym Disaster” LA-921 7-MS,Issued January 1982, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos,New Mexico 87545)

This being the case, even in the Soviet Union, even with the Forbidden Zone in place, it is hard to imagine word not spreading from community to community over time. If a Soviet nuclear disaster was discussed in Copenhagen in 1958, no doubt any Soviet citizen with access to a transistor radio could hear about it via the BBC and Radio Liberty. The average shepherd on the Steppes of Russia was considered to be a “human intelligence Asset” by the West. If you were one, the West came to you. As the Documents from the CIA obtained by Medvedev in the back of his book certifies. (Medvedev, Nuclear Disaster in the Urals, 1979, pp 181 – 198.) One certainly did not need to be a Westerner in order to have an indigenous insight into the goings on within the USSR. It is an arrogance to think otherwise. The converse is true. This is why nations operate intelligence services.

Sarah D. Phillips has described the cultural adjustments which have taken place in Belarus and Ukraine in the Post Chernobyl era. For instance:

“Accelerated aging is also blamed on the nuclear accident (Akhaladze, Ena, and Chayalo 1997;Akhaladze 1998), as are a large number of digestive, circulatory, and respiratory problems. Studies have associated long-term low-dose radiation exposure among children living in contaminated territories with chronic respiratory infections; illnesses of the tonsils and adenoids; diseases of the oral cavity, liver, and pancreas; and pathologies of the blood and blood forming organs, especially iron-deficiency anemia (Nahorna et al. 1998). Many in Ukraine complain of a general weakening of the organism and its capacity to fight disease, an anomalous condition referred to as “radiation AIDS.” A similar condition among children in particular is called “Chernobyl syndrome.” Ukrainian researchers claim that the effects of ingesting radionuclides are made worse due to the high-stress environment in which many Ukrainians live today. Such stress is largely a result of the country’s continuous socioeconomic crises and the pervasive mood of uncertainty about the future. The joint effects of radiation and intense stress, some medical experts assert, compromise the organism’s immune, nervous, and endocrine systems, making post-Chernobyl bodies ready conduits for chronic illness and disease (Institute for Experimental Radiology 1998:4). Since it is extremely difficult to link a specific illness directly to Chernobyl, the disaster’s role as an etiological factor in all of these health problems is, of course, contested. People in positions of power have used references to “radiophobia” to discredit citizens’ claims that their health problems are Chernobyl-related. Such accusations emphasize the “psychological” effects of the disaster while minimizing the perception of health effects. The fact remains, however, that post-Chernobyl eating can pose risks to health.” (Sarah D. Phillips, S.D., “Half-Lives and Healthy Bodies: Discourses on “Contaminated” Food and Healing in Post-Chernobyl Ukraine”, http://www.academia.edu/1072856/_HalfLives_and_Healthy_Bodies_Discourses_on_Contaminated_Foods_and_Healing_in_PostChernobyl_Ukraine_Food_and_Foodways_10_1-2_27-53. http://www.indiana.edu/~medanth/)

It is plain from the description given by Phillips that the common knowledge resident within the Chernobyl afflicted population contains within it a listing of ailments which match the diagnosis of Chronic Radiation Syndrome. This condition, I submit, was first published in English by the USSR in 1971. (A. K. Guskova and G. D. Baysogolov). Further, since 1945 the United States has steadfastly ignored the enunciation of the same symptom list by the people of Hiroshima afflicted by the Black Rain of 1945 (Hida, Roff, Hiroshima Peace Media Centre.)

I wonder at the diagnosis made by Goldman of the victims of Chernobyl and wonder what diagnosis Guskova and Baysogolov have made from observing both the individual and the cultural responses to that fourth Soviet nuclear disaster (apart from the bomb sites.) The Western media at the time and since has only reported through the Western lens provided by Dr. Robert Gale and his followers.

The adjustments of the State are seen as reasonable, no matter what they are, by those in power positions. However the adjustments of the ordinary people in the face of the consequences of disaster are met with a vigorous misuse and abuse of the principles of psychiatry as nuclear authorities around the world throw the book – DSM IV and V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) – at the citizens of Belarus, Ukraine and Japan.

The abuse of psychiatry is of the same nature and spirit which saw Soviet dissidents, including Medvedev, imprisoned in “mental” institutions in the USSR and given special, punishing treatments. ( Medvedev was an early victim of official attempts to stifle opposition by detaining dissidents in mental institutions”. (Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhores_Medvedev) (Wikipedia, section, “Medicalization and financial conflicts of interest” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders , citing in particular the following: Healy D (2006) The Latest Mania: Selling Bipolar Disorder PLoS Med 3(4): e185.
Cosgrove, Lisa, Krimsky, Sheldon, Vijayaraghavan, Manisha, Schneider, Lisa, Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry
Sharfstein, SS. (2005) Big Pharma and American Psychiatry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Psychiatric News August 19, 2005 Volume 40 Number 16
Susan Bowman, 2006. The National Psychologist. 2006-11-01. Retrieved 2013-12-03.)

Dr. Goldman noted that he used a satellite to see the death of a Chernobyl forest. What the hell does he think the local population on the ground saw? How would he feel and how would he react if the same death of nature, caused by a similar event, occurred in Central Park, New York, New York, USA? Would he describe himself then as a “radiophobe” then? “Oh don’t listen to me, I was there, so I’m nuts” ?

Clearly the old “radiophobe routine” engaged in world nuclear industry, and played in the media and the journals industry itself originates and publish is merely a rehearsal by world media of their defense in court should any of the victims be so “lucky” as get so far as to actually access a court and the deliberations of a jury in possession of ALL the facts.

Of course, seeing as he lived there would witness this truth, Goldman must surely be aware that the industry would label New Yorkers, including himself, in the same way it labels the indigenous witnesses present in the lands contaminated by Chernobyl and Fukushima. Discredit the witnesses at all costs. New Yorkers would surely fight back. Americans have actually been in this precise before. We shall see what happened to the US Downwinders shortly.

It goes without saying that the peoples of the USSR have been on the receiving end of the tender mercies of a nuclear state since 1949. This historical fact is also a cultural fact. The people’s response has always been democratic. The will of the people is not a mental disorder Dr Goldman, Dr Gale!!

There is something else Dr Goldman knows very well. Those actually qualified to diagnose and treat the Soviet condition named Chronic Radiation Syndrome acknowledge the neurological aspect of the Syndrome. And this suffering centred upon the radiation caused damage to the brain and central nervous system in CRS causes great distress and behavioural changes in its victims. (Loganosky, K.N., MD., PhD., (Cand. Med. Sci.) “Vegetative-Vascular Dystonia and Osteoalgetic Syndrome or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as a Characteristic After-Effect of Radioecological Disaster: The Chernobyl Accident Experience.”, Journal of Chronic Fatigue Sundrome, Vol. 7 (3) 2000, The Hayworth Press Inc.)

That the Japanese authorities since March 2011 have labelled those people in Japan who suffer the same symptoms as being “mentally weak” (Yamashita, 2011 – 2014, media releases) is a fact which disgusts me and it revolts my soul. Stalin was a kinder man these.

The Soviet Definition of Chronic Radiation Syndrome

“A. K. Guskova and G. D. Baysogolov gave the following definition of the notion of CRS: “Chronic radiation sickness is a complex, clearly outlined clinical syndrome occurring as a result of the long- term exposure of the organism to radiation, single or total doses of which regularly exceed the dose permissible for professional exposure.” This definition does not quantitate the permissible irradiation doses for plant personnel. According to the radiation safety standards adopted in the USSR, these norms were different at different times.

“Chronic radiation sickness is characterized by a certain dynamics of the clinical course directly related to radiation load formation, a combination of slow build-up of radiation affections and signs of compensatory processes and adaptive reactions. Individual symptoms and even clinical syndromes are not characteristic exclusively of radiation sickness but their very sequence may be considered as a characteristic feature allowing to distinguish chronic radiation sickness as a separate clinical entity. As a rule, a correct, well- grounded diagnosis of chronic radiation sickness caused by general irradiation does not present a great difficulty and may be established at any therapeutic or prophylactic institution…..

In their classification of CRS, the authors distinguished three degrees of gravity. It was emphasized, however, that the distinction of degrees of gravity of CRS is to a certain degree a matter of convention, CRS of first degree of gravity (mild) is characterized by neuroregulatory disorders in different organs and systems (cardiovascular system in particular), presence of unstable moderate leukopenia, and less frequently thrombocytopenia. The second degree (medium gravity) is associated with more pronounced regulatory disorders accompanied by the development of functional insufficiency of digestive glands and the cardiovascular and nervous systems, and signs of anatomic damage of radiosensitive tissues, hypoplastic status of hematopoiesis, changes in the myelin of the CNS conduction tracts, and disturbances of some metabolic processes: The third degree of gravity (severe) is characterized by destructive processes in the hematopoietic tissue, atrophic changes in the mucous membrane of the gastrointestinal tract, myocardial dystrophy, disseminated encephalomyelosis with a mild course, and, in cases of weakened general immunity, infectious/septic complications…..CRS was applied in practice as early as 1950 by physicians serving personnel who were producing plutonium for weapons at Mayak. ” (Analysis of Chronic Radiation Sickness Cases in the Population of the Southern Urals“, Prepared Under Contract By: Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia Nuclear Agency Contract Number: DNAOOI-92-M-0658
Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited,
Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 8901 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda. Maryland 20889-5603” dated August 1994, United States of America, pp 21, 22.)

The text from which the above definition of Chronic Radiation Syndrome is taken is given in reference of the report. It is:

Guskova AK, Baysogolov GD (1971) Radiation diseases in humans. Moscow, p 387.

As we have seen above from the World Cat record, this text was published in English in Moscow in 1971. And we have seen that it was republished in the USA by the US Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge, in 1973. The West has known of the definition of Chronic Radiation Syndrome and of its repeated diagnosis and treatment in the USSR, then Russia, since 1971. How useful would this text have been had US authorities let those affected by Three Mile Island know that the Soviet government and the AEC had made it available in the West in the early 1970s.

Yet, throughout the period 1971 to the present time Western victims of nuclear activity have not been told of these facts by authorities during the fight for justice which Downwinders and nuclear veterans have had to endure.

I submit that if the above source document were shown to Dr. Hida in Japan, and were he to read pages 21 and 22, his response would be along the lines of “I have been reporting these facts to the Western nuclear experts September 1945. But they did not accept my description or my diagnosis, and regardless of measured dose, these are the symptoms and signs of the syndrome. The current Japanese government does not believe or accept what I have found nor that which my patients report and suffer.”

I submit that the Japanese government in the latter part of 2012 refused to grant an application to extend the area of Hiroshima deemed to be affected by the Black Rain resultant from the atomic bombing of that city in 1945 unjustly and in spite of the evidence and in spite of the findings in favor of such an extension by multiple Japanese courts. The Japanese government made its determination not in reference to the due and just consideration of the people affected. It made its decision in reference to the continuing disaster unfolding in the close in areas affected by the multiple and predicted failures of nuclear power plants located in Fukushima Prefecture. For it wanted the evacuation zones and the exclusion zone to be as small and as economic as possible, despite the harm this would likely cause by way of increase risk, to people who have no say what so ever in their eventual fate.

Apparently no nation can afford both nuclear industry and the full consideration of the needs of that industry’s victims. This is the lesson of history. This is the legal function of dose: to the limit the liability of the state and its industry when consequences are inflicted upon peoples at every level of consideration. Yes, dose is indeed important.

The US Response to the Russian Disclosures in 1994

On receiving the information from the Russians in the 1990s the Americans held a workshop.

Why this wasn’t done with the publication of “Radiation Sickness in Man (Outlines)”, Moscow, 1971 or in 1973 when the US AEC republished the book is not known by me. But it is very clear that two authors of that early book are also the discoverers of the condition called, initially only in the USSR, Chronic Radiation Syndrome (CRS). The 1994 report discusses the problem of a new disease and its entry into the Western medical lexicon in the following way:

“The question of CRS as a separate clinical entity has not yet been resolved by organized medicine. In the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) [13] and the Guide to International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Trauma, and Death Causes [141, radiation effects and their early reactions and late manifestations are listed in the section devoted to accidents, poisoning, and trauma, but no mention is made of CRS. Updated versions of the ICD take into account new achievements in medical science such as the discovery of previously unknown etiologic factors of some diseases (for example, AIDS) but do not contain the term “chronic radiation sickness.” (Analysis of Chronic Radiation Sickness Cases in the Population of the Southern Urals“, Prepared Under Contract By: Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia Nuclear Agency Contract Number: DNAOOI-92-M-0658 Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 8901 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda. Maryland 20889-5603” dated August 1994, United States of America, pp 21)

We know that the nuclear authorities in the West had two decades from 1971 to 1994 in which to spill the beans to the people who paid their wages. Despite President Clinton’s Executive Order of 1994 demanding Openness within the US nuclear administration and its Offices.

It did not happen until the Soviet empire collapsed. Why that degree of coordination was needed in order to allow disclosure by Western nuclear authorities of the early findings regarding “Radiation Sickness in Man” made by Soviet science beats me. If any modern American was looking for clues as to their own condition, they would have no cause to beat down the doors at the Oak Ridge Museum looking for an esoteric book originally published in Moscow in 1971. Unless they knew the book existed.

The Modern Iteration of Chronic Radiation Syndrome

In searching for the reasons behind the decades long delay Western experts took to disclose Chronic Radiation Syndrome to the public, we can turn to Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_radiation_syndrome

This reads: “Chronic radiation syndrome is a constellation of health effects that occur after months or years of chronic exposure to high amounts of ionizing radiation. Chronic radiation syndrome develops with a speed and severity proportional to the radiation dose received, i.e. it is a deterministic effect of radiation exposure, unlike radiation-induced cancer. It is distinct from acute radiation syndrome in that it occurs at dose rates low enough to permit natural repair mechanisms to compete with the radiation damage during the exposure period. Dose rates high enough to cause the acute form (~0.1 Gy/h) are fatal long before onset of the chronic form. The lower threshold for chronic radiation syndrome is between 0.7 and 1.5 Gy, at dose rates above 0.1 Gy/yr. This condition is primarily known from the Kyshtym disaster, where 66 cases were diagnosed, and has received little mention in western literature. A future ICRP publication, currently in draft, may recognize the condition but with higher thresholds.” end quote.

No surprises there. The ICRP is apparently still deciding at what imposed dose point the nuclear victims of the future will be granted access to the courts in a manner which is not a total waste of time.

Dose is the means by which nuclear authorities limit the liability of the State and industry.

This is dose in its legal context. This is why, perhaps, the dose point assigned to CRS by its discoverers in the USSR in the 1950s is so poorly defined. The Soviet concept of legal liability was totally different to the West’s. Any Soviet citizen who attempted to take that state to court would have been confined to an institution and given “special treatment”.

In the West the “special treatment” was a tad more subtle and still is. Though it is becoming more blatant. Especially in Japan.

The draft document of the ICRP mentioned above is this one:

Early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs: threshold doses for tissue reactions and other non-cancer effects of radiation in a radiation protection context” The link for it, as given by Wikipedia, is here: http://www.icrp.org/docs/Tissue%20Reactions%20Report%20Draft%20for%20Consultation.pdf

Dose : Bura Bura Disease vs Chronic Radiation Syndrome

Dr. Hida’s description of Bura Bura describes high, acute doses and lower dose chronic doses. Dr. Hida’s aim is to diagnose and treat patients. He notes “In 1946, many Hibakusha began to suffer A-bomb Bura-bura disease. Patients became lethargic, easily fatigued, and impatient, even as they seemed clinically normal. They easily caught colds and, once they did, they took a long time to recover. This condition made it difficult for them to continue working and degraded their already poor living condition. There were many ca ses in which patients caught a slight cold and then, quite suddenly developed a fatal case of tuberculosis. The doctors had to be very careful in treating the A- bomb Bura-bura disease. In 1946, Leukemia began attacking the Hibakusha. The number of those who developed the disease gradually increased and reached its peak in 1953.”

Dr Hida does not provide in the source material for the public a dose barrier to treatment. ( Hida, S., “Account of a Medical Doctor Who Had to Face Innumerable Deaths of Victims
from the Exposure to A-bomb Radiation”, Medical Doctor and A
– bomb Sufferer of Hiroshima, Director, Hibakusha Counseling Center Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers’ Organizations, Undated, Japan.

In contrast, while the original cases of chronic radiation syndrome were gathered widely from the contaminated population in 1951, within a few years a review took place. Dose became very important as the Soviet scientists attempted to refine their definition of the disease syndrome. Originally, the dose above which diagnosis was permitted consisted of whatever the permissible dose level was for Mayak Plutonium and reactor workers. This occupational level varied often in the earlier years of Mayak plutonium production. (

One is called “unscientific”, the other is called “scientific”. Whereas in fact, Bura Bura disease is patient centred and CRS serves twin roles. (It’s original dose point being the same as whatever the state determined it’s radiation workers at Mayak should tolerate. An obviously self serving position imposed upon the medical researchers involved by the Soviet State. As we have seen, ICRP wants to increase this dose.)

The fact is Bura Bura disease was identified in 1945 by the Japanese doctors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is five years prior to the first Soviet diagnosis of the disease in the Soviet Union. Perhaps, from afar, the USSR took more interest in the fate of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than the history books allow. The role of the Soviet spy ring active in Japan throughout world War 2 in the Soviet effort to learn ALL the secrets of the atomic bomb is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice to say Mayak was built based upon the blueprints of Hanford. One wonders then what Soviet Health Physics actually owes to the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

The Fate of the Techa River CRS Cohort

A.V. Akleyev is a member of the Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia.

A.K. Akleyev has authored a freely available presentation which describes in useful detail the nature and characteristics of Chronic Radiation Syndrome as it is understood today. The following information is sourced from this presentation.

“First verification of 1159 CRS cases was performed in 1959‐1964. Conclusion: Residents of the Iset river basin were diagnosed with CRS without reasonable ground.

Second verification of 940 cases was performed in 1980‐1984. Conclusion: CRS diagnosis in 66 patients raised no doubts

The periods of CRS clinical course

Latent period (typically lasts for 1‐5 years)
CRS formation period. It coincided in time with the exposure at the highest dose rate. Alteration processes prevailed
Recovery period. It usually started 3‐12 months after the termination of exposure, or following a considerable decrease in dose rate. During this period repair processes start to prevail over alteration.

CRS clinical picture in the formation period
Non‐specificity of CRS symptoms
Multiple organ clinical manifestations (inhibition of hematopoiesis and immunity; neurologic disorders; impairments of cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine and other systems)
Changes of hematopoiesis and nervous system occupy leading positions in the CRS clinical picture
Dynamics of syndrome formation and recovery of post‐radiation changes is determined by organ doses (to a great extent by dose rate):

Under protracted exposure at doses exceeding the threshold for tissue reactions development in critical systems the syndrome was characterized by progressive course.
Exposure termination or significant decrease in dose rate leads to recovery of hematopoiesis, neurologic disorders and other visceral changes

Major CRS symptoms

Changes of hematopoiesis
In the peripheral blood:leukopenia, neutropenia with left‐shift in leukogram, thrombocytopenia, rarely–lymphocytopenia
In the Bone Marrow: delay in the BM granulocyte maturation at the stage of myelocyte, decrease in the activity of megakaryocytes, increase of proliferative activity, and accelerated maturation of erythrokaryocytes, increased level of aberrant neutrophilic and erythroid cells at the stage of mitosis or at interphase
Neurological disorders
Vegetative dysfunction (arterial hypotonia, bradycardia, disturbed motor and secretory functions of the digestive organs, etc.)
Asthenic syndrome (significant weakness, increased fatigability, sleep disorders,etc.)
Microorganic disorders of the nervous system (persistent nystagmus, static ordynamicataxia, muscularhypotonia, anisoreflexia of the tendon and periosteal reflexes, pathological reflexes,etc.)

CRS represents a systemic response of the body as a whole to the chronic total body exposure in man

At the initial stage, CRS can be defined as a “disregulatory” pathology which is formed on the basis of radiation‐induced disorders in the regulatory systems of man (nervous, endocrine and immuno‐hematopoietic). The changes in the cardio‐vascular, digestive, reproductive, and other systems, are of a secondary functional nature, and are reversible.

Higher doses to regulatory and visceral organs induce irreversible organic alterations (vascular disorders, dystrophy, fibrosis, BMhypoplasia,etc.),and the course of CRS may assume an irreversible character

(Federal Medical‐Biological Agency(Russia) Urals Research Centre for Radiation Medicine “Chronic Radiation Syndrome (CRS) in residents of the Techa riverside villages”, A.V. Akleyev, ConRad, 13‐16 May 2013,
Munich. http://media.bsbb.de/Conrad/AKLEYEV.pdf)


The USSR communicated the diagnosis of Chronic Radiation Syndrome within its borders via the publication of the book “Radiation sickness in man (outlines)”
Author: A K Guskova; G D Baysogolov
Publisher: Moscow : Izdatel’stvo ” Meditsina ” , 1971.
Edition/Format: Book : English
Database: WorldCat

The US government via its agency the AEC republsihed this book in 1973.

In 1989 further disclosures came from Moscow.

In 1992 Russian and American scientists held the first cooperative workshop on Chronic Radiation Syndrome.

In 1994 the following seminal text was published: “Analysis of Chronic Radiation Sickness Cases in the Population of the Southern Urals“, Prepared Under Contract By:
Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia. Nuclear Agency Contract Number: DNAOOI-92-M-0658
Cleared for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute 8901 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda. Maryland 20889-5603″ dated August 1994, United States of America.

In the above text the US government agency claims that 1989 was the first year of Soviet/Russian disclosure regarding Chronic Radiation Syndrome. The record shows that this date is incorrect and that 1971 is the correct data.

Nuclear victims everywhere have been disadvantaged by this failure to accurately disclose the existence of Chronic Radiation Syndrome.

Had the USA really wanted to study Chronic Radiation Syndrome of its own initiative, it could have done so its agencies and officers had listened to the Japanese doctors in their descriptions of what is known as Bura Bura disease. A comparison shows that CRS and Bura Bura disease are probably the same radiogenic syndrome described through the lenses of two different cultures:

“The Japanese doctors reminded the ABCC investigators that it had rained after the detonations. Dr. Ymazaki asked if the rain had been black and Dr. Odachi said he thought it was. Dr Sugihara remembered, “It was as though looking through a veil. One could gaze and clearly define the outline of the sun without
feeling the glare”. (Source: Roff, Sue, “Hotspots: The Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, Cassell, 1995, pp 111.)

On May 24, 2012, the Hiroshima Peace Media Centre reported the following:

“A team of researchers from Hiroshima University and other institutions, investigating traces of the “black rain” which fell in the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, has issued its findings. The results indicate that Cesium 137, a radioactive substance believed to be derived from the black rain, was found in soil beneath the floors of six sites, including residences in Yuki Town (Saeki Ward, Hiroshima City) and Akiota Town (Hiroshima Prefecture). These locations lie roughly nine to 22 kilometers from the bomb’s hypocenter. This is the first time that traces of black rain have been confirmed in these areas, and all were found outside of the designated zone known as the “heavy rain area.” Those within the “heavy rain area” at the time of the bombing are eligible for relief measures put in place by the central government.

The research team, which includes Masayoshi Yamamoto, a professor in radiochemistry at Kanazawa University, investigated the soil under the floors of 20 homes built between 1946 and 1948. After digging to a depth of 30 centimeters, they discovered the traces of Cesium 137 in the soil.” Source: Tomomitsu Miyazaki, Senior Staff Writer, Hiroshima Peace Media Centre. The article is available at : http://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/mediacenter/article.php?story=20120524110701783_en

Cultural exchanges of significance can only take place when two or more cultures are listening to each other.

I submit that from 1945 until 2014 the United States of America has refused to listen to the Japanese accounts of Bura Bura disease resultant from the Black Rain of 1945.

I personally believe that the United States had reason to suspect the existence of the CRS syndrome from early radio medicine performed by Stone and under E.O. Lawrence undertaken prior to 1942.

I await with dread the decision of ICRP in the matter of threshold that organisation deems fit to be the minimum dose at which Chronic Radiation Syndrome is permitted to be diagnosed. (ICRP. “Early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs: threshold doses for tissue reactions and other non-cancer effects of radiation in a radiation protection context”)

The ICRP is untrusted organisation. The victims of nuclear exploits and dictates, ordinary people around the world, are not eligible to vote on the matters before the ICRP.

The 2012 decision of the Japanese government to refuse to enlarge the area of Hiroshima determined to be “Black Rain Affected” is unjust . The decision is unjust in respect to the people who have been sickened since 1945 due to the effects of the Black Rain. The decision further disadvantages the people of Japan who must live within inadequate evacuation zones resultant from events which followed the March 2011 disaster.

The labeling of Japanese people who have reported their CRS like symptoms since the nuclear disaster of 2011 as “mentally weak” by Japanese officials is an abuse of psychiatry.

“[In 2011] the existence of data on 13,000 people compiled by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, now called the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, in the 1950s was revealed. Many of those who were interviewed reported that they had been exposed to black rain outside the currently designated area. The government’s review commission did not seem to make much effort to actively evaluate this data. 

With regard to the effects on the health of those who were exposed to the black rain, the report addressed only their fears about radiation. As for other illnesses, the report states, “No evidence can be found that there were effects on health as a result of radiation from the atomic bombing.”

 This may be taken to mean that the commission has decided that people are “worrying too much about the effects of radiation.” Can those who were drenched from head to toe by the black rain and whose health was in fact harmed accept this?
 The commission’s report will be taken into account when the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry considers whether or not to expand the provision of relief. We cannot help but be concerned that any government remedy will be limited to assistance for psychological effects only. 

The obstacle to assistance is the ministry’s policy that “a scientific and rational basis is necessary” when designating the affected area. The basis for this policy is a 1980 report prepared by the “Informal Gathering to Discuss Fundamental Problems of the Atomic Bomb Survivors.”

Making rigorous scientific evidence a condition for government assistance is itself unreasonable. Much has yet to be ascertained with regard to the harm resulting from the atomic bombing, particularly the effects of exposure to low levels of radiation and indirect exposure. Nevertheless the government may ultimately say something to the effect that there was no harm.

In the class action lawsuits over A-bomb disease certification, which it has repeatedly lost, the government has been heavily criticized on that point. The government must reflect on this when considering relief measures related to the black rain.

 The harmful effects of the black rain are not a thing of the past and in fact have something in common with the future of those in Fukushima who worry about internal exposure to radiation. The central government must make an effort to determine the facts about the effects of the atomic bombing and not bring things to a close with its examination of the results of the city’s survey.

The way things stand now, the scientific debate may be used as an excuse to delay the provision of aid. The government must not allow the review commission’s conclusion to be its sole guiding principle when determining policy but must first take a serious look at the facts regarding the black rain.” (
Editorial, Hiroshma Peace Media Centre, May 30, 2012, http://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/mediacenter/article.php?story=20120530100315794_en)

I am sorry that this post is so very long. The distortions of history
and the technical information demand a hearing. What the West knew of the nuclear disasters in the USSR and when it knew it is crucial for the cause of justice.

I do know this: The USSR seems to have attempted to alert the world to the existence of the syndrome “Chronic Radiation Sickness” in 1971. That which the USA found so very interesting and new in 1994 had in fact been resident in its archives for a very long time. If one is to believe Dr. Hilda, which, given the evidence discussed above, I do, the USA has known all these things since 1945. For what occupying army would be so blind as to refuse to study, down to the finest detail, the effects of its own, then unique, Special Weapon? Would not that nation’s enemy have been just as interested?

Who then, had been ordered to forget these things, apart from Nello Pace? What horrors will await us on the day when the industry determines that it is OK, again, for us to know? Until then, in the aftermath of every nuclear disaster of the future, the world will witness the spectacle of nuclear industry mounting its defense by abusing psychiatry and health physics as it repeatedly and most deliberately attempts to nullify witness statements by calling those victims psychotic and neurotic radio-phobes. The brain is an organ of the body which is key the regulation of the subordinate human systems.
It is subject to the same chronic inflammatory responses as the rest of the body.

It is also the seat of awareness and humanity.

These nuclear people have been very cruel in the wake of the nuclear disasters I have watched during the course of my life. I give them no quarter.

Within the next few years, the nuclear world will be free of the presence of military nuclear veterans. Known will be alive to testify to the court of world opinion. However, as our civilization struggles on without them, the number of civilian nuclear victims increases.

A cohort without borders bludgeoned with the myth of progress that by some distant tomorrow we may know all the answers and render this nuclear technology safe.

Whereas in fact, the further we travel from August 1945, the less we seem to know about the certain impacts of chronic radiation disease. As described by the Japanese doctors at the time. Everything else is revisionary.

Urals Research Center For Radiation Medicine states that A.K. Guskova G. D. Baysogolov participated in a regime of countermeasures that resulted in the “health recovery in the vast majority of people (88%) out of thousands exposed persons” resultant from the nuclear disaster which the Mayak plutonium facility created. (Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia. Federal State Research Institution. Urals Research Center For Radiation Medicine

Really? I think many people would be interested in the witness statements pertaining to that one. Especially given that A.K. Akleyev states that only 66 of the 1159 people originally diagnosed with CRS were, upon review, found to present “no doubt” as to the diagnosis. (Federal Medical‐Biological Agency(Russia) Urals Research Centre for Radiation Medicine “Chronic Radiation Syndrome (CRS) in residents of the Techa riverside villages”, A.V. Akleyev, ConRad, 13‐16 May 2013,
Munich. http://media.bsbb.de/Conrad/AKLEYEV.pdf)
Are those who were excluded upon the review of the original CRS diagnosis included in the 88% recovery rate? What were the other diseases then that were healed, by the thousands cases, due to Soviet science in the aftermath of the Mayak events? What do the witnesses and former patients say about this success rate? Why is there still such unrecovered suffering among the Chernobyl liquidators? And why do people living in the shadow of Chernobyl suffer still? Were the Soviets able to erase the long term risks from the cells in the bodies of those afflicted at Mayak? People in the former Soviet territories are not unique in their exposure to chronic radiological contamination. In particular, no American Downwinder, resident in the high fallout counties of the USA has ever been healed of their radiogenic afflictions. How have these people faired given that the USA knew of the Russian in 1971? Has there been a similar 88% healing in Nevada, Utah and Arizona?

No. The reality is the experience of ordinary people directly contradicts the claims made by nuclear authorities.

This has been true for decades.

%d bloggers like this: