Skip to content
Call Us Today! 212-533-4646 | MON-FRI 12PM - 4PM (EST)
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Search for:
About Us
UNWLA 100
Publications
FAQ
Annual Report 2023
Annual Report 2022
Annual Report 2021
Initiatives
Advocate
Educate
Cultivate
Care
News
Newsletters
Sign Up For Our Newsletter
Join UNWLA
Become a Member
Volunteer With Us
Donate to UNWLA
Members Portal
Calendar
Shop to Support Ukraine
Search for:
Print
Print Page
Download
Download Page
Download Right Page
Open
1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
30-31
32-33
34-35
36-37
38-39
40
But this fear-based response of withholding information is often the beginning of a catastrophe. It is a classical example of paranoia, which can be characterized by three main elements: denial, pro jection, and reaction-formation. The official re sponses to the Chomobyl explosion and to SARS demonstrate denial. Projection, blaming others, was a secondary response. Reaction-formation, in each case, was the response to perceived loss of control and power. Paranoia also increases suspicion of one’s neighbors, for individuals and nations alike. In such a climate, no one can be trusted and valuable information is kept secret and unavailable for scientific inquiry and research. A specific example of this is the lack of cooperation among researchers who refused to share tissue samples from Chomobyl victims with other researchers. Moreover, both individuals and groups are guilty of perpetuating this paranoid climate by creating communities of like-minded people with shared perceptions of a given “reality”— often self-serving. A striking example of this phenomenon is the film Chernobyl Heart, which promotes misinformation for the sake of publicity and economic gain by suggesting that radiation causes severe retardation, defective hearts, and alcohol syndrome. The importance of perception cannot be overstated. Perceptions are governed by the level of accuracy in information that is made available. Actions flow from perceptions. Verifiable infor mation comes from asking key questions. If the questions themselves are based on misinformation, the answers will yield nothing valuable. Further more, scientific studies on issues of concern must be broad and comprehensive. Rigorous studies focusing on only one slice of a catastrophe often lead to the public perception that other elements of the tragedy are insignificant. For all these reasons, it is particularly important that Ukraine’s current (and future) leaders review scientifically based research and findings and be fully apprised of what is true. Moreover, these leaders must recognize that even the ap pearance of a conflict of interest undermines trust and may encourage or magnify fear of authority and skepticism about the benefits of independence. The challenges of making reality-based decisions are daunting in a climate of fear. Yet the integration of a realistic assessment of a given situation, based on scientific findings and perspective, can balance fear and increase transparency, communication, and political cooperation. An essential component of realistic assessment is the reduction of corruption, which is often enabled and fostered in a climate of fear. With the intent of providing accurate information on the short and long term effects of radiation, many scientific studies have been and are conducted by IAEA, Nagasaki Radiation Institute, the US National Cancer Institute Tri-National Chor nobyl Thyroid Research Projects, and other centers interested in reliable and rigorously validated results that can add to the composite knowledge of the effect of exposure to various doses of radiation. It is these studies that need to be promoted and brought to the attention of not only the scientific community but also the general public. Both will benefit from the resulting awareness and knowledge and thus be empowered to make informed decisions about safeguarding health. Those in governments, industries, and or ganizations have an ethical obligation to inform, to be informed, and to lead from a base of accurate knowledge. Without this, the opportunity to miti gate the most severe, enduring effects of disasters, such as Chornobyl, can cause untold—and unnec essary—long-term devastation. Over the last two decades, Our Life has published numerous articles, poems, and reports dealing with the Chomobyl nuclear disaster. For commemorative poetry, see Iryna Zhylenko’s “In the Country House” (April 2004) and Natalie Mason Gawdiak’s “M. Gorbachev Speaks” (April 1996). For a chilling fictional account of Chornobyl’s legacy, see “The Midwife” (April 1998) by Ania Savage; for a sobering look at the political cover-up preceding the explosion, see Martha T. Pelensky’s account of Iurij Andropov’s top secret memo about construction flaws at the Chomobyl nuclear plant (April 2000). For a more sanguine perspective, see Chrystia Sonevytsky’s “Chomobyl: Seeds of Hope” (April 1997).
Page load link
Go to Top
1 
2-3 
4-5 
6-7 
8-9 
10-11 
12-13 
14-15 
16-17 
18-19 
20-21 
22-23 
24-25 
26-27 
28-29 
30-31 
32-33 
34-35 
36-37 
38-39 
40 
