Sabina Kovalik

Modern World History C period

Mr. Sokoloff
4/30/2021

Summary and Synthesis of Your Research

Kasia Kovalik, the interviewee, was born and lived in Poland until she was fifteen years old.
Growing up in the small town of Krosno, she experienced communism first hand. She talked about how
controlling the government was and the extreme limits placed on citizens by the government. At
[0.24-1:17] she says”

“We lived through [a lot of] restrictions. Like, for example, my mandatory language in Poland
was Russian, I didn't have a choice to pick another language. Russian was something I had to
learn, how to read and speak and write with, besides polish. We probably had only two channels
and TV was very controlled, and you got very limited information.” 1

This shows how controlling the government was and how they set many restrictions. It also adds
to the overall message that they lacked communication, and because of that did a poor job of letting
citizens know what was going on, especially during the time of the explosion of Chernobyl. She also talks
about the shortage of groceries, clothing, etc in stores and how it was a struggle to buy those things. Later
in the interview, she mentions raising her brothers while her mom immigrated and how she has no
positive thoughts towards communism. She said [5:17 - 5:55]

“I mean, communism, it's not something I want you to experience. It's very controlling and limits
people what they can do, their right to speak their, their choices. It's the government's controlling
your life in every aspect possible.” 2

She compares the Covid-19 Pandemic to communism, and seeing all the empty shelves and
everything being out of stock, brought unpleasant memories back. When asked, she also describes her
personal experience with the explosion of Chernobyl and how that affected her. Since the town she grew
up in was southeast of Poland, somewhat close to the border of Ukraine, when the nuclear power plant
exploded she was physically affected by it. At [9:20 - 11:40] she goes on to say:

“Well, what happened was I had no idea it happened because you know, [I was] a young girl,
actually playing outside. And we had no clue this happen because there was no communication
coming from the government. And I also didn't get the medication, iodine. I think until probably
two or three days later. So after after I started developing skin disorder, as you know, it was traced
back to the explosion. I basically got that medicine too late because ... communism and if you
were not part of the government or the Communist Party, you're kind [of] far on the list to get this
medication.” 3

1
Kasia Kovalik, interview by the author, North Branford, CT, May 9, 2021.
2
Kovalik, interview by the author.
3
Kovalik, interview by the author.
 This just adds to the point communism played an important role in the explosion because they did
a poor job communicating, and letting people aware of the situation until they had to, and since
communsit officials and their families were getting hold of the medication first, it then limited the amount
other people could get. Kasia continues to say:

“For me it was a lot of doctor visits, because I was, you know, developing this skin disorder that
nobody could figure out what was going on, and why this all of a sudden happened, I was maybe
nine years old. And then I would see a lot of people getting [something]with similar issues.
Obviously, afterward, everybody was fearing what's going to happen to all the vegetables and the
soils, and, you know, all these animals that were exposed to that because we got exposed to it the
same day– the cloud. You know, right now, I know, there's a lot of people, many years later, I
mean, there's a lot of people dying from cancer. There's tons of thyroid issues...I always tell my
doctors, they always want to check that the thyroid and there's a lot of people dying for brain
cancer, too.” 4

When she talks about her personal stories and her skin condition because of Chernobyl you can
see how everyone, besides the government, had no idea what was going on and what was going to
happen. It builds on the idea people had extreme health conditions and it could have been prevented if the
government did a better job of communicating. She clarifies:

“The government just took care of their own first. And everybody else was later. Kinda almost
too late for some.” 5

Her stories and experience with communism tell how bad it was living in Poland during that time
and how communism played a crucial role within the explosion of chernobyl, by not communicating
leaving everyone confused and urising health condition and the communist officials getting the
medication first putting the ones affected more in worse positions and having limited medicine.
Since communism controlled what was displayed and told, it created a lack of communication
between the government and the citizens. An example of this is the government did a poor job
communicating what was happening when the plant exploded leaving many people confused and scared.
The National Library of Medicine, says:

“the causes of this confusion of perception and failure of response; clearly the problem is one of
communication.” 6

The lack of communication also arose when the government began having doctors lie to people
about health conditions afterwards. The Guardian says officials insisted that all this was ‘poor food and
poverty’ and unrelated to Chernobyl and that people were dying of radiation-linked diseases for the

4
Kovalik, interview by the author.
5
Kovalik, interview by the author.
6
Rosalie Bertell, "Chernobyl: an unbelievable failure to help," International Journal Of Health Services, [Page
#], accessed May 13, 2021, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18724581/.
government to say ‘it’s not Chernobyl’. 7 The overall message these sources brought was that if the
communication coming from the government was more clear, and did not have doctors lying to patients,
the end result could have been better. Since the government did such a poor job communicating and
telling false information, if they had done otherwise not as many people would have had as serious
conditions and they would have understood the explosion better.
When the Soviet Union lied about the explosion of the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl it
created many negative effects. Because communism had such a major effect on the event they were
allowed to control what information got out -what didn't. Instead, they refused to take responsibility and
blamed it on Sweden. Since the government made this decision, by the time the news got to the citizens it
was too late for them to get the medicine because the radiation was too powerful. It began with saying:

“The official position of the state is that global nuclear catastrophe is not possible in the Soviet
Union.” Even now the Soviet Union is still in denial about what happened despite president
Mikhail Gorbachev’s new era of glasnost (honesty).8

The government also tried to blame the Chernobyl explosion on Sweden’s nuclear power plant ,
located in Forsmark, Sweden. After doing a scan in Sweden they discovered that the real source of the
radiation was in the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl. The early detection by the Forsmark plant played a
critical role in the situation by forcing the Soviet authorities to open up about the disaster that happened
there. The source also says:

“Thanks to our early detection we could inform the Swedish authorities at an early stage, who
then told the world about the radioactive pollution coming from the disaster in the Soviet Union.”
9

Since the government delayed taking responsibility for so long, people began having health issues
and for some it was too late. If the Soviet Union took responsibility right away and let the people know
what was going on, they could have prevented the amount of health conditions people had, or gotten them
medicine to at least attempt to cure the diseases. Since this obviously did not happen, people that were
affected by the plants now have skin disorders, thyroid issues, different types of cancers etc., because of
the radiation.
As if the government not communicating with the people or taking responsibility for the
explosion was enough, when the news did get out, they took care of communist officials and their families
first. Even though some of these people were not as largely impacted by the explosion as some living
close by, they still got the medicine first because of their position in communism. This led to worse health
issues for the rest of the people because of the delay in time they had and because they began limiting the

7
Kim Willsher, "The truth about Chernobyl? I saw it with my own eyes…," The Guardian, last modified June
16, 2019, accessed May 19, 2021,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/16/chernobyl-was-even-worse-than-tv-series-kim-w
illsher.
8
Willsher, "The truth," The Guardian.
9
Society, "Forsmark: how Sweden alerted the world about the danger of the Chernobyl disaster," European
Parliament (Brussels, Belgium), May 15, 2014, accessed May 13, 2021,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20140514STO47018/forsmark-how-sweden-
alerted-the-world-about-the-danger-of-chernobyl-disaster.
amount of medicine they were giving out. According to The Guardian, when sick people would visit the
doctors they would start giving less than the prescribed amount.

“Oncologists told us they were so short of chemotherapy drugs they would give one sick child
half a protocol and another the other half, condemning both limiting medicine.” 10

Communism came into play with this situation, because of the limited amount of supplies and the
constant need for them. Just like anything, communism ideology believed everything to be equal, and
since there wasn't enough medication they began limiting it. The government should have taken care of
the people in need of it first, and prevented the shortage and act of restricting the prescribed amount and
eventually gotten to the communist officials. This adds to the overall message that even communism is
believed to be fair, they prioritized the officials and their families, when others more affected needed to
be.

Analysis of Research and Sources

The overall research process went very easily for me. Beginning off with the interview with my
mom, she did a good job explaining her story and experience with communism without me constantly
trying to keep her on track. Once in a while, I would ask a question for clarification or to bring in a new
idea. For me, I grew up listening to these stories, because it was such a significant part of her life, but
sitting down interviewing her about her experience allowed her the chance for no distractions and to get
in-depth. When finding sources it was easy to find many against communism and the Soviet Union.
Many websites also came up proving the government was lying about the explosion of Chernobyl and had
evidence within that. Articles ranged from biased sources to facts and summaries of the explosion. After
all the sources were collected and the interview was finalized, I then put it in noodletools to analyze each
source, and determine whether it was reliable or not and if there was a bias, how it affected the text. In
Noodletools, I also cited each source in Chicago style.
The interview with Kasia Kovalik, about growing up in Poland during communism and the
explosion of the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl. It is a good primary source with reliable information
since it was only 25 years ago. The interview however has a biased perspective against communism since
she had such a traumatic experience with it. Although it is biased it has good content and details about
communism and the explosion of Chernobyl and gives a great description of how the Soviet Union and
government was controlling. This interview can be trusted since it wasn't that long ago, and it causes
trauma it could not be forgotten. She also lived through it first hand as well so all the information is
reliable, although it is biased. I can use this information because it includes emotions and her stories with
an overall message. This information and overall message is useful because it was filled with personal
experiences and details about growing up.
One of the outside research sources was from European Parliament News. This interview can be
reliable because even though it's after the event, it allowed the article to be filled with even more
information that they could have possibly not included if it was written sooner and still can relate to the
event. It includes news, years later, about the real situation with Chernobyl and how the Soviet Union was
forced to take responsibility. It is a good secondary source with trustworthy information. The article
however was written with a biased perspective against the Soviet Union, but for the most part just states

10
Willsher, "The truth," The Guardian
facts. It also includes a quote from a Sweden’s operation manager in charge at the time, adding additional
information. This source can be useful because it shows how poor the communication was with
communism and how if it weren't for Sweden and their investigation, the Soviet Union would not be
pressured into owning up. Covering the overall message that communism had an effect of the explosion
and the effects/results that followed it.
Another source used was an article written by International Journal Of Health Services. This
source talks about Chernobyl and the events it causes and led up to it. This is a reliable source because it
is just a summary. It was written by the world nuclear association which can be trusted, as it is dedicated
to support companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. This is a good secondary source, with no
opinions or bias. It mentions events before and after that caused Chernobyl. The source will be helpful
when talking about the explosion in Chernobyl because it clarifies and summarizes the explosion, and
mentions the cause and effects this event had.

Further Research and Study

Overall I had an overall easy experience when it came to finding sources and with the interview. I
didn't have trouble finding sources related to the explosion of Chernobyl and how communism affected
that. For the most part, all my sources had strong points and had the same information as others, making
the message more reliable. Something I would have done differently is analyze the sources better. Even
though I continued to do lateral reading, and compared the message with other websites, checking more
in-depth the source itself. When analyzing the source I focused more on the publisher and publication date
than the author and their reliability. I ultimately decided to include the information I did, because I felt it
related most to the oral interview, with my mom, and my line of reasoning, which was how communism
came into play with the explosion of Chernobyl.
If I were to redo this project, I would have done a better job analyzing each source in more detail
and trying to find a different type of source. For instance not just an online website or oral interview,
possibly a journal/diary or a speech from the communist party, an official from the Soviet Union, etc. By
doing that I think I could have either seen the government’s point of view and understood where they
were coming from and why they made the decisions they did. I think too it could have added an
interesting perspective, instead of just reading biased sources against communism and the explosion of
Chernobyl. Another thing I would have done differently is found stronger sources and left out irrelevant
information.