Windscale Fallout Path – Scandinavia





Thinking caps on.
Question: Did one have to be in Dundalk, Ireland, in 1957 in order to be affected by the fallout from the Windscale reactor fire? My answer is no. What do you think?
The Argus News
Friday April 20 2001

RPII accept that link between Windscale and Dundalk births after ‘57 ‘unfounded’

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) has accepted a study published in December 2000 which concluded that there was no link between the fire in a nuclear reactor at Sellafield in 1957 and the outbreak of a “cluster” of Down Syndrome babies to six mot

by Olivia Ryan

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) has accepted a study published in December 2000 which concluded that there was no link between the fire in a nuclear reactor at Sellafield in 1957 and the outbreak of a “cluster” of Down Syndrome babies to six mothers who had been pupils at St. Louis Secondary School, Dundalk in 1956-57.

The study was carried out by an international group of scientists led by an Irish epidemiologist, Dr. Geoffrey Dean, and was published in a UK medical journal last December. It investigated the alleged link between a serious fire in a nuclear reactor at Sellafield (then called Windscale) in 1957 and the cluster of Down Syndrome births in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

“The report on the new study confirms that this “cluster” was highly unusual, and warranted the search for some possible common cause,” say the RPII.

“On the assumption that all six mothers were at the Dundalk school at the time of the 1957 fire, the suggestion had been made that radioactive contamination from the fire might have been a factor in causing Down Syndrome in their children,” according to a statement from the RPII.

The Institute issued the statement saying that it was now believed that the new study led by Dr. Dean has established that three of the six girls in question had left the school, and the Dundalk area, some months before the fire occurred.

“Therefore if there was a common cause for the six cases at the school – and the study does not identify any – this common cause could not have been the fire at Windscale.”

The RPII accepted “in light of this finding” that the suggestion of a link between the Down’s Syndrome’s births and the Windscale fire was “unfounded.”

“For many years there has been widespread belief that the existence of such a link was probable or even proven, and this belief has undoubtedly been a source of anxiety for people in Ireland, particularly in the Louth/Dundalk area. The RPII therefore considers it important that the disproving of the suggested link should be widely publicised,” said the Institute statement.

The specific new finding regarding Down’s Syndrome cases does not of course call into question the well established evidence linking exposure to ionising radiation with adverse health effects, particularly cancer, whether the radiation originates from Sellafield or elsewhere.

“In particular, the RPII has never considered that Irish concerns about Sellafield depended on the hypothesis that Down Syndrome cases in Dundalk might be linked to the Windscale fire.

“Ireland’s objections to Sellafield are solidly based,” commented RPII Chief Executive Tom O’Flaherty “on the continuing radioactive contamination of the Irish sea, and most of all on the risk to this country of serious consequences from a major accident at the plant.”

He conclude that these objections are not undermined “because the suggestion of a link with the Down Syndrome cluster in Dundalk has been disproved.”
end quote.

If six mothers who all knew each other, no matter where they were, all had babies afflicted by Down Syndrome, alarm bells should ring and investigations should commence. The same holds true if 3 mothers at the same place all had babies afflicted by Down Syndrome. A common affliction among the children of nuclear veterans.

In Japan, more than 6 mothers will have children afflicted by thyroid cancer or endocrine diseases. In forty years time authorities will say “no link”. And the mothers will disagree. Because they will remember March 2011 as clearly as mothers remembered October 1957. The commonality in both cases include the government lies at the time.

Of course Sellafield has gone bankrupt and the contamination of the Irish Sea with plutonium was a complete waste of money.

The British government of course says the Irish Sea is perfectly safe. Guess what? It’s always October 1957 in England.

And here’s the actual findings:

HOWEVER in 2004 there was this:

Irish Health.
Study raises Sellafield health risk

[Posted: Tue 07/12/2004]

By Niall Hunter-Editor

More than one in 10 people living in the Dundalk area say they have a child with a mental handicap/Downs Syndrome-a figure that is well above the national average, according to a new survey.

The telephone survey, carried out by Dundalk GP Dr Mary Grehan, who has for many years campaigned for the closure of the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria, was carried out among 300 householders.

Ninety-seven per cent of those questioned said they believed Sellafield to be a threat to the people of Co Louth and the same percentage believed that the Sellafield plant has contributed to illness in the county, with 98% also believing there had been an increase in the incidence of cancer in Louth.

Two-thirds of those questioned said they had a close member of their immediate family who had suffered from cancer. Eleven per cent; just over one in 10, said they had a child with mental handicap/Downs Syndrome in the immediate family, which Dr Grehan said, is well above the national average.

She pointed out that a similar mental handicap incidence was quoted in research carried out in a primary school in Dundalk following a fire at Windscale (as Sellafield was then known) in 1957.

Ninety-eight per cent of those questioned in Dr Grehan’s survey felt that they were not being given enough information about the possible serious health effects of living in proximity to Sellafield.

She said in the latest survey, one small housing estate across the road from the school in which the cluster of Downs Syndrome cases was reported in the post- Windscale fire survey, had in the latest survey reported five families who had a Downs Syndrome child at present.

Dr Grehan told that a large number of respondents to the survey stated that those in their family who had died from cancer were female and aged around 40 years.

She said in her own practice in Dundalk she had notice a higher than normal incidence of cancers in women in the age bracket 39 to 42 years.

“It has long been felt that the people of Dundalk believe that Sellafield affects the health of the people in their area. To date, this has been mainly anecdotal so it was decided that it was time to find out exactly what the people thought.”

Dr Grehan said her survey was a measurement of the opinion of people living in Dundalk. “It is not a scientific evaluation of the facts but the local opinion often predates the scientific opinion and very often can be correct.”

Dr Grehan said it was obvious that it was time for politicians to look to local perceptions and investigate them. She said it was important to recognise the problem in Louth and to find out what was causing the adverse effect on people’s health in the area.

“I personally would be quite happy if eventually it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sellafield was not responsible for the increase in ill-health locally-at least by then the reason for the increased ill-health in the area would have been elucidated.”

Dr Grehan carried out the study with the assistance of researcher Grainne Fairbane.

Four years ago, researchers from the Health Research Board dismissed claims that a cluster of Down’s Syndrome births among women attending a primary school in Dundalk could be linked to the 1957 Windscale fire, claiming there were no environmental reasons found for the cluster and suggesting that it may have occurred by chance.

However, at the time Dr Grehan, who is a local councillor in Dundalk, disagreed with the HRB findings, saying that the confines of the research were too narrow to form the basis of a judgement.”
end quote.

This saddens me.

Dundalk Democrat.
Saturday 21 July 2012
Sadness in Dundalk at death of Dr Mary Grehan

Published on Wednesday 1 April 2009 16:24

DR Mary Grehan, Rath House, Ardee Road, Dundalk’s highly respected doctor and councillor, died after a long illness, on Tuesday evening.

Dr Grehan, who was in her early sixties, was originally from Ann Street and studied medicine at UCD. She returned to the town to practice medicine and became one of the most highly regarded members of her profession.

She was a member of Dundalk Town Council and Louth County Council. She topped the poll in her area in the town council elections in 2004. An anti-Sellafield campaigner, she stood for the Progressive Democrats in the 1997 general election and as an Independent in 2002.

Dr Grehan had been planning to open a medical clinic on the Avenue Road and was also active in planning Dundalk’s first private hospital.

A special meeting of Dundalk Town Council was adjourned on Tuesday evening as a mark of respect to the only female on the current council.

Chairman Seamus Keelan said that it was with a deep sense of shock that councillors learned of the death of Cllr Grehan.

“Mary was a councillor and friend to all and will be sadly missed. We extend our sympathy to her husband Gay, sons Alan and David, daughter Maeve and all her family.”

I’ll have to wait then.

And this:

Government records altered in cover-up

Winds over Windscale 1957:
Changing the name to Sellafield was not the only rewrite

The 1957 reactor fire at Windscale was possibly the most serious nuclear accident to occur outside the Soviet Union. Large amounts of assorted radio-isotopes were released. Where did they go, and who was affected?

The fire began at midnight on 9th October and was finally brought under control on the 12th. Radioactivity in the plume from the later part of the event was tracked south east across England and into Europe. But what happened in the early part? Accounts of the wind direction differ. Reports at the time said that it was blowing out to sea (1). This is supported by a meteorological analysis (2) showing a cold front lying NE to SW across the Irish Sea from Galloway to the Isle of Man and beyond to Dublin. Accompanied by heavy rain it was moving eastwards; light winds were blowing towards it.

But in 1974 Roger Clarke (now the Director of NRPB) disagreed. He says (3) that winds were from the NW throughout, blowing the radiation inland. Thus there could be no significant dose to Ireland or the Isle of Man.

LLRC went to the Meteorological Office Archives in Bracknell to find out the truth. We found that the original reports of wind speed and direction had been tampered with.
Record sheets for 1957 had been removed from the Met. Office’s Windscale station volume and replaced with new sheets of a slightly different colour from the sheets for previous and subsequent years. The pages for 1957 read: NO RECORD — MAST DISMANTLED The mast “reappeared” in November. When we pointed this out to the archivist he had a good laugh.

A good cover-up is hard to do
It had not been possible to cook the books entirely – the archivist showed us the Air Ministry synoptic charts. These show the entire weather picture for the British Isles. Every three hours they used to draw up a new chart (each one is as big as a dining table) based on reports for wind speed, direction, and precipitation from all the dozens of weather stations around the country. A researcher can easily trace the movement of weather events, like the Windscale Front, as they change and move. Rewriting history as recorded by the charts would be a big job – a matter of inventing new charts covering several days and making sure that at the start and end of the invention features like fronts, and areas of high and low pressure were in the right place to merge with reality.

Air Ministry chart for 0000GMT 11 October 1957 – two days after the fire began.
The front is lying NE – SW and travelling eastwards. It has yet to reach the site of the fire. On either side of the front light winds are blowing towards it and rain is falling along it, depositing the radioactivity the wind is carrying.

The synoptic charts we saw clearly agree with the early reports and show that Clarke is wrong. It was only in the later part of the fire, as the front passed over Cumbria, that the wind began to blow from the north west; for at least the first half of the fire radioactive clouds were being blown towards the front; radiation was raining out over Galloway, Man and the eastern seaboard of Ireland.

People living in those areas would have received a serious exposure which NRPB (set up in 1970 and quickly identified as poachers turned gamekeepers) would have wished to diminish. In the Isle of Man there was an immediate increase in mortality; there were also effects in the east of Ireland, like the Down’s Syndrome mothers in Dundalk, reported by Patricia Sheehan and others (see Sutcliffe page 179.)

Mortality rate trend Isle of Man 1950-1995 Windscale fire is arrowed


1 Dunster H J, Howells H, Templeton W L, (1958) District Surveys following the Windscale incident October 1957 in Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Vol. 18, IAEA Geneva

2 Crabtree J, (1959) The travel and diffusion of radioactive material emitted during the Windscale accident Quart. J. Royal Meteorological Soc. 85, 362

3 Clarke R H, An analysis of the 1957 Windscale accident using the WEERIE code Ann. Nucl. Sci. Eng 1 73-82

end quote.

Is there any other evidence of instances of British authorities changing maps to suppress or alter public and scientific perception and understanding of the paths traversed by nuclear fallout clouds?

Yes there is.
The following is taken from “F A L L O U T – HEDLEY MARSTON AND THE BRITISH BOMB TESTS IN AUSTRALIA” Cross, R., Wakefield Press, First published 2001, ebook 2012, ISBN 978 1 74305 092 7 (ebook: pdf). Free Download at

“Back in 1956 the Safety Committee had supplied a top-secret report to the prime minister that showed the paths of radioactive clouds from the four Maralinga explosions to be as shown in the diagram on the next page.30.

Edit: this map is placed here:


“The explosion of 11 October is shown as having two radioactive clouds: a ‘small’ cloud at 12,000 feet swinging slightly south and passing close to Port Augusta (a city with a significant population that would probably have been contaminated), and a ‘main’ cloud at 7000 feet south of the small cloud, but apparently not tracked as it moves toward Adelaide across the Eyre Peninsula. Now, nearly two years after the event, the Safety Committee in its article in the Australian Journal of Science31 published a different figure, reproduced here on page 163.

Edit. The map is placed here:


“Notice that for the third explosion (Round 3), the path of the main cloud is now shown above the secondary cloud (called
the ‘small cloud’ in the PM’s secret report)! There appears to have been an inversion of the radioactive clouds here: the prime minister was shown a main cloud pointing south towards Adelaide that appeared to end conveniently in the isolated Gawler Ranges of the northern Eyre Peninsula, whereas the scientific report shows two clouds, both of which eventually exit the country over the eastern seaboard.

“This switching of the designation of the radioactive clouds is
surely curious. It is hard to believe that anyone would have made a mistake, either for the secret report to the prime minister or for what was at the time Australia’s top science journal. Error seems even less likely when the names of the authors of the two reports (including the two professors, Martin and Titterton) are taken into account.

Whatever the truth as to which cloud was the major and which was the minor, the Safety Committee knew fairly precisely the
direction of the southerly cloud’s movement, and its spread – this is clearly shown in the draft copy sent to William Penney for clearance. A radioactive cloud at between 5000 and 7000 feet passed over Adelaide and the whole of southern South Australia, and travelled on into Victoria.

The authors of ‘Radioactive Fallout in Australia from Operation Buffalo’ explained what happened: just prior to the dropping of the bomb from the aircraft there was a temperature inversion. The major part of the cloud, it was claimed, rose through this inversion at the 6000 feet level but a minor part was trapped below (although it could have been the major part of the radioactive cloud instead), and the: veering of the lower level winds following the explosion led to
a southerly diffusion of slowly settling material of low activity.

Arrival of this material at the surface was detected over South Australia, Victoria and N.S.W. during the period 12 to 16 October, the delay resulting from the light wind regime.32 No mention was made of Adelaide – either in the text or even in the data section of the article – even though the committee had access to Marston’s report with its positive proof of contamination.

The level of radioactivity in the fallout recorded over Adelaide, as compared with Melbourne, was of the proportion 46:1, and was considerably higher than at Ceduna, South Australia, the next most contaminated site. A published British whitewash of these events exists. Its author, Lorna Arnold, appears to have some official backing – having received ‘every possible help from the British Ministry of Defence’. Her book, A Very Special Relationship: British Atomic Weapons Trials in Australia, published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in 1987, deals with the atomic weapon tests from a British point of view. Of the contamination of Adelaide she has this to say: “an increase in radioactivity in the air suggested to Marston that the plume had passed close to Adelaide – a conclusion that authoritative evidence does not support. But even if it gave a correct picture of fallout over Adelaide, it was still irrelevant to a report on iodine-131 in animal thyroids.”33 Wrong. This was highly relevant. Two of Marston’s radioactive iodine monitoring stations were close to Adelaide; with these, and the knowledge of the plume (radioactive cloud), he was able to show the method of accumulation of radioactive iodine in the animals. No doubt the British Ministry of Defence would have approved of Arnold’s comment that ‘an increase of radioactivity suggested to Marston that the plume had passed close to Adelaide’, when in fact Marston said that a ‘very large amount of radioactivity . . . clearly indicated that the plume . . .
passed directly over Adelaide’. Who, a cautious reader might reader ask, is more ‘authoritative’ than the head of the division of CSIRO that carried out the actual measurements, and whose chief was acclaimed for his contributions to science, and a fellow of Britain’s premier scientific society? But perhaps by authoritative’ the author actually means an authority British in origin – an anglophile rather than what Marston became – an anglophobe.”

Edit: Cross describes the very great lengths British and Australian authorities went to in order to counter the knowledge of the contamination as observed and published by Marston.

In the end, an official rebuttal by Titterton et al was not accepted by for publication within a scientific journal for the following reasons:

“Mac Burnet reviewed the basis for the Safety Committee’s desire to publish a rebuttal, then explained to Titterton why the editorial board of the Australian Journal of Biological Sciences was unwilling to publish the committee’s manuscript in its present form: (1) . . . the errors of fact in Marston’s paper as published are nscientifically trivial and of the same sort as will be found in virtually every scientific paper published, (2) . . . it is highly undesirable that discussion with political or social implications should be admitted into a journal of primary publication in experimental science, (3) . . . it was laid down as a principle by the editorial board . . . that criticism of previously published papers can only be published if it presents ‘substantial’ material.39…..At the same time, Burnet gave Titterton a face-saving formula compatible with scientific integrity’. He suggested that the Safety Committee withdraw their manuscript, and the journal publish ‘short statement’ to the effect that the ‘Maralinga Safety Committee’ considered the facts and interpretations in Marston’s paper not to give a ‘correct and balanced picture’ of the 1956 Maralinga tests and that Marston’s paper should be read in conjunction with the Safety Committee’s article already published in
the Australian Journal of Science. To this extraordinary suggestion – which amounted to using his power and influence to demean a published and refereed
scientific paper – Sir Macfarlane Burnet, icon of Australian science,
added that: it is open to the Maralinga Safety Committee to publish any statement they feel desirable in any journal of Science, or any journal
of political opinion, to counter residual political implicationswhich they feel are present in Marston’s paper.41” “Hedley Marston’s inference that radioactive iodine was an indicator of radioactive strontium was political dynamite. Inherent too in Marston’s paper were concerns about exposure to low levels of radiation – a matter directly under the care of Burnet’s NRAC. It is likely, therefore, that Burnet perceived here a direct threat to the
committee he chaired – and to more than one scientific reputation. His own name had been brought up in federal parliament some months earlier (in March) in a question about the effects of X-rays and bomb tests on ‘the increase in the number of leukaemia patients over the past two years’.45”

The above clearly establishes that fiddling with maps was a bad habit of British authorities. They would do anything to promote lies instead of truth in relation to the nature and deposition of nuclear fallout.

As for Adeaide, Cross observes: “Marston’s questioning concerned the health risks to towns and cities across Australia, and in particular his beloved Adelaide, from exposure to the low-level ionising radiation in the wake of
the bomb tests.3 This raises an important question: apart from the public’s clear democratic right to know that the radioactive clouds had passed over Adelaide and other towns, was it ethical for the Safety Committee to say that there was no risk to health to any human being, however young?”

And that takes us to every town on the planet subject to the radio-chemical pollution emitted since 1945. For people in each one has asked the same question, in their own diverse ways.

Including Fukushima City and the village of Iitate. For if ever there was a need for the young to consider the precedence of deception used by nuclear authorities, from my perspective and experience and learning, the examples of Windscale and Maralinga are classic examples.

Marston’s use of radio-iodine in thyroid as an indicator of radio-strontium in bone was questioned at by nuclear authorities at the time.

While Marston did find radio-iodine in livestock across Australia, he passed away before the findings of Project Sunshine in Australia were released. These findings confirmed Marston’s primary argument: That radio-strontium would be found in the bones of children. The Sunshine documents which record the Australian human bone survey confirm that even the bones of still born babies of the era contained radio-strontium.

In the light of the SPEEDI deception, a deception as brutal as any British or Australian lie, I am filled with an anger, born in the past but amplified by the present situation. A situation in which evacuation has been feeble, too little too late, and a situation in which not only have a large proportion of children suffered radiological insult to their thyroid gland and endocrine systems, but also, as Marston feared for the children of the 1950s, they have suffered exposure to radio-chemicals of other kinds which will irradiate other tissue. Such damage demands a healthy endocrine system to combat.

I cannot predict outcomes. That is the job of Doctors. In the past is a guide. The Doctors of Japan fill two camps : the inculcated and the gagged.

History shows nuclear authorities lie. They even change maps. When, in the current era, they have insufficient time to change maps, they merely delay information and allow fleeing nuclear refugees to move to positions occupied by fallout clouds.

As in 1957, today’s nuclear authorities maintain that what is called “low level radiation” is safe. Many claim a benefit from such exposure. And they claim in the basis of the nature of the dose response at the low dose end of the Hiroshima chart.

Was there fallout in Hiroshima? Was there only gamma exposure?

One Response to “Windscale Fallout Path – Scandinavia”

  1. CaptD Says:

    Yet another Nuclear accident that leads to health implications that is denied by the Government that causes them…
    What a Nuclear Waste!
    Liked and Tweeted…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: