Interview with Mads Eskesen, Photographer and initiator of the project.
By Hanne Helth
"My project will not change the world, but those people that I reach, might be influenced to look at the world at bit different. That is my naïve hope."
At April 26 1986 reactor 4 at a nuclear power plant 110 km north of Kiev
the capital of Ukraine. The Chernobyl catastrophe was a reality. The following
days weather forecasts got transformed from being boring repetitions of grey
weather to real thrillers. The radioactive fallout got carried by the wind
and fell randomly leaving its poisoned fingerprints at the globe.
To day nuclear power is still a often used solution for the world's hunger
for a stabile energy supply. For the moment Finland is construction the world's
biggest nuclear power plant. The tough debate after Chernobyl has died out
and the repercussions are alive only by those living in the radioactive areas.
In Ukraine and Belarus the memory of the accident is as living as it was that
April spring day almost 20 years ago which changed lives of millions of people.
And which played a considerable part in the fall of the Soviet Union.
A dark Danish winter evening almost 20 years after Chernobyl Mads and Liliya
open their Copenhagen apartment packed with power of a more healthy kind.
The two devoted people invite me in for a cup of hot Russian tea while telling
their personal accounts of the project "Chernobyl, Twenty People - Twenty
lives".
Mads Eskesen, photographer and initiator of the project concept - how
would you explain the content of this project?
It is in fact a different kind of travel account. For three years we travelled
Ukraine, Belarus, Russia as well as a few other countries, in order to visit
people whose lives, in different ways, got turned around due the Chernobyl
accident. In words and in pictures we depict people from various levels of
society with different cultural backgrounds. Each giving their own account
of the significance of a catastrophe of such a scale.
Our point of reference is that one cannot look at an accident from a technical
angel only or from a humanitarian angel only or from a political angel only.
As human in a modern world one needs to build a much more broad understanding
of what has happened. It was in fact the over specialization that was one
of the reasons for the accident. The people in the control room did what they
were asked to and what they could read in the manuals. But if one does not
look beyond ones own area one cannot react when it is needed.
What is your background for telling stories about nuclear power?
I like very much to tell stories in words and in pictures. Had I lived
in the Stone Age I probably would have been the storyteller at the campfire.
Environmental damages are quit good for stories because if we destroy the
physical world we are living in it seems pretty black.
Why Chernobyl?
I have travelled quite a bit in that part of the world the last 10 years
and it was there I met my Liliya during a peace walk in 1995. I am interested
in Chernobyl, in Eastern Europe and in environment. Therefore it was very
satisfactory to start this project, to research it, find back to some of those
people we have met at earlier travels, to meet new and to see if we could
actually accomplish the idea to tell the story of those people. And luckily
it has.
Why are you especially concerned about environmental questions?
That might be a coincidence. Among other things I have also been a social
worker. My interest to the environment has come and gone but of some reason
it keeps coming back to be even though one easily can burn out being an environmentalist.
It is very difficult to influence the big industries however it is very clear
to see that something wrong is happening like for example those big environmental
catastrophes. Environmental catastrophes should not happen however what is
happening between people is far more difficult to understand and to change.
Environment is an area where one quite easy can say 'something is wrong here,
we can do that much better'.
Why is the story about Chernobyl and Nuclear power interesting to day?
We use the computer for about everything, but as individuals we have no
idea how it actually function. It is the same in the field of Nuclear Power
- nobody fully understands how a nuclear power plant functions. If you look
at what happened after the accident none of the people affected by it fully
understands what they are part of. Human beings can't grasp it which you can't
expect anyway.
The people in the control room did what they had to do during the accident,
but at that time nobody understood the possible human and environmental damage.
It is a very strange accident because it is complete invisible. The fallout
is invisible and you get sick only some three years later and by then you
might have forgotten that your illness has anything to do with Chernobyl,
especially if you get no information about the consequences of the accident.
It is a general observation for this kind of accident that the industry and
the authorities do what ever possible to hold back the truth. Just look at
Bophal and Seveso as other example. That is why I think it makes sense to
tell this kind of stories. I wonder how many things out there exist where
they actually managed to withhold the truth…
You interview people living in a dictatorship without freedom of speech -
I am thinking of Belarus - is there any risks connected to making the stories?
All people in the project agreed to speak with us and they did not mind. Those
people who risk persecution are already are fighting hard and being harassed.
They are used to promote their ideas and they are more than glad to do so.
It was only in Belarus we encountered that sort of things, but no one wanted
to be anonymous.
At the time of the 20 years anniversary there will probably be a big media
attention about the accident again. What will you stories contribute?
The stories in this project will be quite different than what I guess we will
otherwise see around the anniversary - namely stories which will be official
accounts. My stories are based on normal people's personal accounts, and the
problems are described in very different ways depending on who tells it, the
place and context.
How did you choose the stories?
I would like to pass on a broad span of stories. One criteria of selection
has been to obtain a geographical variety of both east and west Europe, but
with a majority of stories from Belarus where about 70% of the Chernobyl fallout
landed. Another criterion has been to cover people's role's scientists, politicians,
villagers etc. so to give the accounts a broad society span. And then of course
we also choose those stories which are well told. We do not discover anything
which has not been revealed before, but some aspects has been poorly covered
by the press. For example the radioactive cloud that was made to rain over
the population at the belarussian-russian border. We put the stories together
in a new way. There is a tendency of having more high educated cases than
low educated among the interviewed people.
What thought did you do about publishing these people's personal accounts?
The documentary genre does have a certain degree of manipulation and exposure
of the people you which to depict.
In general people are very open. It is possible to get a story out of
people in 5 minutes, but in most cases we have worked very long to get people
to tell their stories. Often we visited people several times and sometimes
we spend days with them in order to get well acquainted before we came to
the actual point about this specific person's account on the accident. Unfortunately
in some cases that also meant that I had to drink quite some vodka to get
close to some people - and I am not really a drinking specialist. There is
still an incredible amount of man in those countries that drinks and many
still believes that it flush out radiation.
How do people regard the Chernobyl accident nowadays?
Except for the governments, nobody in Eastern European countries has forgotten
the catastrophe after all these years. People talk about the accident every
single day, they just mention the name of Chernobyl and everyone understands
it all. People feel miserable and they know that they feel miserable and therefore
they are very sorry about it. It was not difficult for them to talk about
how they are doing. The topic of Chernobyl is not closed at all. People feel
pity for themselves. Sometimes they exaggerate and then suddenly Chernobyl
is the cause of all their problems.
What do you want to communicate with your stories?
I hope that people in the West would look at their own society more critically
and try to understand some things. My project would not change the world,
but I hope to be able to reach out to some people and encourage them to look
at the world with different eyes. This is my somewhat naïve hope. I wish
to raise the awareness about environmental issues and that we should influence
the society in which we live.
Why do you think Chernobyl is still alive in Eastern Europeans' memory?
Because it is a part of their every day life. They could feel the effects
of the accident in their knees, eyes, stomachs. They get sick and they know
it is due to Chernobyl and that nothing can be done about it. They cannot
complain as there is no one to complain to. They cannot get any 'coffin money',
as they call the dismal compensation that some people receive from the government.
People are also aware of the fact that it might not be healthy for them to
eat mushrooms and berries from the forest since they don't satisfy all the
safety requirements, but people have to do it in order to survive.
We in Western Europe know perfectly well that we could be run over by a car, but we still don't switch on the lights on our bicycles. Prophylaxis requires constant informational campaigns, also how the population should live with the consequences of Chernobyl, but nothing like that happens. The Belarusian government says that there is no problem at all. In Ukraine the issue is being discussed to some extent, while in Belarus it is not.
Do Western Europeans have the same fatalistic attitude?
All who work with something dangerous or unpleasant every day, distance themselves
from it. It's just like having to change your child's diapers. Normally parents
would not mind doing that, while people without children might find it unpleasant.
In the areas that were affected by radiation people's life foundation has
shifted. Those things, which we consider abnormal over here, have become a
norm over there.
The foundation for the life of the Samies has not shifted, eve though they
were affected by the radioactive fall-out. It is because the Swedish government
reacted to the disaster and introduced measures that would prevent distribution
of radioactive food products in the country. It is not the same in Belarus.
There one believes it is perfectly normal to get an eye cataract, rheumatism,
and heart problems as 30 year old. One does not get any information about
the situation and the reasons for the illnesses among the population. Their
standards have been changed.
Do you believe that the fact that people told you their life stories influenced
them in some way or another?
Yes and no. For someone it meant widening of their horizon: that one can get
an eye cataract because of radiation. People did not know that necessarily
before they have talked to us.
E.g. we talked to a guy from a Russian minority in Latvia. He is still bearing some of the burden of the Soviet Union. We got in touch with him via Latvian Social Service. He was 18, when he was sent to Chernobyl, as people from the whole Soviet Union were sent to Chernobyl to clean up after the accident. Our interview meant a lot to this man, as he has never been asked about his experiences before. He began analysing them, while he was talking to us, that he actually got older physically because of the radiation dose he received. But maybe for the majority of the rest of the people our interviews did not mean a lot. Physicians, researchers and politicians are used to telling their stories.
Who impressed you most, while you worked on the project?
Professor Nesterenko and professor Bandazhevsky, whom I have never met, only
his wife. Their stories prove that science is not just science.
The Badazhevskys moved to Gomel (one of the largest cities on Belarus on the border between Belarus and the Ukraine) while other people moved from there in order not to get sick. The couple researched how radioactivity influenced a human body. They are both doctors and looked at the consequences of the accident from a strictly scientific point of view. During their experiments they received results that showed that even low-dose radiation has negative influence on the body. When Yury published the results of the study, he was arrested and spent a long time in prison. He was release only in 2005 and has become a big political issue.
Nesterenko is a nuclear scientist and before the accident he had worked for protection of the employees of nuclear power plants. At that time he believed that nuclear power was the way to go, but Chernobyl has changed his views. Ever since the accident he has been working on prevention of sicknesses among the population. He established measuring stations in the country and has been living under constant press from the government of the country.
These two scientists went against the stream and worked without any money, any official support. Their stories have influenced me a lot. They are exceptional because they give hope for the mankind, they are the bright spot. While the husband was in prison, the wife continued his work. When Nesterenko lost his position at the Institute, he founded his own. When other people gave up, they continued. Science is not just a science, it becomes easily a big political issue.
Do you believe that your project would make a difference in the discussion
about nuclear energy?
It depends on whether I get lucky. In September 2005 UN published a report
claiming that almost no one died as a result of the accident. The human consequences
were totally forgotten. As a result there was an explosion of interest towards
my exhibition, because it tells another type of stories. Whether my project
makes a difference depends on whom and how many I would reach out to with
the exhibition and the book. The exhibition is just some photos and words,
but if organisations begin using them, they might mean something for ordinary
people. And I will be happy about it.
What about you - would this project make a difference for you?
When someone does something, it is always due to two reasons: because it satisfies
one and because it can be useful to the others. Every day that passes by I
become happier and happier by thinking that others would like to use something
that I am working on. Therefore the project has made a big difference for
me.
Where should the future debate about nuclear energy move towards? Should
it be different from what it is nowadays?
Nowadays there is almost no debate about nuclear energy. There are many NGOs
around, who discuss it very passionately, but there is no any people movement
that would be either pro- or anti-nuclear. There is some popular engagement
in e.g. the Hague or Gorleben since the problems there are closer to the population,
but otherwise there are no other activities.
One cannot just close nuclear power plants. One has to do that gradually in several phases. I would like to have some debate about that we have made ourselves dependent on technology that we don't fully understand. I would rather depend on technology that we understand. I understand what happens in a windmill, whereas don't have much knowledge about nuclear energy. If one wants to get rid of a windmill, one just have to take it away and it is not going to be there anymore. If one wants to remove a nuclear power plant, it takes at least 60 years before it is possible to start taking away buildings, while it takes several thousands of years to get rid of the radioactive waste. The danger with nuclear power is big because it requires uranium mines, transportation of the uranium and then trying to get rid of the waste. There is a tendency to think only of the electricity that nuclear power gives.
Luckily accidents at nuclear power plants do not happen too often, but still I would like that while talking about nuclear power we could take into consideration all of its aspects. When looking at energy consumption one has to look at the issue from all angles.
Why do you think people are not interested in the nuclear energy debate
anymore?
In Denmark the anti-nuclear side has won and it is difficult for us to look
further than the tip of our nose. The closure of the Barsebäck nuclear
power plant has become a reality. Not many people know much about nuclear
power plants in France, UK, the Czech Republic, Lithuania or about the largest
station being built in Finland. I guess that one of the reasons that people
stopped talking about nuclear energy because of the geographic distance.
Maybe it is too much to expect to have people debating about nuclear energy.
I do understand that popular movement come and disappear all the time. We
should think in a different way about why such a debate is missing. We have
become slaves of consumerism; we focus on things that we can get, forgetting
about the consequences of having all the things that we want. The same is
relevant as far as the production of electricity is concerned.
What does it look like in Eastern Europe, where people have experienced
several large nuclear accidents - Chernobyl has not been the only or the largest
accident in that part of the world after all?
In Eastern Europe people use most of their energy on trying to survive, get
something to eat and earn some money. Here in our part of the world we use
our energy on getting more things, even though I do understand that it is
an exaggeration. We have a welfare system and it is great to live in a country,
where one does not have to think about survival. And still we use so many
resources in order to be able to consume afterwards. The welfare system ought
to mean that we have possibilities and resources to do other types of things.
