International Chernobyl Research and Information Network

Analysis information needs of the population affected by the Chornobyl

disaster Research in Ukraine

2004

10/1/2004 DRAFT

2

Content

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 MULTI STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IN UKRAINE...................................................................... 9 INFORMATION SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE SHADOW OF THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT..........9 SURVEY PLAN AND METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................10

The UN Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme...........................................................................10 Focus groups .........................................................................................................................................................12 Sociological survey................................................................................................................................................13

MAIN RESULTS......................................................................................................................... 16 FOCUS GROUP RESULTS............................................................................................................................16

Participant Attitudes Toward the Research.......................................................................................................16 Views on the Ecological Situation in the Region ................................................................................................16 Personal Perceptions of Chornobyl’s Consequences .........................................................................................19 Evaluation of Chornobyl’s Impact on Health ....................................................................................................21 Evaluation of Available Information on Chornobyl..........................................................................................22 Quality of public information sources and the trustworthiness of the media .................................................24 Information Needs on Radiation Safety..............................................................................................................24

SOCIOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................25 RESULTS OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NEEDS OF THE TARGETED GROUPS AT ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS ..............................................................................................................................................39

Information Needs of Physicians.........................................................................................................................39 Information Needs of Teachers ...........................................................................................................................40 Information Needs of Youth ................................................................................................................................42

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 44 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS BASED ON RESULTS OF PERFORMED SURVEYS.................................................44 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................45 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................. 53 ANNEX 1 NATIONAL ICRIN COMMITTEE IN UKRAINE .........................................................................53 ANNEX 2 CENTERS FOR SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION......................................................54 ANNEX 3 LIST OF QUESTIONS ON THE ISSUES RELATED TO CHORNOBYL CATASTROPHE FREQUENTLY ASKED BY THE POPULATION IN THE AFFECTED TERRITORIES ........................................55 ANNEX 4 FOCUS GROUP SESSION GUIDE ................................................................................................58 ANNEX 5 QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN A SOCIOLOGICAL SURVEY .............................................................61

10/1/2004 DRAFT

3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Русский English

МИИСЧ Международная исследовательская и информационная сеть по Чернобылю

ICRIN International Chornobyl Research and Information Network

МЧС Министерство Украины по вопросам чрезвычайных и ситуаций и по делам защиты населения от последствий Чернобыльской катастрофы

MoE Ministry of Emergencies and Affairs of Population Protection form the Consequences of Chornobyl Catastrophe

ПВЗС процесс с вовлечением всех заинтересованных сторон

MSP Multi-stakeholder Process

ПРООН Программа развития Организации объединенных наций

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

ЦСПР центр социально-психологической реабилитации

CSPR Center for socio-psychological rehabilitation

ЧПРВ

Чернобыльская программа возрождения и развития

CRDP Chornobyl Recovery Development Programme

10/1/2004 DRAFT

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report assesses information needs of affected populations in the aftermath of the Chornobyl NPP disaster. The research was conducted within the framework of the “Multi Stakeholder Process in Ukraine" initiated by International Chornobyl Research and Information Network (ICRIN). Following the recommendations of the UN report, “The Human Consequences of the Chornobyl Nuclear Accident. A Strategy for Recovery” the International Research and Information Network on Chornobyl was set up in 2003. The report is the current foundation for the UN strategy on the aftermath of the Chornobyl disaster. The strategy is long-term; based on the transition from a system of providing humanitarian aid to a system of recovery and development of the affected population and territories.

ICRIN’s task is to provide support to international, national and public programs targeted at sustainable development of territories that suffered as the result of the Chornobyl NPP disaster. This task is ensured through collection, consolidation and coordination of available scientific materials, implementation of new scientific research, and dissemination of the respective information on new scientific findings and discoveries. These findings should be accounted for in decision-making related to humanitarian, environmental, economic, social and medical aspects of the disaster aftermath.

One of the primary tasks of ICRIN is to study the information needs of the affected population through a dialogue with all the stakeholders in the society. This has been coined "the multi-stakeholders process".

The multi-stakeholders process serves the purpose of defining information needs of the population affected by the Chornobyl disaster, as well as of the stakeholders interested in development and recovery of the affected areas.

Using the findings, ICRIN plans to define the gap in scientific data as well as shortcomings in the process of information delivery for the purpose of bridging the above gaps.

As a result of conducted research the following results were received:

1. Populations affected by the Chornobyl NNP accident do not get clear information related to Chornobyl disaster impact on their health and the natural environment. This used to be and remains one of the key reasons for social and psychological tension. Consequently, it hampers the process of recovery and development of the affected areas.

2. It has been established that the population is extremely ill-informed on the practical aspects of radiological consequences of Chornobyl. Accessible official information is not delivered on a regular basis and in a format that is fully comprehensible for rank and file citizens.

Prominent needs identified within the affected communities are as follows:

• constructive information on various aspects of Chornobyl aftermath (radiological, medical, environmental, social and economic) should be systematically and widely disseminated among population;

• information that will help people make rational, well-informed decisions regarding life choices;

• practical information on the radiological consequences of Chornobyl: the level of contamination of arable land, water, forests and foodstuff. This information should be available to every community member; everyone should know the real contamination level of foodstuffs, what pastureland to use for grazing to procure clean milk, and what land is safe for planting.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

5

• information on means to reduce environmental contamination, as well as of agricultural products people produce and consume.

3. All the above emphasize the necessity to more widely and regularly disseminate information on current radiological and environmental conditions in contaminated areas to minimize the radiation risk.

4. Radiation impact on health continues to be the largest concern both in those cases when people were exposed to radiation immediately after the accident, and in the case of living in the contaminated regions. Parents are especially concerned with the health and future of their children. Thus, people should have a clear understanding of real risks related to radiation exposure, residence in the contaminated areas, consumption of contaminated food, etc.

5. Contaminated areas are predominantly agricultural regions. Currently there is no system of information support on existing risks and safe behavior. Local administration, specialists and the general public are deprived of detailed information on current radiological and environmental conditions as well as on public health in affected regions. Overcoming this problem presents one of the most critical issues for social recovery of the population living in the contaminated areas. Thus, lack of valid radiological and environmental information, as well as a poor informational delivery infrastructure constitute serious social problems.

6. Lack of attention on behalf of local representative authorities to the problems of general access to information and the existing mistrust to mass media significantly aggravates the efficiency of current information access in Chornobyl territories.

7. Concern regarding the status quo remains among Chornobyl-affected populations. In this case administrative, medical, and pedagogical professions, as well as local mass media make-up the most meaningful elements of regional social infrastructure. They are responsible for the required information as well as for developing practical skills people need in their every day life. It is necessary to support representatives of these target groups to more actively assert their authority and social status in local communities and overcome the information deficit in the region. However, it is necessary to realize that this can only be done with their incorporation into a general integrated information system.

8. Surveys have yielded the following results: an accurate list of information needs and questions from the affected population with an accent on the priorities of key stakeholders; information delivery options for various population groups were proposed, and approaches were grounded to establish a permanent, effective information system for the population on issues related to the aftermath of the Chornobyl accident.

It is necessary to set up an on-going operation to prepare and disseminate information materials to resolve the issues of delivering information on Chornobyl accident issues to the general public.

Such an operation should have the following components:

a) Continual information dissemination system:

• regular dissemination of information; • capacity to assess the current information needs and satisfy them; • capacity to adequately react to events requiring immediate information intervention

(forest fires, floods, etc.).

b) Adequate information sources and materials:

• to get the most detailed and reliable information on various aspects of the Chornobyl accident aftermath; to network all possible national institutions and organizations that participate in scientific research (monitoring) on Chornobyl topics.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

6

• to review and prepare materials based on data supplied by scientific publications, reports and monitoring data in a comprehensible manner taking into account the structure of the population and its information needs;

• to provide feedback to network participants as needed through additional research;

c) Trustworthy channels of information dissemination:

• information dissemination through the representatives of those social groups (target groups) that evoke more trust in the population (teachers, medical professionals, local administration, mass media, etc.)

d) Differentiation in approach to information delivery:

• preparation of information materials on the basis of specific information needs and appropriate information materials format as defined by target groups/channels for information dissemination.

• satisfaction of specific information needs of various groups in the affected population: clean-up workers, resettlers, residents in the contaminated areas, etc.;

• meeting the specific information needs of residents in territories with various level of radioactive contamination. Priority should be attached to information encouraging recovery and development in those areas with currently less significant radiation risk.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

7

INTRODUCTION

The Chornobyl disaster altered basic sustainable development indicators over a huge territory. Mass resettlement of people, termination of industrial and agricultural activities, limitations on natural resource use, new environmental risk factors for millions of people, enormous economic losses, change in the traditional lifestyles of the population, and the threat of losing cultural heritage created a new environmental, social and economic situation in the affected territories of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

The aftermath of the Chornobyl disaster is not limited to radiological impacts. In addition to radioactive contamination of the natural environment and human health effects, the Chornobyl disaster resulted in significant social and economic consequences. Social effects in the society caused the implementation of a range of prohibiting and limiting measures.

Social and psychological Chornobyl factors stemming from the immediate disaster aftermath and initiated

counter-measures demonstrate the most significant, sustainable and long-term consequences for human beings. Their impact on the population was reinforced multifold by inadequate information on realities of the disaster aftermath and possible protection measures throughout the post-disaster period, especially in the initial post-disaster years.

Recommendations of the UN report "The Human Consequences of the Chornobyl Nuclear Accident. A Strategy for Recovery" have clearly pointed to the link between the immediate disaster aftermath resulting from radioactive contamination of territories and its indirect economic, social and environmental consequences. This report published in February 2002 provides the set of specific recommendations and forms the foundation for the current UN strategy on the Chornobyl disaster aftermath.

One of the report recommendations emphasizes in-depth scientific research specifically addressing the environmental and human health issues to meet the specific needs of the affected population. This recommendation set the stage for establishing a network to collect and disseminate authoritative information on scientific findings directly related to Chornobyl NPP accident to satisfy the information needs of the affected population. In addition, the operation of this type of network could allow decision-makers and other stakeholders to make informed decisions.

At the preliminary meeting held on December 16, 2002 in Geneva, the Preparatory Expert Committee was entrusted to formulate the concept for establishing the Chornobyl International Research and Information Network (ICRIN). The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation developed the concept. On May 7, 2003 "ICRIN Implementation Plan" was submitted for consideration and approved by the UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Chornobyl in New York.

ICRIN’s task is to provide support to international, national and public programs targeted at the sustainable development of territories that suffered as a result of the Chornobyl NPP disaster. This task is ensured through the collection, consolidation and coordination of available scientific

View on Sarcophagus (Chornobyl NPP)

10/1/2004 DRAFT

8

materials; implementation of new scientific research and dissemination of respective information on new scientific findings and discoveries. These findings should be taken into account for during decision-making related to humanitarian, environmental, economic, social and medical issues related to the disaster aftermath.

One of the primary ICRIN tasks is to study information needs of the affected population through a dialogue with all the stakeholders in the society. This has been named "the multi-stakeholders participatory process".

This process began in 2003 in three countries most-affected by Chornobyl accident -Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

The multi stakeholders process provides for defining information needs of populations affected by the Chornobyl accident, as well as those parties interested in development and recovery of the affected areas.

ICRIN plans to use the multi-stakeholders participatory process results and trace missing scientific data and bottlenecks in the information delivery process for the purpose of taking actions along these lines. The process is planned to result in an

accurate and representative list of the affected population’s information needs and issues.

The multi-stakeholders process is being coordinated by UNDP Country Offices in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus through the establishment of National ICRIN Committees and is guided by ICRIN Steering Group.

This report presents findings of the survey carried out in the framework of the multi-stakeholders participatory process in Ukraine.

Working group meeting on ICIRN implementation, Geneva (December, 2003).

10/1/2004 DRAFT

9

MULTI STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IN UKRAINE

Information Support for Communities in the Shadow of the Chornobyl Accident

As a consequence of the Chornobyl NPP disaster, social and psychological problems have been surveyed in Ukraine. This issue yielded a variety of scientific publications by V. P. Ferents, Yu. I. Sayenko and V. A. Prylypko. The Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences in conjunction with the Ministry of Emergencies is engaged in special social monitoring of the post-Chornobyl situation. The entirety of scientific research conducted has been performed by the Scientific Center of Radiation Medicine of the Academy of Medical Science of Ukraine.

Social and psychological tension as a result of the lack of informational support in the community was one of the priority research directions regarding the social and psychological aftereffects of the Chornobyl accident.

On the whole, researchers concluded that the level of knowledge amongst the population on issues related to the aftermath of the Chornobyl accident, as well as on necessary protection measures had been and continues to be very low. This considerably effects the way the population perceives possible radiation risk, as well as applications of protection measures. It was also noted that mass media has failed to adequately inform the public. The need to develop and implement information technologies in the domain of education and training was mentioned among basic survey recommendations. Presently, data on the status of information needs of the affected population is practically unavailable.

Recommendations of the UN report "The Human Consequences of the Chornobyl Nuclear Accident. A Strategy for Recovery" made special emphasis on the topicality of the issue related to providing versatile information on accident consequences, as well as on ways to overcome problems experienced by the population affected by the Chornobyl accident.

The report particularly points out as follows:

"As far as the psychological dimension of health is concerned, two things are urgently needed. First, it is vital that those affected, and the population at large, be given clear advice on what, on the basis of the best evidence, are believed to be the real risks associated with the kinds of exposure to radiation that resulted from the Chornobyl accident. It is essential that this advice is honest and that areas of doubt are fully acknowledged. Where appropriate, political leaders should be encouraged to add their weight to the effort to encourage a more realistic and balanced attitude to the question of radiation and health in the affected countries. The second thing that is needed is a mechanism to provide authoritative opinions on these issues to ensure that properly designed and impartial research is carried out".

Thus, there is a pressing task to study the existing information needs of the population affected by the Chornobyl accident and to justify an effective information strategy. Success in coping with this task will predetermine the success of programs targeted at development and recovery of the affected regions.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

10

Survey plan and methodology

The UN Chornobyl Recovery and Development Programme

Operations of Chornobyl Recovery and Development Program were commenced jointly by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Ministry of Ukraine on Emergencies and Protection of Population from Chornobyl Accident Consequences in September 2002.

The UNDP Chornobyl Recovery and Development Program builds its activities on experience gained in the previous UN programs related to Chornobyl disaster initiated in Ukraine in 1993

The goal of Chornobyl Recovery and Development Program is to support the Government of Ukraine in overcoming Chornobyl disaster aftermath through activities targeted at implementation of recommendations of the UN Report "The Human Consequences of the Chornobyl Nuclear Accident. A Strategy for Recovery". These activities work towards strengthening government capacity to implement National Chornobyl Programs as well as operate at grass root levels to build the capacity of local population and make them an active part of development process.

The UNDP Chornobyl Recovery and Development Program operates along three major lines:

• Strategic planning for development – involves support for formulation and implementation of new approaches to resolve problems concerning the aftermaths of Chornobyl disaster; promotion of institutional and legal changes ensuring sustainable

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Deputies visit to the affected

territories

Discussion on the project implementation

10/1/2004 DRAFT

11

development of the affected regions and safe living in territories with radioactive contamination alongside provision of information to the affected population.

• Community self-organization and development in the affected areas lends support to communities in developing their organization and self-government; building their capacity to implement their own priority projects, targeted at social, environmental and economic rehabilitation and development.

• Evolvement of the institutional support system - covers further expansion of institutional capabilities and raising capacity of organizations and agencies that should render such a support to social, environmental and economic development, programs of communities in the affected areas.

Taking into account experience and capacity accumulated by the UNDP Chornobyl Recovery and Development Program in Ukraine, top management of the UN Country Team in Ukraine decided to study information needs of the affected population prior to the final approval of ICRIN.

Program presentation in

Zhytomir oblast

Therefore the following was accounted for:

• CRDP Advisory Board may serve as the foundation for establishing the National ICRIN Committee (see: Annex 1 - Composition of the National ICRIN Committee in Ukraine;

• Major stakeholders were already defined in the framework of previous program operation;

• In the framework of the international "Chornobyl-UNESCO" project the ministry of Emergencies established a network of Social Psychological Rehabilitation and Information Centres, to deal with Chornobyl nuclear accident aftermath. This network had sufficient capacity, including qualified personnel to carry out this type of a survey (see: Annex 2. – Social Psychological Rehabilitation and Information Centres in a Nutshell).

The first stage in implementing the multi-stakeholder participatory process in Ukraine was marked with an information needs analysis of the population in Ukraine that was affected by the aftermath of the Chornobyl accident

10/1/2004 DRAFT

12

The survey was carried out from March to May 2003 and covered territories with various contamination levels – Borodyansky, Kievo-Svyatoshynsky and Ivankiv rayon of Kyiv oblast as well as Korosten rayon of Zhytomyr oblast and the town of Slavutych were covered

Survey methodology included both focus groups and the sociological survey.

The survey results were presented at:

• the foundation ceremony of ICRIN in Geneva in June 2003; • to National ICRIN Committee in Ukraine; to the representatives of key stakeholders,

partners and donors of the Program.

These survey results acted as the basis for planning further activities for developing the framework for the “multi-stakeholder participatory process” in Ukraine.

The following “multi-stakeholder participatory process” activities were included:

• meeting clear specific information needs and adopting the most appropriate forms to disseminate information through target groups (physicians, teachers, administration and youth);

• Formulating an appropriate approach to present information in order to satisfy specific information needs of various groups in the affected population.

Focus groups

Focus group surveys were carried out involving Socio-Psychological Rehabilitation and Information Centers in Korosten (Zhytomyr oblast), Slavutych, Boyarka, Ivankiv and Borodyanka (Kyiv oblast). Survey sample based on Korosten, Slavutych and Boyarka Centers was made by 2 focus groups sampled in the town and 2 focus groups sampled in rayon. Ivankiv and Borodyanka Centers carried out each 2 focus groups sampled in rayon.

All in all there were 20 focus groups carried out involving participation of 190 individuals. Among the participants there were:

• representatives of municipal and rayon administrations and – 22 individuals; • medical professionals – 23

individuals; • representatives of education

system – 23 individuals; • leaders of enterprises (various

property types) – 19 individuals;

• mass media representatives – 27 individuals;

• representatives of public interest groups – 18 individuals;

• villagers and townspeople – 58 individuals.

Focus group discussion

10/1/2004 DRAFT

13

The following topics were proposed for discussion:

• assessment of environmental condition in the area of residence. • Personal perceptions of Chornobyl aftermath. • Assessment of accident impact on human health • Information process assessment:

− knowledge on the degree of contamination by radionuclides in the region as well as on doze control measures.

− tools on application of means to reduce radioactive contamination of the environment and foodstuff.

− tools on application of means to reduce or prevent radiation hazardous effect on human body

• Sources delivering information and trustworthy information sources. • Information needs on radiation safety. • Knowledge on population social protection forms and programs • Information dissemination channels and techniques. • Defining tentative contents and information sources for the purpose of mandatory

dissemination.

Sociological survey

In addition to focus groups a sociological survey was part of the study. The major task of this survey was to define the basic social and psychological characteristics related to Chornobyl catastrophe, as well as information needs in key population groups.

The following were the major tasks of this survey:

1. Define information needs in key population groups;

2. Develop tools to define the optimal forms, techniques and ways to inform population.

Sociological survey process

10/1/2004 DRAFT

14

Three expert groups were singled out as those with the highest capacity to carry reliable information on the issues of lifestyle change in the conditions of increased radiation contamination as the result of Chornobyl accident.

These expert groups consist of:

• officers of local (municipal and rayon) administration as carriers of the most ample and accurate information on the real situation in the region – 10 individuals;

• medical professionals, primarily general practitioners, as carriers of the most ample and accurate information on the real impact of radioactive contamination on public health – 40 individuals;

• education professionals, primarily teachers, as individuals having influence on young generation and enjoying trust and authority among significant part of the region's population – 30 individuals*.

Of the above individuals 75% were women and 25% were men with higher and special secondary education, 40 years being the average age.

Analysis of 2003 focus groups and sociological survey results has allowed for finding out in general term the basic existing information needs of the affected population of Ukraine on the consequences of Chornobyl NPP accident.

At the same time survey results brought into light the capacity of local medical professionals, secondary school teachers and administration to serve as channels for dissemination of necessary information. These social groups enjoy the respective authority and social status within the affected communities.

However, for the purpose of their active involvement in the process of disseminating information, it was necessary to find out specific questions that people frequently ask them as well as defining most appropriate forms of presenting information to each of the mentioned groups.

Fulfillment of this task involved conducting the set of round table discussions with the representatives of medical profession, education professionals and school youth residing in the territories contaminated by radioactivity as the result of the Chornobyl NPP accident.

Round table discussions were organized at Social Psychological Rehabilitation and Information Centres in the town of Korosten (with physicians and teachers) and in the town of Boyarka (with physicians of oblast hospital and school students from radioactively contaminated areas in Kyiv oblast). Thus, it stipulated for studying the needs in more contaminated areas (the town of Korosten) as well as in the safer territories (the town of Boyarka).

The following questions were presented to physicians and teachers in a round table framework:

1. Do you face the necessity to explain citizens the issues of ionizing radiation sources in human life and radiation effect on human health and the environment; the probability of link between pathologies and Chornobyl accident aftermath for human health; the possibility to undertake measures targeted at preventing radiation negative effects?

2. If you do have to provide explanations, what information sources do you use?

3. Are you satisfied with these information sources?

4. If you are not satisfied, what in particular prevents your being satisfied?.

5. What specific kind of information materials do you need?

* Quota sampling was used to determine the number of participants.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

15

6. What issues, to your mind, are the most complicated ones to be explained? What are the most frequently asked questions (by patients, school students and their parents)?

The following issues were discussed with secondary school students in the round table framework:

1. Are the issues of ionizing radiation sources in human life and radiation effect of chornobyl accident on human health and the environment as well as the possibility to undertake measures targeted at preventing radiation negative effects of any interest to you and your parents?

2. Would you like to get additional information on issues related to chornobyl accident?

3. What forms of information materials do you need?

4. What questions in particular may require the first turn answers?

The survey findings made foundation for justifying approaches to information provision to satisfy information needs of the population affected by Chornobyl accident.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

16

MAIN RESULTS

Focus Group Results

Participant Attitudes Toward the Research

Research efforts met a positive public response in all regions. People were eager to attend group discussions and, in fact, the organizers had to turn away many volunteers after sampling numbers were satisfied. The district administration representatives were the only exception – while appearing to be supportive of the research, they repeatedly tried to avoid personal participation in the discussions.

One should also note the changeable attitude of the population to the research. On one hand, virtually all the participants expressed their doubts about the possibility to influence current realities and effect change for the better. On the other, through this research people saw at least some opportunity to openly voice their opinions. They expressed hope that their views and opinions would be heard by both national leaders by international organizations.

After the closure of discussions, practically all participants expressed thanks for the opportunity to participate. Many expressed a strong interest to take part in further

practical work geared towards the creation of an effective system of public information about local conditions in Chornobyl-affected areas.

Views on the Ecological Situation in the Region

Since Chornobyl, evaluations of ecological conditions in affected areas have been standard events for local people. Whereas before the accident environmental issues were practically ignored by the mass media, today ecological conditions are focus issues. However, until now the nature and level of popular understanding of environmental issues has not been widely studied. As a result, focus group analysis revealed a number of significant peculiarities within peoples’ ideas regarding the ecological situation in the region.

First, focus group participants saw the ecological situation in their region as a serious and widespread problem. It was described as “unsatisfactory”, “critical” and “very dangerous.” Residents of Slavutych were the only exception. They evaluated the ecological situation as “quite safe.” At the same time, even Slavutych residents acknowledged that an acute problem exists in adjacent territories. Below are typical comments and observations of Slavutych city residents:

• The ecological situation in Slavutych is at a proper, satisfactory and fully safe level; • It does not differ from the average situation in Ukraine; • City authorities apply a great deal of effort to maintain a normal ecological situation

(garbage collection etc.); • Recently a group of the city specialists was awarded the State Prize of Ukraine for their

decontamination efforts in the city;

Focus group discussion

10/1/2004 DRAFT

17

• The contamination of adjacent territories is not beyond acceptable levels, though ordinary citizens do not receive sufficient information on isolated areas of significant contamination; they are deprived of instruments for measuring radiation levels;

• The situation in Kyiv is much worse. Second, participant comments indicated that over the long-term there was a lack of awareness regarding the quality of ecological conditions in the region. They noted that:

• Everybody speaks about ecology, but almost no one knows exactly what it is; • Nobody knows the real ecological situation, because no one is seriously engaged in the

study of the problem.

In the course of discussions participants were asked what ecological factors were most critical and how they are manifested. The list of ecological factors provided in response demonstrated a meaningful level of ecological consciousness. However, it was significant that all the participants mentioned only those factors that adversely impact the way of life and health of people.

Radiological contamination was first place among negative environmental factors named. This issue elicited a variety of concrete examples connected with the long-term impact of low irradiation doses and the radiological contamination of soil, water and forests. Typical comments and observations of respondents were as follows:

• Soil is most contaminated, then comes water; • Soil has been affected the most, therefore – anything that grows on it is affected as

well; • One can build the following contamination sequence scale: soil, water, meat, milk,

berries, mushrooms; • In the village we continue to heat our houses using wood from the same radioactive

forest; • During agricultural work, when we dig up contaminated layers of the soil, we are

inhaling the contaminated dust. Secondly, it should be noted that radiation is not the only factor mentioned by respondents, sometimes, not even the principal one. All other ecological problems mentioned by respondents may be split into two general groups: adverse ecological factors and environmental contamination. Interestingly, all respondents that mentioned natural processes emphasized that these processes are the direct consequence of man’s irrational attitude toward nature and the result of the economy’s harmful impact on the natural environment. These adverse ecological factors may be summarized as follows:

• loss of the ozone layer “additional impact and higher degree of sun radiation;” • “reckless felling of forests;” • disappearance of small ponds; • general worsening of the quality of water (“When we gave the sample of water for

analysis, they asked us: “From what puddle did you take this water?”) and “bad rains” (the respondents meant acid rains, not knowing the exact term for this phenomenon);

• fires on peat bogs; • appearance of mutants both among animals and plants.

Among factors contributing to the direct contamination of the environment, respondents mentioned the following:

Local pollution stemming from household waste.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

18

Typical comments and observations were:

• It’s garbage that matters. There is no place to bury it; • The garbage pits in the city are sizeable; • Boyarka has become a dirty city; • The first thing that occurred to me – garbage and pollution; • We have a dreadful dump behind the hospital. Everything is dirty; there is no place to

take a walk.

Absence or malfunction of sewage and water purifying systems.

Typical comments and observations were:

• Bacterial contamination exceeds the acceptable rate by 9 times. Even the natural spring is polluted;

• The sewage system is a constant headache, we are so desperate about it; • Sewage waters pollute everything – drinking water, lakes and woods.

Motor transport and services infrastructure.

Typical comments and observations were:

• The main adverse factor – cars and trucks, Thank God there are not too many of them in our area;

• The Kyiv – Kovel highway crosses our village, and we are unable to breathe. In addition, the trucks transport many poisonous materials and substances;

• The gas station in the center of the city has polluted the air and the groundwater.

Pollution of adjacent territories (forests, banks of rivers and lakes).

Typical comments and observations were:

• In the suburbs, the woods are polluted by the people who come to have picnics or relax; • People behave like tourists, they throw around garbage in neighboring territories; • All wastes are buried in the woods; • Construction firms load debris on trucks and unload them in the woods, contributing to

the pollution; • Every place where people come to relax or picnic is now full of garbage and other crap.

Third, it is necessary to point out that in discussing the environmental situation, focus groups mentioned the issue of their own responsibility for affecting the environmental situation and their ideas for its improvement. The participants expressed rather different opinions on these issues.

• Representatives of administrations place the entire liability on governmental bodies, that “do not provide the required and sufficient funding” and on a population that “follows no rules.”

Focus group discussion

10/1/2004 DRAFT

19

• Medical workers held the state that “does not finance even the required scarce means for treatment and prevention of disease” responsible as well as the population which “does not know and does not comply even with elementary rules of personal safety and healthy way of life.”

• Teachers and the majority of other professionals blamed administrations, that “undertake almost nothing.”

• Business representatives and entrepreneurs said that “without significant funding nothing can be changed.”

Only a small minority of those asked accepted personal responsibility for environmental problems. Ranking high among them were young people who stated that “unless we undertake necessary steps ourselves, there will be no change.” At the same time, participants were unanimous on three issues:

• The ecological situation will continue to worsen and urgent measures need to be undertaken to stabilize it;

• Consistent, regular and authentic information should be available on all ecological issues;

• It is necessary to educate the community on ecological issues and responsible behaviour.

Personal Perceptions of Chornobyl’s Consequences

Chornobyl was a primary concern among all participants when commenting on the environmental situation in the region. It was clear that the accident’s environmental consequences remain among the principal factors influencing their lives. Discussing Chornobyl caused very strong negative emotions and agitation in practically all the respondents. Participant comments pertaining to Chornobyl may be divided into several groups.

Tendency to Generalize

Various participants made universal statements about Chornobyl, proclaiming a certain truth “for everybody.” This group discussed the accident with reference to moral and humanist language, stating that it carries a “lesson for everybody.” They also pointed fingers at guilty parties responsible for Chornobyl, irrespective of substantiation and reasonableness. This group largely expressed an absolute distrust toward the mass media and to established information sources. They are certain that people were misled in 1986, and continue to be misled today. General comments and assumptions vis-à-vis Chornobyl’s causes and effects were as follows:

• This is not only a man-made catastrophe, it’s a catastrophe of ethics; • Chornobyl is a forewarning to mankind; • Chornobyl is the result of the irresponsibility of public servants; • Ukraine was “set-up” by somebody who wants to destroy the country; • We are being systematically destroyed, we will die out; • Radiation is deadly for the mind – optimists become pessimists, people became anxious

and agitated; • In the past, people grew old in age, today men look young and healthy externally, but

inside they are full of maladies.

Self-centered perceptions

This group included participants whose statements were referring only to their own personal memories and feelings about their experience today. A specific feature of this group was an extreme concentration on negative emotions that were manifested in fears expressed openly and

10/1/2004 DRAFT

20

defensive reactions. All persons in this group had very vivid memories of the first days (in some cases – up to several months) following the catastrophe. When the moderator started discussing the current situation and their attitude with regard to the consequences of the accident, this category of respondents expressed the most negative emotional response. Participants in this group made emotionally-filled statements directly connected with their personal experiences:

• For me Chornobyl is a constant feeling of constraint, a lack of freedom; • The prevailing feeling is helplessness; • There is a feeling of impotence; • A feeling of defenselessness; • It made a scary impact upon my life; • Constant fear and expectation of disease and death; • Even if I catch a cold, I am afraid to go to the doctor – what if he finds something

dreadful?

It is important to note that various phobias, especially the fear of disease, live not only in the minds of individuals, but are also projected onto relatives, close friends and, especially, children. The relationship between Chornobyl and illness rates will be discussed later, however is it important to note that responses by this group highlighted an extreme pessimism and a certainty that is impossible to resist illness. The following statements are very typical in this respect:

• I live in permanent anxiety about my life – we have a very high death rate; • I am afraid of doctors and diagnoses; • Our kids fall ill regularly and nothing can be done about that; • We should provide good living conditions and medical treatment at least for our

children, but there is no money, there is no money to buy vitamins, either.

Another specific feature of this group is a high level of aggressiveness. The object of aggression is not defined, but becomes evident especially when any actions are perceived to be an infringement on “affected persons.” For example, aggressive statements were aimed at:

• People’s deputies who “ceased to protect our interests;” • The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine which “wants to deprive us of the last crumbs of

assistance and benefits we are living on;” • Administrations which “do not want to do anything to make our lives easier, and we are

all going to die anyway;” • Public servants who “falsified the certificates of Chornobyl liquidators, of people who

have never visited the zone, while we have to give bribes to extend the term of validity of our certificates,” “our district officials are all listed as liquidators even though they don’t even know where Chornobyl is situated;”

• The mass media who “conceal the true information,” “publish only scandals and gossip,” “publish only information the frightens and does not allow people to live in peace,” etc.

Generally, this category of respondents is characterized by a clear mistrust and fear of information. They constantly repeat “people’s wisdom” – “the less you know, the better you sleep” and recall an old anecdote: “you are sick of radiation and I am sick of information…”

Rational Acceptance

This category includes all statements where respondents attempted to rationalize the current situation and build explanations for models of behaviour. These respondents have accepted the situation as inevitable, but not as hopeless. The following statements are rather typical in this respect:

10/1/2004 DRAFT

21

• Previously we could go away somewhere, but now there is no place to go, and no reason to leave – we have to live here;

• We have gotten used to this, and if you take care of yourself – you are more or less OK; • One should not be preoccupied with radiation – besides, there is no way to recover

what we had before; • My husband is a pessimist, and I, on the contrary, try to be optimistic, this way we

establish a normal microclimate in the family; • It happened and we have to accept it – we have to live on.

One of the most important components of this type of attitude is the change within it with regard to personal health and way of life on the whole. The following statements were typical:

• After the Chornobyl accident I started to live a very healthy lifestyle; • I have become a model of health and converted my family members into fans of this

healthy lifestyle; • I save money during

the whole year to go to a resort with my family to improve our health conditions;

• Although we hardly make ends meet, our family tries to consume clean food products and we almost never fall ill;

• Today it is critical to manage the household in a proper manner and to monitor health conditions.

Another specific feature of the rational acceptance group is that they have a positive attitude towards information. Respondents within this category always emphasized that they needed as much information as possible, and that without correct understanding of the situation one is unable to build one’s life in a proper way. They went on to say that primary school children should be taught the fundamentals of ecology and environmental management.

It is necessary to underline that rational attitudes were expressed mostly by managers of enterprises, businessmen and the youth. Such opinions were also common among residents of Slavutych, who stressed that after the catastrophe they moved to Slavutych, where they have “become utterly absorbed in new and challenging work.”

Evaluation of Chornobyl’s Impact on Health

The majority of respondents’ attitudes toward Chornobyl’s consequences focused on notions of health and disease. All categories of respondents believed that Chornobyl is the reason for a variety of cancers and many other diseases. The following statements were typical:

• My legs hurt pretty much because these bones accumulate strontium; • I and my children are often falling ill with respiratory diseases, because radiation has

destroyed our immune system.

Focus group discussion

10/1/2004 DRAFT

22

Medical specialists and teachers expressed serious concern regarding illness rates resulting from Chornobyl. Based on their day-to-day communication with large number of people they claimed that since the accident changes had occurred in three areas. First, the total number of ailments has grown with emphasis being placed on the fact that new diseases had emerged among children that were not previously common. Second, illness rates have augmented sharply, i.e. the number of cases per person. And third, there has been a sharp increased in the number of persons falling ill. The respondents claimed that in general this is not a case of growth of illness rates, but rather the result of a significant decrease in overall health.

Practically all respondents, irrespective of how an individual evaluated his/her own health, expressed an extremely strong concern about the health of children. Their concern was for all children and not just their own. The following statements were typical:

• Chornobyl is pain for future generations; • There are practically no healthy children left; • The children are subjected to many immune disorders and genetic modifications which

will only increase over time; • I think that illness rates will be highest among the next generation.

At the same time, practically all the respondents pointed out that the sharp decrease in the level of health and an increase in the rate of illness are not connected only with the radiological consequences of Chornobyl. The following factors were mentioned as unfavourable for health:

• Poor general ecological situation (details are in p. 1); • Poor economic situation, implying that a high level of unemployment, poor

opportunities for decent work and the necessity to constantly look for part time job for additional income;

• Extremely low level of income (especially in rural areas), which does not allow an individual to pay for health care, rehabilitation, medical services or even for buying ecologically clean food products or vitamins etc.;

• People are forced to live off of their land and as a result consume the agricultural products grown on these contaminated territories;

• Constant stress and psychological tension, etc.

In general, it can be stated that participants attributed approximately 50% of the poor health concerns to the Chornobyl accident, while the other 50% to the above mentioned factors.

Evaluation of Available Information on Chornobyl

As the findings above indicate, prevailing attitudes in the Chornobyl region toward information are very different. A major interest in focus group was to evaluate how the amount and quality of information disseminated to the affected population has changed as a result of Ukraine’s democratization. In this regard, practically all respondents were unanimous in the belief that during the last several years the quantity of information has grown considerably. The following statements were typical:

• With increased number of publications the amount of information available has risen; • There is a lot of information available and if you can easily find whatever you want.

However, in this area two basic critical observations were made. First, the issue of information authenticity and reliability was raised. It is known that in the period 1986 – 1994 the degree of public confidence in official sources of information decreased sharply. Discussions revealed the popular consensus that the situation has not improved to date. Practically all respondents, except for several mass media representatives, believed that one can not trust the information currently being published. The following statements were typical:

10/1/2004 DRAFT

23

• There is a lot of information, but I don’t know whom to trust; • They have been hiding information from us, and they continue to do that now; • They give us incomplete information, this information was only advantageous for few.

Second was the issue concerning the lack of concrete information directly related to people’s lives. All respondents unanimously stated that the required information on ecological problems is extremely scarce and in recent times the amount of information on the radiological situation has decreased significantly. All maintained that information on Chornobyl consequences is published only 3-4 days in a year, that too on the anniversary of the accident.

It is important to note that the majority of respondents (apart from Slavutych residents) expressed extreme dissatisfaction due to the lack of specific information on regional problems. In their opinion, the information published by the mass media was too abstract. The following statements were typical:

• The newspapers publish information on the ecology on the whole, but we have no sources to find out what is happening in our area;

• Professionally prepared materials on environmental and radiological issues, where the authors address specific region, are very scarce;

• We are aware of what is happening in the world, but are unable to find out about the situation in our district – there are no sources.

• It is possible to attain information from the press, but one has to apply special efforts to get it.

Some participants also pointed out that information is actually not lacking, but that money is necessary to implement programs for the improvement of the ecological situation and environmental education. Such programs should focus on:

Information on radiological surveys and liquidation measures related to the radiological consequences of the accident.

The participants of the focus groups were very keen on this issue but, at the same time, revealed a very limited knowledge on basic issues of radiological control. The following statements were typical:

• After the accident they measured the levels of radiological contamination in some places, but a complete survey was not performed;

• Immediately after the catastrophe (the first 4-5 years), the control surveys were regular and serious measures on liquidation of the consequences were undertaken (decontamination of the territory, removal of soil, supply of clean food products, etc.);

• It is probable that some measures are undertaken currently, but nobody informs us about them;

• Dosimetric control, if any, is performed only in towns. In private households and in rural areas nothing of the kind is done anymore;

• To obtain dosimetric measurements one has to go to town and order a survey. There is neither time nor money to do that;

• Decontamination activities were performed only in towns, nobody cared about the village;

• Today anybody can undertake radiation monitoring if he/she wishes, but we lack specific knowledge and skills.

Information on individual and group protective means against radiation.

Discussion participants indicated a very high level of interest in methods of protection. However, at the same time they demonstrated very little accurate knowledge in this area. The following statements were typical:

10/1/2004 DRAFT

24

• The best protection is to leave the contaminated territories, but in general there is no place to go to;

• Probably, I could leave this place, but it is very difficult to settle down in a new place; • If possible, we should send children to the south to improve their health and to ensure

their proper nutrition, but we don’t have any money to do that; • We should be cautious with food products and try to consume as many vitamins as

possible; • We have already got used to life here, but if someone comes to live with us (relatives),

they fall sick.

Quality of public information sources and the trustworthiness of the media

Ministry of Emergencies,Discussion participants agreed that work is needed to increase the quality, coverage and trustworthiness of public information sources and media coverage on Chornobyl’s consequences in affected areas. However, they also revealed a dual attitude in this regard. On one hand, the majority stressed the need to disseminate as much information as widely as possible. On the other, it was emphasized that some information is too complicated and will not be well understood by ordinary people. Most participants indicated that advice given by doctors, teachers and local specialists are the most trusted sources of information as they are closer to individuals that official sources of information. This belief in grassroots communication served as the foundation for people’s ideas on what forms and methods of information dissemination would be best suited to Chornobyl-affected areas.

Information Needs on Radiation Safety

Participants maintained that information should focus on methods of personal protection, i.e., educating people on how to live safely in contaminated territories. For people living in the rural regions, the following areas were highlighted as absolute informational necessities:

• Degree of contamination of land plots; • Means to reduce contamination levels in vegetable gardens and land plots; • Characteristics of radiation accumulated in plants; • Rules for safe vegetable and plant cultivation in contaminated territories.

To ensure that people are properly informed, regular seminars (led by district-level radiologists and doctors) in villages for sectors of the population were proposed. It was considered important to ensure that at least one representative from each settlement is trained and provided with the skills required for radiation monitoring and information dissemination on current ecological conditions. Respondents stressed that such responsibilities should be assumed and performed on a voluntary basis.

Also, participants highlighted the need for an information campaign with systematic training for all schoolchildren. There was widespread agreement that such trainings should focus directly on local environmental knowledge and safe living practices.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

25

Sociological Survey results

The first set of questions was aimed at assessing overall changes in the ecological and radiological situation in the region (figures 1-3). Secondly, questions sought to determine correlations between the effects of the accident and public health conditions (Figures 4-8).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90%

Absolutely safe Relatively safe Dangerous Harmful (very dangerous)

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 1 Perception of ecological situation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

Worsening Improving Steady Can't tell

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 2. – Perception of changes in ecological conditions fro the latest year

10/1/2004 DRAFT

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

Worsening Improving Steady Can't tell

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 3. - Evaluation of changes of situation with regard to getting information on

changes in surrounding environment for the latest year Information presented in the figures 1-3 shows signs of extremely negative attitude of local specialists towards environmental trends. Currently, consequences of the accident at the Chornobyl NPP are thought to be reasons for main risks and fears. Social and economic hardships experienced by the Ukrainian population cannot help but make the overall situation even more crucial. It is still very important that representatives of local state administrative bodies show a more positive, personal attitude towards environmental conditions in comparison with medical workers and teachers. However, when it comes to their attitude towards information supply it is considerably more negative.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90%

Worsening Improving Steady Can't tell

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 4. - Perception of changes in health conditions for the latest year

10/1/2004 DRAFT

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70%

I live as if nothinghas happened

I try to get rid ofany thoughts

regardingChernobylaccident

I live with a greatdeal of concern

Chernobylunrecoverably

damaged my life

Can’t tell

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 5. - Assessment of subjunctive perception of Chornobyl accident

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

Significantly harmed Insignificantly harmed I do not think itharmed me

Can’t tell

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 6. - Division of population per level of damage

10/1/2004 DRAFT

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50%

Very good Good Normal (neithergood nor bad)

Bad Very bad

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 7. - Evaluation of overall health conditions of local community

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70%

Affected but nottoo much

Significantlyaffected

Completelydestroyed

Do not know

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 8. - Evaluation of accident effects on children

10/1/2004 DRAFT

29

Unanimously, the specialists pointed out that overall health conditions of the population are ‘moderate’ or ‘bad’ and have become significantly worse during recent years (refer to tables 4, 7). A fear that things will become even worse as far as public health is concerned, as well as a high likelihood l to develop a serious disease are the main causes and sources of public anxiety. It is also necessary to indicate that the psychological sufferings are connected to the perception of the population that it was highly damaged by the Chornobyl accident (please refer to figures 5, 6). In this regard, health conditions of children play a significant role (figure 8). More importantly, representatives of local state authorities and teachers express a larger concern in that respect than medical workers.

The second set of questions was aimed at assessing the level of information regarding the organization and execution of dosimetric control in the affected territories..

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

Annually From time to time Never Do not know

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 9. - Level of knowledge about dosimetric control in public areas

10/1/2004 DRAFT

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

Annually From time to time Never Do not know

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 10. - Level of knowledge about dosimetric control in private households

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50%

Localdosimetrist

Inviteddosimetrist

By ourselves Nobody Do not know

Local Officials

Medical Workers

Education workers

Figure 11. - Level of knowledge about entities carrying out dosimetric control (in percentage).

10/1/2004 DRAFT

31

Тable 1. - Overall assessment of the contamination level by radioactive nuclides (in %)

Not

contaminated Slightly contaminated

Insignificantly contaminated

Hazardously contaminated

Do not know

Air 3.75 6.25 23.75 36.25 25 Water 2.5 5 17.5 47.5 25 Soil 2.5 3.75 12.5 55 22.5 Forests and plants

2.5 1.25 8.75 60 23.75

Your house 2.5 5 23.75 18.75 45 Backyard garden and orchard

3.75 7.5 16.25 43.75 25

Locality 2.5 5 13.75 35 27.5 Local fruits and vegetables

2.5 3.75 27.5 40 23.75

Local meat and dairy products

2.5 3.75 26.25 38.75 25

Mushrooms and wild berries

1.25 1.25 5 76.25 15

A fact that experts agree on and concede is alarming is the worsening of information flow resulting in a fizzling-out of interest towards the problem. It is important to point out that the majority of concerns are raised by local representatives of state authorities who should be the most informed on the subject. Experts unanimously expressed the opinion that during years no dosimetric control of radiation has been carried out (please refer to figure 9, 10). As a matter of fact, the overall situation in the public sector is even more alarming in comparison with the private sector where some individuals step forward to arrange and carry out dosimetric control through their own initiatives.

This cannot but throw some doubts on authenticity and reliability of certain pieces of information specifically related to opinions on the contamination levels of territories and food products. However, results of the comparison presented in Table 1 demonstrate interesting unanimity by experts when asked to specify the most contaminated elements in the surrounding environment. Although they did not have detailed quantitative results regarding dosimetric control, generally, all the specialists correctly evaluated the current situation in the region. Out of ten elements related to the environment the following were most confidently identified as the most significantly contaminated; namely mushrooms and wild berries, forests and plants, soil, water and backyard orchards.

The third block of questions concerned assessment and evaluation of the level of knowledge with regard to methods and means to reduce contamination level of territories, food products, etc.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

32

Таble 2. - Actual implementation of methods to reduce radioactive contamination in private sector and households (in %)

Used regularly

From time to time

Not used at all

Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides 2.5 16.25 73.75

Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil 3.75 35 53.75

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil 2.5 7.5 73.75 Dosimetric control 2.5 30 56.25 Vitamins 18.75 58.75 23.75 Food additives and sorbents 10 28.75 56.25 Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

6.25 42.5 45

Methods of food processing and cooking 15 56.25 26.25 Resettlement 1.25 10 63.75 Rehabilitation 11.25 51.25 35

Таble 3. - Actual implementation of methods to reduce radioactive contamination in private sector and households (in percentage).

Used

regularly From time to time

Not used at all

Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides 2.5 16.25 73.75 Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil

3.75 35 53.75

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil 2.5 7.5 73.75 Dosimetric control 2.5 30 56.25 Vitamins 18.75 58.75 23.75 Food additives and sorbents 10 28.75 56.25 Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

6.25 42.5 45

Methods of food processing and cooking 15 56.25 26.25 Resettlement 1.25 10 63.75 Rehabilitation 11.25 51.25 35

10/1/2004 DRAFT

33

Table 4 - Assessment of availability and accessibility to means of protection (in percentage)

Easily accessed

Limited assess

Cannot be accessed

Can’t tell

Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides

18.75 20 15 43.75

Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil

16.25 32.5 8.75 38.75

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil 12.5 25 17.5 51.25 Dosimetric control 27.5 32.5 16.25 17.5 Vitamins 28.75 52.5 6.25 7.5 Food additives and sorbents 13.75 48.75 17.5 21.25 Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

12.5 51.25 20 12.5

Methods of food processing and cooking

41.25 20 3.75 32.5

Resettlement 1.25 32.5 48.75 18.75 Rehabilitation 3.75 62.5 26.25 6.25

Table 5 - Evaluation of effectiveness of protection means (in percentage)

Effective Poorly effective

Not effective

Can’t tell

Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides

13.75 25 6.25 52.5

Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil

15 18.75 5 58.75

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil 11.25 11.25 7.5 65 Dosimetric control 22.5 27.5 17.5 28.75 Vitamins 51.25 28.75 2.5 13.75 Food additives and sorbents 52.5 15 2.5 25 Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

61.25 12.5 22.5

Methods of food processing and cooking 43.75 25 5 22.5 Resettlement 47.5 12.5 5 17.5 Rehabilitation 73.75 13.75 1.25 10

Despite the fact that natural element and components remain the most contaminated, available radiation reduction methods are limited and unutilized mainly within city boundaries (see Table 2). It is necessary to point out that private individuals and households use a wider range of decontamination methods, however the total number of people using said methods remains very low. (see Table 3).

In addition, it is important to note that the utilization of these methods depends upon a number of economic, social and psychological factors. Thus the focus of public attention is the

10/1/2004 DRAFT

34

effectiveness and availability of methods and measures to reduce the level of contamination. For example, the most effective methods include rehabilitation, medications to reduce the content of nuclides in the human body, food additives and sorbents, vitamins, as well as resettlement. A list (not clear – what list??) of available methods includes only one such a method - appropriate processing and cooking of food products (see Tables 4, 5).

The fourth block of questions concerned the evaluation of the overall level of awareness of the public and its attitude towards information resources.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

On radiation level insurrounding environment

On conducts and householdbehavior in contaminated

areas

On social benefits and rangeof available assistance

From newspapers

From radio and TV

From relatives,neighbors, acquaints

From distributedinstructions

From representatives oflocal state authorities

From medical workers

From teachers andchildren’s pedagogues

At working place

Do not receiveinformation

Figure 12. - Information sources

10/1/2004 DRAFT

35

Table 6 - Needs in information on subjects related to radiation safety (in percentage).

In great need Not very needed Not needed at all Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides

65 18.75 12.5

Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil

37.5 23.75 12.5

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil

38.75 28.75 23.75

Dosimetric control 76.25 15 5 Vitamins 80 11.25 5 Food additives and sorbents

73.75 12.5 7.5

Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

78.75 5 5

Methods of food processing and cooking

77.5 12.5 3.75

Resettlement 47.5 27.5 17.5 Rehabilitation 65 10 6.25

Table 7 - Needs of local state authorities in information on radiation safety (in percentage)

In great need

Not very needed

Not needed at all

Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides 60 20 20 Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil

60 20 20

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil 60 20 20 Dosimetric control 60 20 20 Vitamins 80 10 10 Food additives and sorbents 60 10 Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

90 10

Methods of food processing and cooking 90 10

10/1/2004 DRAFT

36

Table 8 – Needs of medial workers in receiving information on radiation safety (in percentage)

In great need

Not very needed

Not needed at all

Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides 67.5 20 10 Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil

60 25 12.5

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil 35 35 25 Dosimetric control 80 15 5 Vitamins 82.5 10 7.5 Food additives and sorbents 85 5 7.5 Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

85 5 7.5

Methods of food processing and cooking 77.5 10 5 Resettlement 47.5 32.5 15 Rehabilitation 80 10 5

Table 9- Needs of education workers in receiving information regarding radiation safety (in percentage)

In great need

Not very needed

Not needed at all

Sowing of plants absorbing radioactive nuclides 63.27 16.65 13.32 Introducing potassium fertilizers and lime into soil

53.28 23.31 9.99

Introducing sand and clay into peat soil 36.63 23.31 23.31 Dosimetric control 76.59 13.32 Vitamins 76.59 13.32 Food additives and sorbents 63.27 19.98 6.66 Medications to remove radioactive nuclides from the body

79.92 6.66

Methods of food processing and cooking 73.26 19.98 Resettlement 49.95 16.65 19.98 Rehabilitation 73.26 13.32 3.33

10/1/2004 DRAFT

37

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

Fully trust Trust but not always Do not trust at all Do not use

Radio

TV

Newspapers, magazines

Books, brochures

Flyers

Figure 13. - Level of trust shown to information sources (in percentage)

Analysis of collected data shows that one of the key reasons for utilizing practical recommendations aimed at risk reduction on territories with high level of contamination is contributable to poor information flow and lack of an adequate system of information delivery to the local population. It is typical that among twelve offered elements people should have been informed or aware of in details regarding contamination, 30% level of awareness was overcome only by four of the said objects. Included is careful consumption of wild berries and mushrooms, effects of radiation on human body, methods of health recreation and rehabilitation, and consumption of vitamins. In the meantime even experts are not familiar with contamination control methods currently available.

Yet another definite example about the absence of an effective information delivery system is that target groups such as local state officials, medical and education providers receive their information via unofficial mass media sources, acquaintances, and neighbors (see Figure 12). The informational famine is getting worse due to a steadily growing mistrust to mass media sources demonstrated even by local specialists (see figure 13).

However, people realize a necessity to receive more detailed and trustworthy information about the overall situation in the region as well as, about methods for diminishment of radioactive contamination. When identifying the level need, seven topics received more than 30% of votes of experts, and five more than 75% (please refer to Tables 6-9).

As a result of the survey, it is clear that local and state administrations as well as, mass media pay too little attention towards providing prompt and accurate information regarding ecological and radiological conditions in the Chornobyl region. The local population living in contaminated territories also receives very little support (not clear – what sort of support) for living.

The region lacks a developed Chornobyl information system. Local state authorities, experts and the population at large do not have information to help them properly assess the current ecological situation. At the regional level, it has been several years since radiological controls

10/1/2004 DRAFT

38

and measurements were performed and there is no system for medical or hygienic controls whatsoever. Although Ukraine’s Ministry of Emergencies continues to follow and monitor some main radiological parameters, results of their activities are not known at the regional level. Therefore, the first problem to be tackled is the need to provide proper information on radiological conditions across the region.

With the affected population poorly informed about the practical aspects of Chornobyl consequences, local people do not know who, when and where contamination measurements for forests, arable lands and food products were or are being conducted although such control is constantly being conducted by the Ministry of Emergencies. “Official” information delivered through mass media to the general public is rare and almost always completely inappropriate in terms of its format and understandability. Compounded by low levels of public trust vis-à-vis official and mass media sources, people are disoriented with regard to the actual situation in the region.

At the same time, people show a great deal of trust when it comes to information coming from unofficial sources. Information spread by individuals with high levels of education and who are well-respected within local communities, such as doctors, educators and mid-level officials, is well-received.

These factors are the main reasons why people in the Chornobyl region have significant anxiety and fears concerning radiological contamination and are not actively taking preventative measures in their daily lives. People demonstrate various needs with regard to information but are primarily concerned with methods aimed at reducing contamination levels on the land where they live and the food they eat to prevent exposure to a continuous low dose of radiation. Needs are also directly connected with health fears, such as the development of disease both in adults and their children. In people minds disease will lead to general ill-health and consequently to overall poverty. Popular fears of radiation remain especially strong among the socially and economically vulnerable and unprotected.

In such conditions local authority, healthcare and education systems need to be significant elements of social infrastructure in the region. Teachers, medical workers and mid-level officials need to incorporate significant responsibilities in both obtaining information and delivering practical assistance to those who are in need. It is necessary to have these three elements of social infrastructure to enhance their role in information and education initiatives. While leaders of these groups realize this, they do not have the slightest idea about forms and methods of such activities. At the same time they too suffer from insufficient information. If positive change is to occur, the quality and frequency of information provided to them must be enhanced.

As well, survey respondents raised the following points:

• There is a great need for public events that provide local people with an opportunity to hear the opinions and views of experts;

• Information activities within communities increase the effectiveness of efforts aimed at providing relevant information to local people;

• Relevant information targeting local people should only be distributed through trustworthy channels;

• Educational activities of CDCs could cover a broader range of social and age groups; • Published materials need to be locally distributed; • All printed information materials should be presented in two forms: a) they must be in

volume editions to be used as a reference and b) they must also be in booklet or flyer form to be distributed within communities;

• It is essential to hire experts living in and outside Ukraine.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

39

Results of Identifying Information Needs of the Targeted Groups at Round Table Discussions

Information Needs of Physicians

Round table discussions were held with physicians in the town of Korosten (Zhytomyr oblast) that falls into Volunteer Guaranteed Resettlement Zone as well as with physicians of Kyiv oblast children hospital (the town of Boyarka of Kyiv-Svyatoshyn rayon). This is a children’s hospital serving rural settlements in Kyiv oblast, including settlements in the radioactive zone. Thus, it was expected to assess variance, if any, of the information needs of physicians' working in the territories with different radioactive contamination level.

Pediatricians, general practitioners, endocrinologists and gynecologists were invited to participate in the round table discussions.

Participants in round table discussions pointed out that issues related to Chornobyl NPP accident are still in the focus of their patients' attention. In addition to this, working in territories with radioactive contamination physicians keep coming across the problem of health deterioration in various age groups that may be related to the consequences of Chornobyl NPP accident. That is why they are interested in possible medical outcomes resulting from the disaster as well as in pathologies that could result from radiation exposure.

It was demonstrated that time hasn’t dulled the memory and effect of Chornobyl. Presently more and more issues are emerging as significant deterioration in population health is being seen. Physicians are inclined to explain this fact as the aftereffect/ consequence of the disaster.

At the same time physicians from the town of Boyarka pointed out that issues related to measures of reducing contamination in foodstuff, clean-up and radiation control measures are of less interest to the local population. Discussion participants report that on one hand, population is more interested in social and economic issues, while on the other hand, as the time has passed the populations reaction towards the radioactive safety issues in those territories has become more lenient.

These issues, however, remain topical according to physicians working in those territories that were more exposed to radioactive contamination.

This provides evidence to the fact that information needs of the target groups representatives in the territories with various radioactive contamination level may differ. It should be accounted for in planning and implementing information support programs.

Discussion on the existing information sources resulted in participants pointing out the following:

Round table discussion with medical doctors

10/1/2004 DRAFT

40

• According to discussion participants, there is no systematic source of necessary information on the issues related to Chornobyl;

• Physicians make use of information they independently gather from various sources; • They use scientific publications in journals, nevertheless, it eats much time and many

publications are not available through libraries. In addition, such publications have little practical pieces of advice for physicians or information that could be used in health education directly;

• It is difficult to identify sources that are worth trusting; • It was pointed out that in the first two years after the disaster there was a wider choice

of necessary information; • Positive attitude was exhibited to information provided by Japanese researchers, which

used working in the town.

In general terms, discussion participants voiced the opinion that the existing information sources on Chornobyl samples do not satisfy the current needs of the affected population, particularly the professional needs of physicians working in territories with radioactive contamination.

Participants expressed particular discontent with not getting information on the findings of numerous medical check-ups carried out in the territory of their town by domestic as well as international researchers.

Lack of access to the reliable medical statistics data not only regarding raiyon, but oblast and Ukraine on the whole was observed in the discussion. This data can be used to compare morbidity in the contaminated and in those "clean" areas.

Participants mentioned the need for the following format of information materials:

• Brochures, booklets, leaflets to be distributed among patients revealing the wide range of issues on disease prevention, rational nutrition, rehabilitation and tips on safe living in the contaminated areas;

• Brochures, reference books for physicians on various professional aspects of decease treatment and prevention for population residing in the areas contaminated by radiation; Information Letters from the ministry of health as well as the other government born information materials with statistics data, recent research findings, including those related to this territory, should come in on the on going basis.

As the result of the round table discussion, its participants compiled the list of questions on the issues related to Chornobyl accident that are of the most interest to the population in the affected territories (see: Annex 3).

Information Needs of Teachers

Teachers of Korosten secondary schools and the Head of the unit for information and consultation support (capitalized?) at the municipality made-up the participants of the round table discussion.

The round table discussion participants pointed out that issues related to problems caused by the Chornobyl accident make up a component in the geography curricula for 6-11 grades and is also presented within the subject "Life Competence Basics" starting with grade 5. This yields a diversely aged student audience.

In addition, issues related to the Chornobyl accident in one way or another are on the agenda of group meetings at schools as well as at the parents' meetings, and in particular on the eve of April 26. High school students choose these themes for their school scientific research.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

41

Participants emphasized that Chornobyl topics are interesting to both school students and their parents, thus they need on-going information support.

Round table discussion participants identified the following information sources they use:

• Various informational materials collected on an individual basis, including those from workshops and specialists' lectures. Materials received at the workshop in the framework of ENVREG project were mentioned as extremely useful ones.

• Press. Herewith, the level of trust in regard to materials provided by the press differed significantly in this group of

round table participants – from absolute trust to distrust. at the same time, participants were

inclined to give more trust to local press. • Materials published in specialized journals of the Ministry of Emergencies were seen as

positive.

Round table participants pointed out the absence of information sources that could deliver information on Chornobyl accident issues permanently and efficiently as well as ones that could inform on the current radiation conditions in affected territories and in the Exclusion Zone, on the new "Shelter", Chornobyl NPP activities and provide recommendations on reducing the negative effect of radiation on human health.

On the whole, round table participants expressed dissatisfaction with both the form and content of existing information sources on Chornobyl disaster.

The following reasons were quoted as basic shortcomings:

• lack of a permanent source delivering "up to date", 'realistic" information; • there is either no information or lack of access to information on radiation conditions in

the residence territories, on the situation in the Exclusion Zone, on projects related to the "Shelter" and Chornobyl NPP shutdown; there is lack of up-to-date data on the health conditions of the affected population, etc.;

• available information sources often produce contradictory, unintelligible information. This makes it necessary to independently analyze and adapt information from various sources for presentation purposes to school students of various ages;

• Much research was done in the town's territory, nevertheless the findings were not made public;

• There are no ready-to-use materials for junior high school children, including materials to be put on information boards;

• There are no modern forms of information materials, neither video nor digital equipment (CD).

Round table participants expressed their opinion on the most useful forms of information material. General comments included as follows:

Round table discussion with teachers

10/1/2004 DRAFT

42

• Information materials should satisfy the needs of various age groups from the youngest children to high school students that will increase interest in scientific research as well as deliver information to parents.

• It is very useful to accompany the dissemination of information materials with workshops and specialist lectures. Participants pointed out that information received at these events was the most intelligible and simple to make active use of it in the teaching process.

The following was mentioned regarding the format of information materials:

• Teachers require modern forms of information delivery: Internet resources, video materials, films, and interactive learning software. Teachers mentioned that in larger towns there is more technical capacity to use these types of information materials;

• Postcards and leaflets were mentioned as useful forms to be disseminated among students and parents in addition to posters, charts and other materials for classrooms and information boards;

• To be ready for their classes teachers need brochures with concise, meaningful information on key topics regarding radiation impact on the environment and health, recent scientific research findings and medical statistics.

As a result of the round table discussions, its participants compiled a list of questions regarding issues related to the Chornobyl accident that are of most interest to the population in the affected territories (see: Annex 3).

Information Needs of Youth

Secondary school students from settlements in the Kyiv oblast that fall into the category of being contaminated by radiation as a result of the Chornobyl disaster took part in round table discussions. The participants' age varied from 12 to 17.

Round table discussion participants pointed out that issues related to the Chornobyl accident are of significant interest. All of the participants reported that this topic was the subject of discussion both at school and at home. They also pointed out that the question of health consequences due to the accident caused concern and anxiety for the population. There is wide spread opinion that the majority of diseases have been provoked by the aftermath of the disaster, and that even today radioactive contamination is a serious health hazard.

Emphasis should be placed on the above especially because all the participants were born after the accident occurred. Nevertheless, the recurring theme of always focusing on the Chornobyl disaster may be creating social and psychological tension within this age group as well. In addition, the possible influence of parents and children should be taken into account.

Participants reported that they get information about the Chornobyl accident mainly at school as well as from parents and neighbors. Some participants reported getting information from TV programs.

At the same time, all participants pointed out that there was little interesting, meaningful information available. Many questions remain on their minds, however there is nobody to answer them, and no good, reliable sources to get information.

The majority of participants mentioned they would prefer getting information materials as well illustrated booklets, video materials, software and Internet resources.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

43

As a result of the round table discussion, participants created a list of questions concerning issues related to the Chornobyl disaster that evoke the greatest interest and require answers through information materials (see: Annex 3).

Thus, the round table discussions significantly expanded data received as a result of focus groups and the sociological survey. Information needs of those target groups that can play a role as information dissemination channels were specified. Existence of some differences in priority topics for information materials came to the surface for the population living in territories with different levels of radioactive

contamination.

Data obtained as through the round table discussions elicited interesting results regarding the appropriate form for information materials. Presently, the population, youth especially, exhibited an interest in both traditional information materials forms (booklets, leaflets, posters) as well as modern information sources (Internet resources, video materials, education software). This information should be accounted for in planning media campaigns in the future.

The results obtained form the foundation for the general structure of information needs of the population affected by the aftermath of the Chornobyl accident as well as priority topics and an appropriate format for information materials intended for key groups of interested individuals in the affected population.

The final list of questions (Annex 3) related to issues of the Chornobyl accident that attracted frequent interest among the population in the affected areas can be utilized to prepare the UNICEF publication "Facts for Life. Special Edition".

Round table discussion with youth

10/1/2004 DRAFT

44

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Major Conclusions Based on Results of Performed Surveys 1. The population affected by the Chornobyl NNP accident does not get clear information

related to the impact of the Chornobyl disaster on their health and on the natural environment. This remains one of the key reasons for social and psychological tension among population living in. Consequently it hampers the process of recovery and development in affected areas.

2. It has been established that the population is extremely ill informed on the practical aspects of Chornobyl’s radiological consequences. Accessible, official information is not delivered on a regular basis and in a format that is fully comprehensible for rank and file citizens.

Existence of a prominent need was identified as follows:

• constructive information on various aspects of the Chornobyl aftermath (radiological, medical, environmental, social and economic) should be systematically and widely disseminated among the population;

• information that will help people to rationally construe their life on the basis of making informed decisions;

• practical information on radiological consequences of Chornobyl: the level of contamination of arable land, water, forests and foodstuffs. This information should be available to every community member; everyone should know the real contamination level of foodstuffs, what pasture to use for grazing to produce clean milk, where planting is safe.

• information on means to reduce contamination of the environment as well as of agricultural products people produce and consume.

3. All the above emphasize the necessity to more widely and regularly disseminate information on the current radiological and environmental conditions in contaminated areas to minimize radiation risk.

4. Radiation impact on health elicits the largest concern both in cases of people being exposed to radiation immediately after the accident and in the case of living in contaminated regions. Parents are especially concerned with the health and future of their children. Thus, people should form a clear understanding of real risks related to radiation exposure, residence in the contaminated areas, consumption of contaminated food, etc.

5. Contaminated areas are predominantly agricultural regions. There is no operational system of information support on existing risks and safe behavior. Local administration, specialists and the general public are deprived of detailed information on current radiological and environmental conditions in those regions as well as on public health. Overcoming this problem presents one of the most critical issues for social recovery of the population living in contaminated areas. Thus, lack of valid radiological and environmental information as well as poor operation of information delivery infrastructure constitute a serious social problem.

6. Lack of attention on behalf of local authorities' representatives to the problems of general access to information, and the existing mistrust to mass media significantly aggravate the efficiency of current information system in Chornobyl territories.

7. Concern remains among the population of Chornobyl regions as to the existing status quo. In regards to this issue, administration, medical and pedagogical professionals, as well as local mass media make the most meaningful elements of regional social infrastructure. They are

10/1/2004 DRAFT

45

responsible for both the required information and for developing practical skills people need in their every day life. It is necessary to support some representatives of these target groups to more actively employ their authority and social status in local communities to overcome the information deficit in the region. However, it is necessary to realize that this can only be done under the condition of their incorporation into a general, integrated information system.

8. Surveys have yielded the following result: an accurate list of information needs and questions from the affected population with an accent on the priorities of key stakeholders; information delivery options for various population groups were proposed, and approaches were grounded to establish the permanent effective information system for population on issues related to the aftermath of the Chornobyl accident.

Recommendations It is necessary to set up an on-going operation to prepare and disseminate information materials to resolve the issues of delivering information on problems related to the Chornobyl accident to the general public.

Such an operation should have the following properties:

a) Continual information dissemination system:

• regular dissemination of information; • capacity to assess the current information needs and satisfy them; • capacity to adequately react to events requiring immediate information intervention

(forest fires, floods, etc.).

b) Adequate information sources and materials:

• to get the most detailed and reliable information on various aspects of the Chornobyl accident aftermath; to network all possible national institutions and organizations that participate in scientific research (monitoring) on Chornobyl topics.

• to review and prepare materials based on data supplied by scientific publications, reports and monitoring data in a comprehensible manner taking into account the structure of the population and its information needs (see: Table 10);

• to provide feedback to network participants as needed through additional research;

c) Trustworthy channels of information dissemination:

• information dissemination through the representatives of those social groups (target groups) that evoke more trust in the population (teachers, medical professionals, local administration, mass media, etc.)

d) Differentiation in approach to information delivery:

• preparation of information materials on the basis of specific information needs and appropriate information materials format as defined by target groups/channels for information dissemination (see: Table 11).

• satisfaction of specific information needs of various groups in the affected population: clean-up workers, resettlers, residents in the contaminated areas, etc.;

• meeting the specific information needs of residents in territories with various level of radioactive contamination. Priority should be attached to information encouraging recovery and development in those areas with currently less significant radiation risk.

Figure 14 presents the scheme for the proposed information structure.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

46

Table 10. Structure of Information Needs of Population Affected by the Chornobyl catastrophe

Groups of information needs Information material topics

1. Radiation safety issues

1.1. Radiation, general concepts, terminology, measurement units;

1.2. Sources of ionizing radiation in human life;

1.3. Ionising radiation impact on human body;

1.4. Comparison of radiation risks and other environmental risk factors.

2. General medical and hygiene issues

2.1.Recommendations on healthy lifestyle;

2.2.Recommendations on healthy nutrition (accounting for specifics of the local diet);

2.3.Healthy maternity and childhood (materials for maternity centres and district paediatricians);

2.4.Recommendations for parents of children prone to frequent illnesses;

2.5.Iodine and other micronutrient deficiency problem: recommendations on prevention.

3. Medical aftermath of the disaster

3.1.Medical aftermath of the disaster related to radiation exposure and possible impact of other disaster factors;

3.2.Key results of epidemiological surveys of general public health condition related to Chornobyl NNP disaster;

3.3.Medical and demographic indicators of general public health related to Chornobyl NNP disaster;

3.4.Data on morbidity in the region compared to the national morbidity level and the level at "clean" territories.

3.5.Outcome of performed and continuous medical research in the region;

3.6.Recommendation on diagnostics and treatment of certain pathology types with population in contaminated areas:

− Thyroid gland and other endocrine pathology;

10/1/2004 DRAFT

47

Groups of information needs Information material topics

− Blood diseases;

− Cardio-vascular pathology, etc.

3.7.Congenital malformations: medical statistics data by regions, probable association with disaster aftermath;

3.8.Recommendations of organizing summer rest for children from the affected areas;

3.9. Recommendations on preventive immunization for population in contaminated areas;

3.10. Recommendations on breast cancer and other oncological pathology prevention among individuals residing population in radioactively contaminated areas;

3.11. Information on organization providing support for treatment (leukaemia, oncological pathology, etc.)

4. Protection and prevention measures

4.1.Justification/lack of justification to relocate as of this moment;

4.2.Recommendations on a private plot farming at radioactively contaminated areas;*

4.3.Recommendations for agriculture manufacturers on making radiation wise sound agriculture produce;*

4.4.Nutrition: topical, accessible and efficient ways to prevent internal radiation among population;*

4.5.Nutrition supplements and sorbents: recommendations on use;

4.6.Forest and forest fruit: radiation and other threats;

4.7.Water and water bodies: recreation on water, fishing, recommendations on using filters, etc.

5. Control and monitoring issues

5.1.Current radiological situation in the region (settlement) and its forecast.

5.2.Where to exercise a radiation level control of foodstuff, agricultural produce, radionuclides in the body*;

5.3. Norms for radionuclides content in foodstuff, agricultural produce and forest fruit*.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

48

Groups of information needs Information material topics

5.4.Radiation control devices, their major properties and possibility to use them in everyday life.

6. Exclusion Zone problems, issues of Chornobyl NPP shutting down and new confinement construction

6.1.Radiation situation in the territory of Exclusion Zone;

6.2.Radioecological and radiobiological processes in the Zone;

6.3.Territories' rehabilitation issues;

6.4.Chornobyl NPP safety, termination of its operation;

6.5.Chornobyl NPP disaster: causes, probability of similar disasters at other NPP in Ukraine, Russia and other countries;

6.6."Shelter" object condition;

6.7.New confinement design;

6.8.Issues of dealing with radioactive waste: what entities have been set up, are being established and are planned for Exclusion Zone.

7. Social and economic recovery and development

7.1.The prospects for "Chornobyl" social guarantees;

7.2.The prospect forms of business activities in the region;

7.3.Recommendations for promoting produce from the affected areas into the market (marketing, advertising, the system for quality standards, etc.)

7.4.When and how to get support (loans, grants) for the start up business phase in the affected areas;

7.5.Where and how to get additional business oriented education, advanced training and retraining;

7.6.What economic incentives are there for business activities development in the affected areas

* - this theme is topical only for "conventionally unsafe" areas

10/1/2004 DRAFT

49

Table 11. Priority Themes and Appropriate Format of Materials for the Key Stakeholders in the Affected Population

Target group /information dissemination channel

Topical themes for info materials

(according to the list in Table 10)

Appropriate format for info materials

Medical professionals

• 1.1-1.4

• 2.3-2.5

• 3.1-3.11

• 4.1, 4.3-4.6

• 5.1; 5.2

• 6.1; 6.4-6.6.

• 7.1

• Booklet

• Q&A reference book

• Popular science articles at journals, scientific publications' digests.

• Leaflet

• Poster

• Professional lectures and workshops

Education professionals

• 1.1-1.4

• 2.1;2.2; 2.4

• 3.1—3.3; 3.5;3.8; 3.11

• 4.1; 4.2; 4.4-4.6

• 6.1-6.6

• 7.1-7.4

• Booklet

• Manual

• Internet resources (web-sites, portals)

• Computer-based data base

• Computer information and training software

• Video materials

• Leaflet

• Poster

• Professional lectures and workshops

Local administration

• 1.1-1.4

• 2.5

• Booklet

• Q&A reference book

10/1/2004 DRAFT

50

Target group /information dissemination channel

Topical themes for info materials

(according to the list in Table 10)

Appropriate format for info materials

• 3.1-3.5; 3.11

• 4.1-4.4; 4.6-4.7

• 5.1-5.4

• 7.1-7.6

• Internet resources (web-sites, portals)

• Computer-based data base

• Computer information and training software

• Leaflet

• Poster

• Professional lectures and workshops

Mass media

• 1.1-1.4

• 2.1; 2.2; 2.5

• 3.1-3.5

• 4.1-4.7

• 5.1; 5.2.

• 6.1-6.8

• 7.1-7.6

• Q&A reference book

• Internet resources (web-sites, portals)

• Video materials • Popular science articles at journals, scientific publications' digests

• Press releases

Population (communities)

• 1.1-1.4

• 2.1-2.5

• 3.1-3.5

• 4.1-4.7

• 5.1-5.4

• 6.1-6.8

• Booklet

• Internet resources (web-sites, portals)

• Leaflet

• Poster

10/1/2004 DRAFT

51

Target group /information dissemination channel

Topical themes for info materials

(according to the list in Table 10)

Appropriate format for info materials

• 7.1-7.5

Social and Psychological Rehabilitation Centers

• 1.1-1.4

• 2.1-2.5

• 3.1-3.5

• 4.1-4.7

• 5.1-5.4

• 6.1-6.8

• 7.1-7.5

• Booklet

• Q&A reference book

• Internet resources (web-sites, portals)

• Computer information and training software

• Video materials

• Popular science articles at journals, scientific publications' digests • Leaflet

• Poster

• Professional lectures and workshops

10/1/2004 DRAFT

52

Fig. 14 Scheme of information dissemination structure

Co-ordination with Belarus ICRIN NC

AFF

EC

TE

D P

OPU

LA

TIO

N

Feed

back

,

Info

rmat

ion

from

in

tern

atio

nal

Rep

ortin

g to

ICR

IN

Scie

ntifi

c B

oard

&

Stee

ring

Com

ity

Research needs ICIRN National Committee

Co-ordination with Russian ICRIN NC

Scientific information &

monitoring data

information dissemination

Information compiling,

adopting, & information

materials publication

Local information channels

teachers

medical workers

administrators

local mass-media

CDC’s

CO, etc

Ministries

Governmental institutions:

Goskom-gidromet,

Sanitary service, etc.

Research institutions

NGO’s, etc

information holders

MSP: feedback, needs assessment

10/1/2004 DRAFT

53

ANNEXES

Annex 1 National ICRIN Committee in Ukraine

1. O.Kapityla, Ministry of Emergencies, Deputy Minister;

2. V.Lytsko, Ministry of Ecology of Ukraine, Deputy Minister,

3. V. Kovalchuk, Minstry of Emergencies, Head of Department;

4. N. Proskura, State Department Administration of Exclusion zone, Head of Department;

5. N. Belousova, Ministry of Emergencies, International affairs department, Head of division;

6. D. Grodzinsky, National Commission for Radiological Protection of Ukraine, Head;

7. G. Burlak, Ministry of Health, Deputy-Chief Sanitary Doctor;

8. A.Nikitov, , Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Head of the Department;

9. V.Timofeev, , Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Deputy Head of the Department;

10. A. Brodsky, Ministry of Eeconomy of Ukraoine;

11. M. Borisiuk, Verkhovna Rada Committee for Ecological policy, usage of natural resources and liquidation of Chornobyl accident consequences, Head of Secretariat;

12. M. Murashko, Chernigiv Oblast State Administration, Deputy Head;

13. G. Klochenok, Kiev Oblast State Administration, Head of Chornobyl department;

14. M. Didkivsky, Zhytomir Oblast State Administration, Deputy Head;

15. Ye.Garin, Chornobyl Center for Nuclear Safety, Radioactive Waste and Radioecology, Director;

16. V.Tischenko, Chornobylinterinform, Deputy Director;

17. V. Shestopalov,Academician-secretary of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine;

18. V. Bebeshko, Scientific Centre for Radiation Medicine, Director-General;

19. Yu.Sayenko Institute of Sociology, Department Head;

20. V.Kashparov, Ukrainian scientific and research institute of agricultural radiology, Director;

21. I. Likhtariov, Ukrainian Radiation Protection Institute, Director General;

22. Yu.Shwalb, Kyiv Taras Shevchenko National University, Head of Department;

23. Yu. Ivanov, International Radioecology Laboratory, Chief scientific worker;

24. V.Prilipko, Scientific Center for Radiation Medicine, Head of laboratory;

25. V.Mikhailenko, “Zhytomiragroproject” Institute, Director

26. A.Nyagu, Association “Physicians of Chornobyl ,President;

27. G.Maliutin, “Soyuz Chornobyl”, President;

28. O. Leshchenko, UNDP Ukraine, Senior Program Manger;

29. Y. Pradhanang, CRDP UNDP, Regional development manager;

30. O. Garnets, CRDP UNDP, Policy advisor;

31. P. Zamostyan, CRDP UNDP, ICIRN Multi-stakeholder process coordinator in Ukraine

10/1/2004 DRAFT

54

Annex 2 Centers for socio-psychological rehabilitation

Centers for socio-psychological rehabilitation were created by the Ministry of Emergency of Ukraine and Affairs of Population Protection from the Consequences of Chornobyl Catastrophe with active support of Kyiv and Zhitomir oblast administrations within the framework of UN Chornobyl program “ UNESCO-Chornobyl”. Currently tehay working in Slavutich, Borodianka, Ivankiv, Boyrka (Kyiv oblast) and in Korosten (Zhytomir oblast).

Jointly with the Ministry of Emergency of Ukraine and Affairs of Population Protection from the Consequences of Chornobyl Catastrophe, Kyiv and Zhitomir oblast administrations and local administrations the community development centers for psychosocial rehabilitation are dealing with the following problems in their communities:

• Reduction of general tension and anxiety among population suffered from Chornobyl catastrophe (liquidators, resettles, residents of contaminated territories, etc.);

• Providing psychological support to individuals and families in resolving emerging marital and learning and other problems;

• Cooperation with administration and all infrastructure in community for development of population assistance programs;

• Information activities and publishing activities; • Proving psychological support to socially unprotected groups of population and so

called problem and risk groups: liquidators, alcohol and drug edicts and their families, young mothers and pregnant women, invalids (especially Chornobyl invalids) and their families, pensioners, families with many children, single mothers, etc.);

• Professional orientation of youth under conditions of ecologically and economically unfavorable situation and the labor market structure that has dramatically changed;

• Psychological support and social work with unemployed focused on developing within individuals, willingness to active search of a new job;

• Education and training programs in different areas on request of the community; • Developing individuals' psychological readiness to participate in or to start a small

business and providing support when creating their own enterprises; • Working with community on developing links among separate groups and members of

this community, developing the mechanisms of interrelations and mutual support within the community, creation NGOs;

• Hot lines aimed on delivering assistance most acute individual crisis situations, prevention of suicides;

• Sociological and socio-psychological monitoring of situation in a community for being sensitive to the specific needs of the community.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

55

Annex 3 List of questions on the issues related to Chornobyl catastrophe frequently

asked by the population in the affected territories

Physicians:

1. Ionizing radiation sources in human life and comparative analysis of risks for human health as the result of its impact.

2. Radiation risks in comparison with other risk factors in the environment.

3. Up to date scientific data on Chornobyl disaster aftermath role in morbidity and mortality growth at radioactively contaminated territories.

4. What pathologies can be qualified for sure as those immediately related to Chornobyl accident?

5. What are the basic research findings on medical outcome and forecast as to medical outcome of Chornobyl accident?

6. Chornobyl accident medical outcome in comparison with other situations of ionizing radiation impact on a human being;

7. What is dynamics of oncological diseases after Chornobyl disaster over Ukraine, in oblast, in rayon?

8. What is the right way to feed in the radioactively contaminated territories?

9. What is advisable as to consumption of prevention means: vitamins, nutrition supplements, sorbents, substances that have radioprotection properties or eliminate radionuclides?

10. How should children from the contaminated areas get rehabilitated?

11. What are recommendations on vaccination in territories contaminated with radioactivity?

12. What should residents of the contaminated territories do to support their immune system?

13. What is recommended to parents to be residing in the contaminated territories?

14. What is recommended to pregnant women residing in the contaminated territories?

15. How should we treat some blood conditions (prolonged limphocytosis and eosinophily, limphadenopathy)?

16. What is the situation with iodine and other microelement deficiency in our region and modern approaches to iodine deficiency prevention?

17. Are there grounds presently for relocation of residents in the III and IV zones?

18. What is the current condition of sarcophagus?

19. Are there presently repeated emissions of radioactive substances at Chornobyl NPP?

20. What is the current radioecological condition in our region and what are its estimates?

21. How long does it take radioactive elements to decay in the zones (specifically by settlements)?

22. Where is it possible to measure radiation in foodstuff?

23. Are there any scientific data as to human body capacity to get accustomed to small radiation dozes?

24. What recommendations are there as to using water filters in the regions affected by radioactive contamination?

10/1/2004 DRAFT

56

Teachers:

1. What sources of radiation hazard currently remained?

2. Is it worth relocating from territories contaminated with radionuclides?

3. What radioecological and radiobiological processes take place in the territory of Exclusion Zone? What effects can be expected among plants and animals in the territory of Exclusion Zone?

4. What is the right way to feed on for residents in the radioactively contaminated territories?

5. How to protect oneself from invisible enemy: what are the most accessible and effective preventive measures to be undertaken presently?

6. Can we visit forest and how to behave therein?

7. What do parents to be should know if they live in the radioactively contaminated territories?

8. What risk sources are there around us and how do they compare with radiation?

9. What is effect of alcohol and smoking tobacco on radiation exposure?

10. Are physical exercises and sports good for residents of radioactively contaminated areas and how should training be appropriately organized?

11. What are similarities and variances in aftermath of Chornobyl accident, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombardment and other radiation disasters?

12. What are the findings of medical check-ups and other research conducted by local and foreign specialists in the territory of our settlement?

13. What diseases are caused by radiation and what are not caused by it?

14. What are the reasons for the growing morbidity and mortality and what do specialists forecast?

15. Where can we address the request for financial support to resolve community or individual priority issues (donors, charitable foundations, international organizations, etc.)?

Youth:

1. What has caused Chornobyl accident, what has happened particularly to the reactor and was it avoidable?

2. What territories were affected by radioactive contamination as the result of Chornobyl accident?

3. Will it be possible to live in the Exclusion Zone and what time should elapse?

4. Was any material support rendered by other nations immediately after the disaster?

5. What support was and is provided to Ukraine by western countries to eliminate Chornobyl accident aftermath?

6. What processes are currently taking place under the sarcophagus and why there is no new sarcophagus over Chornobyl NPP till that day?

7. Is Chornobyl NPP a hazard presently?

8. What was the Chornobyl accident effect on flora and fauna of Ukraine?

9. How does radiation impact human body?

10. Are there many people sick due to Chornobyl accident?

11. Does this accident effect both birth and death rates?

12. How significant was the accident effect on health and development of children?

13. What diseases are related to Chornobyl accident?

14. Why those exposed to radiation have got mostly thyroid gland affected?

10/1/2004 DRAFT

57

15. Why are there increasingly more sick newly borns in that many years after Chornobyl accident?

16. Is radiation affecting children psyche development?

17. Is it possible to measure radiation level in human body and how is it done?

18. Is it possible to reduce the level of radiation in air, water and foodstuff?

19. What is the difference between NPPs built in Ukraine and those in the other countries?

20. Is there a threat of an accident at other NPPs in Ukraine?

21. Is it true that the territory of Chornobyl NPP was turned into a dumping site for nuclear waste?

22. In what cases is validity of the certificate of Chornobyl accident victim extended after 18 years of age?

10/1/2004 DRAFT

58

Annex 4 Focus Group Session Guide

Guide for a focus group with discussion topic: "Information Needs Related to Overcoming Chornobyl

Disaster Aftermath"

Introduction: presentation of the project, detailed explanation of targets and expected outcomes, exposure to the rules of group work.

The Core Part:

1. Assessment of environmental situation in the town.

Clarify by factors affecting human life on safety scale.

2. Assessing the character of changes that took place in participants' lives. Discussion dealing with the past year.

Discuss changes in the following life domains:

• Environment condition;

• Level of information on environment condition changes;

• General health condition;

• Changes in children health condition.

3. Anxiety and fears that came to the surface in recent years.

Special attention should be paid to those risk factors immediately threatening the affected individuals:

• disaster at NPP in Ukraine;

• repetition of Chornobyl NPP disaster;

• incurable severe condition;

• consumption of foodstuff with high radionuclides content;

• loss of job;

• impoverishment;

• criminality and hooliganism;

• other.

4. Personal perception of Chornobyl disaster aftermath.

Pay special attention to emotional touch and behavior models description. Oriented behavior models:

• "I live as if nothing happened";

• "I suppress any thoughts on Chornobyl";

• "I live with anxiety all the time";

• "Chornobyl has damaged my life beyond repair";

• other.

5. Assessment of disaster impact on human health.

Special attention should be paid to the following: whether participants in this discussion consider themselves as being affected by the disaster as well as at what subjective level they perceive harm caused personally to them and to their children. Discussion should touch upon sicknesses people have been suffering from during the last year; how often did they get sick and for how long have they stayed in this condition.

6. Description and assessment of factors impacting health condition.

Special attention should be paid to discussing the following factors:

10/1/2004 DRAFT

59

• Environmental conditions;

• Chornobyl disaster aftermath;

• Mode of being;

• Labor conditions;

• Nutrition;

• Operation of medical services.

7. Information availability and awareness of radionuclides contamination levels in the region.

Special attention should be paid to the following objects:

• Air

• Soil

• Forest, vegetation

• Buildings and living premises

• Settlements in the region

• Local vegetables and fruit

• Local dairy and meat foodstuff

• Mushrooms and berries in the forest

8. Introduction of the radiation doze monitoring.

Special attention should be paid to assessing frequency and quality of control measures at commons, at private land parcels and at farms' agricultural land separately.

9. Taking measures to decrease radioactive contamination.

Special attention should be paid to the frequency and what particular measures are carried out in public sector, in household operation and in private life. The following measures may be taken as an example:

• Introduction of potash fertilizers and liming of soils

• Introduction of sand and clay to peat soils

• Cultivating plants that absorb radionuclides

• Resettlement

• Rehabilitation

• Nutrient supplements

• Pharmaceuticals eliminating radionuclides from the body

• Ways to process and cook foodstuff targeted at decreasing radionuclides content level

10. Assessment of protection means efficiency and their accessibility.

Special attention should be paid to whether this assessment is based on immediate experience of using protection means, or assessment was built on rumors and information not proved worth.

11. Knowledge as to key facts of life in the contaminated areas.

Special attention should be paid to the following factors:

• Radiation impact on human health

• Behavior in the contaminated areas

• Soil control and cleanup

• Meat and milk control and cleanup

• Vegetation control and cleanup

• Controlled nutrition

10/1/2004 DRAFT

60

• Vitamins consumption

• Nutrient supplements and sorbents consumption

• Taking pharmaceuticals

12. Information sources.

• Immediately following the disaster

• Within the last decade

• In the nearest future

13. Need for radiation safety information.

Special attention should be paid to the following:

• Individual feeling as to existence of such a need

• Assessment of the level of this need satisfaction

• Targeting and content of such information

• Major population groups in need of such information

The role of municipal authorities in delivering the necessary information should be the subject for its own discussion.

14. Trusting in information carriers.

Special attention should be paid to such issues:

• Who could be the information carrier of authority for the majority of citizens;

• How should such information look;

• Intelligibility of information content on the issues of radiation safety.

15. Information dissemination channels and techniques

Special attention should be paid to both functional and personal readiness to be a part in information networking and dissemination.

Termination of work: expressing gratitude and defining the initiative group for the purpose of further cooperation.

10/1/2004 DRAFT

61

Annex 5 Questionnaire used in a sociological survey

QUESTIONNAIRE

We kindly ask you to share your thoughts on your life in _____________. This is an anonymous questionnaire. You need not specify your family name, first name and patronymic. Your answers will be used as an element of a summary. Be so kind and attentively look at possible options for answers related to each question. Make your choice and circle the answer that reflects your point of view. In those cases when your idea is different form those proposed, please, put it down in the available respective line.

1. What is your assessment of the environmental situation in the town? 1 - totally safe 2 - fair 3 - unsafe 4 - extremely unsafe

2. Do you plan to relocate in the coming three years?

1 - YES (please, put in a tentative region for relocation )_____________________ 2 - NO (please, proceed to question 4)

3. Please, specify the reason for relocation _____________________________

_________________________________________________________ Please, assess the nature of changes taking place in your life in the past year

worsened

improved did not change it is difficult to say

4. natural environment condition 1 2 3 4 5. level of information as to changes in the natural environment

1 2 3 4

6. your health condition in general 1 2 3 4 7. material condition of your family 1 2 3 4 8. other _______________________________________

1 2 3 4

9. What victim are you mostly afraid to be of? (not more than three answers).

1 - disaster at NPP in Ukraine 2 - repeated Chornobyl NPP disaster 3 - incurable severe condition 4 - poisoning from mushrooms and other foodstuff 5 - loss of job 6 - impoverishment 7 - criminality and hooliganism 8 - other

10. What is your individual perception of Chornobyl disaster?

1 - I live as if nothing happened 2 - I suppress any thoughts on Chornobyl 3 - I live with anxiety all the time 4 - Chornobyl has damaged my life beyond repair 5 - It is hard to answer

11. Which category of Chornobyl victims do you place yourself in?

1 - significantly affected 2 - slightly affected 3 - I do not consider myself as an affected individual 4 - It is hard to answer

12. How did the disaster affect your own health?

1 - it has slight effect 2 - it has significant effect 3 - it has totally ruined health

10/1/2004 DRAFT

62

4 - I expect deterioration in the future 5 - I do not know

13. How did the disaster affect your children health?

1 - it has slight effect 2 - it has significant effect 3 - it has totally ruined health 4 - I do not know

Did you have to experience the following stressful situations last year?

yes no It is hard to say

14. Huge financial difficulties 1 2 3 15. I was seriously ill, I had surgery 1 2 3 16. Serious chronic disease in the family 1 2 3 17. Loss of faith in situation improvement 1 2 3 18. Lack of confidence in one's own power; no desire to do anything 1 2 3 19. Loss of job 1 2 3 20. Suffered from a criminal act 1 2 3 21. Condition close to suicide 1 2 3 22. Serious conflicts with social environment 1 2 3 23. Other 1 2 3

24. How would you assess your health condition? 1 - very good 2 - good 3 - average (neither good nor bad) 4 - bad 5 - very bad

25. For how long did you were sick last year?

1 - I did not get sick 4 - one month 2 - a week 5 - several months 3 - 2-3 weeks 6 - half a year

26. Did your health condition change in the last years?

1 - improved 2 - remained the same 3 - deteriorated

27. What is your assessment of your working conditions? 1 - very good 2 - good 3 - normal 4 - bad 5 - very bad

28. Did your family nutrition change in the last years?

1 - significantly better 2 - better, but not much 3 - did not change 4 - worse 5 - significantly worse

29. Define your regular moods, please

1 - quiet 2 - well balanced 3 - merry 4 - irritated 5 - powerless 6 - apathy

10/1/2004 DRAFT

63

To what extent the following items on the list are contaminated with radionuclides presently?

Not contaminated

Contaminated a bit

Somewhat contaminated

Hazardously contaminated

I do not know

30. Air 1 2 3 4 5 31. Water 1 2 3 4 5 32. Soil 1 2 3 4 5 33. Forest, vegetation 1 2 3 4 5 34. Your house 1 2 3 4 5 35. Vegetable garden 1 2 3 4 5 36. Settlement 1 2 3 4 5 37. Local vegetable, fruit 1 2 3 4 5 38. Local meat and dairy products 1 2 3 4 5 39. Forest born mushrooms and berries

1 2 3 4 5

40. How often radiation doze control is performed in your settlement at public lots?

1 - annually 2 - sometimes 3 - never 4 - I do not know

41. How often radiation doze control is performed in your settlement at private households?

1 - annually 2 - sometimes 3 - never 4 - I do not know

42. Who performs radiation doze control?

1 - local doze measurement specialist 2 - visiting doze measurement specialist 3 - we do it independently 4 - nobody does it 5 - I do not know

What means are employed to reduce radioactive contamination in public sector?

Applied regularly

Applied from time to time

Are not applied

I do not know

43. Cultivating plants that absorb radionuclides 1 2 3 4 44. Introduction of potash fertilizers and liming of soils 1 2 3 4 45. Introduction of sand and clay to peat soils 1 2 3 4 46. Radiation doze control 1 2 3 4 47. Vitamins 1 2 3 4 48. Nutrient supplements and sorbents 1 2 3 4 49. Pharmaceuticals eliminating radionuclides from the body

1 2 3 4

50 Ways of processing and cooking foodstuff 1 2 3 4 51. Relocation 1 2 3 4 52. Rehabilitation 1 2 3 4

10/1/2004 DRAFT

64

What means do you employ to reduce radioactive contamination in your life and housekeeping?

Regularly Sometimes Never 53. Cultivating plants that absorb radionuclides 1 2 3 54. Introduction of potash fertilizers and liming of soils 1 2 3 55. Introduction of sand and clay to peat soils 1 2 3 56. Radiation doze control 1 2 3 57. Vitamins 1 2 3 58. Nutrient supplements and sorbents 1 2 3 59. Pharmaceuticals eliminating radionuclides from the body 1 2 3 60 Ways of processing and cooking foodstuff 1 2 3 61. Relocation 1 2 3 62. Rehabilitation 1 2 3

Please, assess accessibility of protection means

Easy access

Hard access

No access at all

I do not know

63. Cultivating plants that absorb radionuclides 1 2 3 4 64. Introduction of potash fertilizers and liming of soils 1 2 3 4 65. Introduction of sand and clay to peat soils 1 2 3 4 66. Radiation doze control 1 2 3 4 67. Vitamins 1 2 3 4 68. Nutrient supplements and sorbents 1 2 3 4 69. Pharmaceuticals eliminating radionuclides from the body

1 2 3 4

70. Ways of processing and cooking foodstuff 1 2 3 4 71. Relocation 1 2 3 4 72. Rehabilitation 1 2 3 4

Please, assess effectiveness of protection means

Effective Low effectiveness

Generally ineffective

I do not know

73. Cultivating plants that absorb radionuclides 1 2 3 4 74. Introduction of potash fertilizers and liming of soils

1 2 3 4

75. Introduction of sand and clay to peat soils 1 2 3 4 76. Radiation doze control 1 2 3 4 77. Vitamins 1 2 3 4 78. Nutrient supplements and sorbents 1 2 3 4 79. Pharmaceuticals eliminating radionuclides from the body

1 2 3 4

80. Information as to processing and cooking foodstuff

1 2 3 4

81. Relocation 1 2 3 4 82. Rehabilitation 1 2 3 4

What is your awareness level as to:

I have got thorough knowledge

I have printed recommendations

I've heard something

I do not know

83. Radiation impact on human health 1 2 3 4 84. Behavior in the contaminated areas 1 2 3 4 85. Soil and vegetation control and cleanup 1 2 3 4 86. Vegetable and fruit control and cleanup 1 2 3 4 87. Meat and milk control and cleanup 1 2 3 4 88. Nutrient supplements and sorbents consumption 1 2 3 4 89. Vitamins consumption 1 2 3 4 90. Taking pharmaceuticals 1 2 3 4 91. Precautions as to forest born mushrooms and berries consumption

1 2 3 4

92. Rehabilitation means 1 2 3 4 93. Relocation options 1 2 3 4 94. The Law on protection of the affected population 1 2 3 4

10/1/2004 DRAFT

65

Which are the most frequent sources you get information from ?

On radiation level in the environment

On behavior and housekeeping in the contaminated areas

On benefits and types of support for those affected

95. newspapers 1 2 3 96. radio and TV programs 1 2 3 97. relatives, neighbors, friends 1 2 3 98. disseminated instructions 1 2 3 99. representatives of local authorities 1 2 3 100. medical workers 1 2 3 101. teachers and educators of children 1 2 3 102. on job 1 2 3 103. I do not get any information 1 2 3

To what extend do you need radiation safety information on the following issues:

Extremely needed

Not much needed

Do not need at all

104. Cultivating plants that absorb radionuclides 1 2 3 105. Introduction of potash fertilizers and liming of soils 1 2 3 106. Introduction of sand and clay to peat soils 1 2 3 107. Radiation doze measurement 1 2 3 108. Vitamins 1 2 3 109. Nutrient supplements and sorbents 1 2 3 110. Pharmaceuticals aimed at reducing radionuclides in the body

1 2 3

111. Information on the ways to process and cook foodstuff 1 2 3 112. Relocation 1 2 3 113. Rehabilitation 1 2 3

Please, specify which mass media you prefer as a convenient information source. (put down your answer in each box)

On environment condition

Nutrition safety recommendations

Recommendations on behavior and housekeeping

114. newspapers (which in particular)

115. radio (which channels) 116. TV (specify channels)

Which information sources do you trust?

I fully trust I trust, but not always

I do not trust al all I do not use these sources

117. Radio 1 2 3 4 118. TV 1 2 3 4 119. Newspapers, magazines 1 2 3 4 120. Books, booklets 1 2 3 4 121. Leaflets-memos 1 2 3 4

What kind of support would you like to get from administration?

There is a great need

There is a need There is no need It is hard to answer

122. medical 1 2 3 4 123. rehabilitation 1 2 3 4 124. material 1 2 3 4 125. information 1 2 3 4 And now, be so kind and tell us some information about yourself.

126. What population category do you fall in?

1 - permanent local residents

10/1/2004 DRAFT

66

2 - resettlers from more contaminated areas 3 - resettlers from other regions in Ukraine 4 - those which relocated and those which returned

127. What is your marital status?

1 - married 2 - divorced 3 - widow/ widower 4 - bachelor

128. Do you plan to have children in future ?

1 - YES 2 - NO 3 - it is hard to say

129. If you do not plan to have children, what has impacted that your decision?

1 - threat of unemployment 2 - I do not believe in a chance to get married 3 - Chornobyl aftermath 4 - inappropriate age 5 - poor material condition 6 - poor health 7 - poor housing 8 - I have got children and do not plan for more 9 - lack of faith in the future 10 - other

130. What is your gender?

1 - man 2 - woman 131. What is your age?

1 - 18-24 years 2 - 25-30 3 - 31-40 4 - 41-50 5 - 51-60 6 - 61 and over

32. What is your level of education?

1 - incomplete secondary school 2 - secondary school 3 - specialized secondary education 4 - higher, incomplete higher education

133. What is your social position?

1 - employee at an institution 2 - worker in an industry 3 - agricultural worker 4 - secondary or higher school student 5 - pensioner 6 - unemployed

134. What is your professional background? _______________________________ THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS