On “crutches”

Experts predicted long ago that the Chornobyl disaster catastrophe would have far-reaching effects. They mostly spoke about health and other, arguably more important, psychological losses, which are the subject of discussions by sociologists and psychologists today. A group of Ukrainian and American experts, headed by the person whom Dr. Semen Gluzman, the head of the Ukrainian Association of Psychiatrists, calls the star of epidemiological science — Dr. Evelyn Bromet, a professor at the Department of Psychiatry at the State University of New York at Stony Brook — recently completed a groundbreaking 10-year study of the psychological aftereffects of the Chornobyl disaster in Ukraine. Assessing the results of their research, these experts agree on one thing: the lessons of Chornobyl have to be considered immediately, especially when it comes to granting benefits. Otherwise Ukraine will turn into a “country of benefit recipients,” and will be inhabited by parasites.

This epidemiological study does not concern the people who helped clean up Chornobyl, so the experts’ occasionally sharp and unexpected attacks on people with the status of “Chornobyl victims” are not directed against them. Dr. Bromet’s project focuses on children who were two years old when they were evacuated from Chornobyl in 1986, and their mothers. The study followed these children when they were 11 and 19 years old. Through the joint efforts of American epidemiologists and Ukrainian experts from the Kyiv-based International Institute of Sociology (KMIS), the Institute of Sociology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian Association of Psychiatrists, a representative victim group was created, with whom systematic interviews were conducted. The respondents’ health, and their psychological state and mental abilities were also the focus of the research.

“It was hard to find evacuated children in 1997; it was a big problem,” said Dr. Bromet. “But Dr. Holovakha and Dr. Paniotto managed to do this. It was even harder to conduct the research in 2005: not only was it difficult to find these children, who had grown up; it was also hard to convince them to contact us. But the KMIS did a brilliant job, so brilliantly that 85 percent of the children took part in the research. We did two things each time: we surveyed mothers and their children, and then we went to the clinic, where everyone was given a thorough medical check-up.”

In order to compare the results, the experts examined a control group of children who had not been evacuated from the exclusion zone. The results were a surprise to everyone: there was no difference between the state of health of the evacuated children and that of the control group. However, four of the evacuees had had operations to remove their thyroid glands, and four had developed cataracts. After receiving positive results, the mothers of evacuated children even insisted on a second blood test in 1997, but the results were normal the second time around. Cognitive tests showed the same picture: when the members of both test groups were asked about depression, their mental state, and alcohol use, there was no difference.

The experts were very surprised when they asked the respondents to assess their own state of health. The evacuated children, and especially their mothers, believed that their health was much worse than that of the control group. They had visited doctors more often and their children were more frequently hospitalized. In order to clarify other aspects, sociologist Natalia Panina asked them: “How did Chornobyl affect your life compared to other events in your life?” The whole control group and most of the evacuated children answered that the effect was equal to that of other events in their life. In contrast, 70 percent of mothers of evacuated children said that the evacuation was the most dramatic event in their life. Thus, in seeking to understanding the whole tragedy experienced by people who were forced to leave their homes “for three days,” Dr. Yevhen Holovakha, the deputy head of the Institute of Sociology at Ukraine’s National Academy of Science, says that such hyperconcern with one’s health is mostly linked not to objective circumstances but to the panic that the evacuated mothers felt, especially after radiation phobia became rampant in Ukrainian society.

A few years ago Holovakha’s research colleague, Oleksandr Filts, the president of the European Association of Psychotherapists, familiarized himself with the medical data stemming from the results of the study of Chornobyl victims, which Ukraine had submitted to the United Nations.

“I had all of the documentation, all the medical and psychological research,” Filts explained. “With regard to neurological and psychiatric diseases, 90 percent of the study subjects were diagnosed with cerebral- asthenic syndrome (weakness, concern with one’s health), which is not part of the international classification of psychiatric diseases. This syndrome was a product of the Soviet classification of psychiatric diseases, and there was no possibility to compare it to anything. Describing these states, we suggested ‘nosogeny,’ a term that is now entering the international classification system. It is linked to a person’s psychological reaction after being given a medical diagnosis (e.g., a serious form of diabetes). From that moment the person begins to react psychologically in a specific way. It must be underlined that many psychiatric illnesses are connected to anxiety. Thus, we classified mothers’ and teenagers’ anxiety over their health as nosogeny, a reaction to the statement that they had been affected by the Chornobyl disaster. When we were carrying out a trans-cultural analysis, my Austrian colleagues and I reached other conclusions: descriptions of anxiety and depression in Ukrainians do not correspond to descriptions given by people in Europe and the US. Therefore, when carrying out this kind of research, one must take the trans-cultural aspect into account.”

People who suffer from similar post-Chornobyl psychological disorders without noticing it (but very much noted by the stated) were offered benefits that were nothing more than moral compensation. At the same time, experts believe the introduction of lifelong compensation is a mistake because it fosters the development of “victim’s syndrome” and makes people expect something from the state. Dr. Holovakha thinks that this type of thinking may be transferred from parents to children. Even Minister of Labor and Social Policy Mykhailo Papiiev is concerned that soon it will be more advantageous in our country to have some kind of status and enjoy benefits than to work. That is why experts suggest periodically tracking what happens to people’s psyches after society experiences some kind of cataclysm.

“Control monitoring of psychological states connected with tragedies like Chornobyl, Sknyliv or the recent disaster in Ozhydiv should be carried out,” says the deputy head of the Institute of Sociology. “All departments should do this. This will permit us to assess the degree of risk and inform the population accordingly in order to prevent the outbreak of panic and chaos.”

This is the first study of the psychological repercussions of the Chornobyl disaster, but experts say it won’t be the last. They are now studying the psychological repercussions of the phosphorus accident near Ozhydiv and promise to publicize their results.