Archive for January, 2013

The with holding of evidence -Dave Whyte.

January 23, 2013

From: “Dave Whyte” <

Hello Paul,

Many thanks for your e-mail. I doubt if we will ever be permitted to have a cytogenetic blood analysis carried out as the Authorities know what the results would be. Everything they do has a delaying action in the hope we will all be dead before they are forced to admit the truth. What irks me, is the fact all Servicemen were loyal to Queen and Country but loyalty has not been reciprocated by our respective Government's.

It was the Ministry of Defence that kept informing me I should put in for a War Pension if I considered my medical problems were caused by nuclear testing. When I did apply they acknowledged my stomach problems were caused due to service and awarded me a 0% pension: They also admitted the Lymphadenopathy and again awarded a 0% pension; For my claim of infertility and other ailments I was informed I did not receive sufficient radiation to cause my ailments.

I have now added Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) citing the stress involved in attempting to obtain information on the levels of radiation received including the fact that It took the Ministry of Defence over five years to supply me with information on the levels of radiation at ground zero after Pennant and Burgee after denying it existed. They are still refusing to divulge the levels of 'Beta' radiation at ground zero after detonation of the bombs, or the radiation levels at our living quarters in the forward area.

There were around 200 of us living at 'B' site (I have attached a map) which was situated 3 miles from the atomic bomb ground zero and 6 miles from the point of detonation of the hydrogen bombs Flagpole and Halliard. I saw members of the AWRE regularly checking the area for radiation (they were wearing protective clothing at the early stages). My attempts have failed to get a copy of the logs showing the levels of radiation. I should add, we were never given protective clothing or respirators we went around in shorts and flip-flops.

I believe this was the forerunner to Operation Lighthouse which was cancelled due to the moratorium. The tests were held in quick succession as proposed for Lighthouse: Pennant atomic bomb 22 August, Flagpole hydrogen bomb 2 September, Halliard hydrogen bomb 11 September and Burgee atomic bomb 23 September 1958. I have proof that the forward area was radioactive for nine days after Pennant and six days after Burgee. The authorities are denying there was any radiation in the forward area after the two hydrogen bombs!

I have attached a photograph showing the condition of our living quarters after Pennant. It is only now I realise there must have been radioactive particles blown into our bedding and other belongings which we could have inhaled or ingested whilst sleeping.

I hope some of this may be of interest.

All the best


Proof of Harm imposed by Nuclear Fallout

January 22, 2013

Media Release
Dr Michael Wooldridge

Minister for Health and Aged Care
5 September 2001

The Federal Government has today referred a report by the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) into Australia’s participation
in a global nuclear monitoring program to the Australian Health Ethics Committee

Between 1957 and 1978 Australia had a program for measuring strontium-90 (a
radioisotope associated with nuclear testing) contamination in the environment.
“While this important research program was public knowledge at the time, I share
the concerns of many Australians today about the ethics of not seeking the
informed consent of next of kin for the use of human bone samples in the
monitoring program,” Dr Wooldridge said on releasing the ARPANSA Report.
“It must be remembered that these events occurred in a different era when it was
not common practice to seek the consent of family members for these kind of
studies and that is why I asked ARPANSA to examine the records regarding the
monitoring program.

“I am informed that the former Australian Atomic Weapons Tests Safety
Committee, which coordinated this program, kept records, which included in
many cases, the identity of the human samples used. ARPANSA is currently
completing the process of collating these records.

“I am now referring the issue of how to best make this information publicly
available to the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian
Health Ethics Committee. AHEC is expected to provide advice by the end of the
year on establishing proper ethical protocols so that family members can gain
more detailed information about the program,” Dr Wooldridge said.

The Report shows that Commonwealth officials requested hospital pathologists to
participate in the fallout monitoring program. Most pathologists in hospitals in
mainland Australia and the Northern Territory who were asked were willingly
involved as a public service.

The CEO of ARPANSA, Dr Loy, has written to the States involved and the NT
providing them with the report and with the names of the laboratories involved for
whatever further action they may wish to take.

The Report shows that for the first few years of the program, ashed human
samples were sent to laboratories overseas (USA and the UK) for measurement as
Australia did not have suitable equipment for measuring strontium-90. However,
during the 1960s this capability became available and subsequent samples were
analysed in Australia.

The results of the global research effort showed that humans were being
adversely affected by radioactive fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear
and the monitoring program contributed to the eventual banning of
atmospheric testing throughout the world.

Media Contact:
Craig Simonetto, Office of Dr Wooldridge
Kay McNiece, Department of Health & Aged Care

end quote.

It is weird day indeed when people acting in the interests of Aboriginal Legal Rights claim a case cannot proceed because of lack of proof, when a Federal Minister of the Australian Government, and Liberal and National Party Government at that, provided a body of proof in 2001.

The documents released by Wooldridge and ARPANSA in 2001 were extensive and included detailed information pertaining to Strontium 90 uptake by the people of Australia and New Guinea.

As discussed by the AEC Committee in Washington, USA, August 1953. (See the relevant previous post.)

Minister Wooldridge confirms that the Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee was actively engaged in Project Sunshine. The first 11 pages of the Minutes of the AEC Committee, which sat in August 1953, remain deleted and restricted from public view. In this document the Committee considered the risks of those close in to nuclear test areas and the vulnerability of such populations. The committee pondered the adequacy of the limits set in terms of the ICRP derived tolerance dose for Strontium 90, based as it was on the radium standard.

In the 1980’s Titterton, Chair of the Safety Committee admitted that he could not share all he knew in relation to the hazards of nuclear weapons testing with the rest of the Committee and hence could not share this information with the government and people of Australia because he was subject to the secrecy provisions of both the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

Two months after the deliberations in Washington in August 1953, which set 25,000 megatons of explosive yield as the amount of nuclear weapons required to bring the population of the whole globe to the ICRP derived tolerance level for Strontium 90, United States B29 cloud chase aircraft took off from an Australian Air Force base and headed for Emu Field. They, together with RAAF aircrew had the task of chasing and monitoring the whole of the Totem 1 nuclear bomb fallout cloud.

The aircrews admit they failed. The US aircrews, veterans of the Pacific tests, reported that the cloud portions which were flown through were the most radio active they had ever encountered. One RAAF aircrew had a 12 hour flight, becoming lost in the attempt to find the missing portion of the cloud.

They should have been in jeeps, running around Mable Creek and Mintabie, South Australia, instead of assuming the whole cloud was at aircraft height.

And some people have the audacity to claim there is no proof.

It is past time for the world to know the contents of pages 1 – 11 of the August 1953 AEC minutes. Titterton for sure was in on it. What did he take to the grave?

On returning to base the US crews reported that their radiation detection equipment remained on full scale deflection.

By what special means did the British weapons engineers render their fallout so persistent that the US aircrews could not, under US regulations, approach their aircraft for 72 hours? There is more in a fallout cloud than Strontium 90. The short lived isotopes deliver a huge dose to those subject to fresh fallout.

The rumor is this: Several tons on coal had been placed at the base of the Emu 1 bomb tower.

In order to create dense, heavy, sticky, fallout.

It’s a rumor, unproven. But the proof of the fallout exists in Beta Burns and other effects suffered by people over 100 miles distant from Emu. And, while some revisionists and hacks find that incredible, such events were photographically documented by an AEC appointed radiation monitor in Nevada in the very same year. Ground level and near ground level nuclear fallout clouds engulfing Dry Springs and Warm Springs, Nevada. Jpe had to use a camera mounted in a lead lined box, with a little hole in it for the lens. Otherwise, he knew from experience, the film would fog from the radiation. This, on a farm, about 100 miles from Mercury Test Site, Nevada.

At Mintabie, Lallie had her camera, but was in such shock and horror at the multi hued cloud snaking as a Black Mist through trees toward them that she did not think to take a photo before she and her family were engulfed. The photo, had Lallie taken it, would not have come out. The film would have been fogged by radiation.

Her Beta Burns appeared shortly after. She sought diagnosis and was refused at the time. The doctor remained silent on the matter.

In the 1980s as the characteristic long term effect of cyclic reopening of wounds recurred, she received psorasis treatment. The treatment does not define the disease. It is Beta Burn.

“People were adversely affected”

Yes Minister.

It’s a full circle. The results of Project Sunshine were predicted in August 1953.

The Minister confirmed the results in 2001.

By now, nuclear pollution is supposed to be normal, just like car exhaust.

That was the plan, anyway. Don’t let the plan succeed.

The story about the coal, well that’s unproven. What is known is that the US Pacific Proving Ground, with which the US aircrew were familiar, consisted of coral atolls. The calcium carbonate rich sand helped compose a different type of fallout than did the equivalent fission shots in Australia. Emu Field is a clay pan. That alone explain the difference. The extra-ordinary dirtiness of the Australian fallout, as experienced by the US crews. In contrast too, the Nevada test site is composed of silicate sandy soil, which produces a characteristic “glassy bead” within the fallout. Then there is the condensed metal, uniformly radioactive all the way through, rather than being coated with fission product, like the residue of the condensed soil particles.

How much detail do the solicitors want before they will recommence their action?

From Andrew K : The US Downwinders and their Case – with Proof.

January 22, 2013

The following has been taken from Nuclear Crimes.Org. Source link is :
As this is Andrew’s work, you have to go to his site read the whole piece.
This question of whether serious biological damage is linked to exposure to relatively ‘low dose’ radiation is one that has never been adequately answered in the annals of science. Scientists concur that there is no safe level of radiation exposure. But they have a hard time agreeing how much exposure to radioactivity will result in cancer or leukemia, especially when that exposure is received in relatively small amounts over time.
We know that film is vulnerable to very strong forms of energy such as X-rays or gamma rays or particles called alphas or betas. Can these same forms of energy cause the atoms in our cells to become slightly unstable or altered chemically (not unlike the chemicals in Kodak’s film that were altered from the contaminants lodged in strawboard dividers), and thereby give rise to biological harm?
Film is analogous to human tissue when discussing radioactivity but the analogy breaks down when discussing what happens when chemical pairs fracture. The exposure of a sheet of photographic film to radiation will simply cause disassociation of some silver-bromide bonds that cause the film to ‘fog.’ Nothing else happens. Nothing ‘horrible,’ that is. In the body on the other hand, if chemical bonds, which are critically important to cellular processes, are broken or ‘ionized’ by radiation tracks they can end up attaching to the wrong things. Consider that each cell replicates itself by copying 5 billion bits of information. If one bit of this information is not copied exactly, then huge problems may occur down the line as the new cells become the templates for millions of more subsequent cell-replications. If chromosomes are damaged and never repaired, then genetic damage may result down the road in our defective offspring. Also, cells that have been artificially charged from ‘mass-stripping’ radiation may begin an unnatural process whereby a single cell starts growing and producing other cells that have no purpose, like a cancer. Cancerous growths, if left unremoved, can suffocate and impair functioning of our vital organs and lead to death. Cell-mutating sequences leading to a biological train-wreck can be caused by external exposures as well as internal exposures – internal exposures result from inhaling or ingesting fallout particles or radioactive gas. We must assume that the same airborne radiation that produced the spots on the radiograph from New York State gummed film in 1951 was being breathed by New Yorkers. If internal exposures were happening to New Yorkers, what about the local and regional residents of the Nevada Test Site. Wouldn’t they be receiving even worse ‘internal radiation injuries?’ (This fallout map is a composite of cloud trajectories from one of eight NTS atom bomb test ‘series’.)
Canary in the coalmine: the downwinders
Regrettably, virtually no one was looking out for serious internal radiation injuries and it wasn’t until a dramatic decline in the health of residents of the hardest-hit downwind areas was apparent that experts began to become concerned.
Harvey Wasserman and Norman Solomon chronicled in their 1982 book ‘Killing Our Own-The Disaster of America’s Experience with Atomic Radiation’ the onset of ailments afflicting families in ‘Dixie,’ the southern portion of Utah just over 100 miles from the Nevada Test Site13. The authors, having interviewed residents and amassed health reports, made this stunning compilation (numbers correspond to footnotes in original text):
‘… in Cedar City [Utah], Blaine and Loa Johnson buried their twelve-year-old daughter in 1965. She died of leukemia. A total of seven leukemia cases occurred for people within a two-hundred-yard radius of their home, in the space of a dozen years.[10]
In the next sizable town, twenty miles farther northeast along Interstate 15, residents in the devout Mormon community around Parowan were similarly hard hit. In 1978 Frankie Lou Bentley, whose mother and stepfather both died of cancer a year apart, listed more than 150 cancer victims in the Parowan-Paragonah-Summit area, which contained about fourteen hundred people during the nuclear tests in neighboring Nevada. The cancer was particularly startling because so few people smoked in the community. “It’s amazing that there should be so many cancer cases in an area as small as this,” she told a county newspaper. “It’s to the point now where there’s not a person in town who hasn’t lost at least one relative or knows of several people who have died of cancer.”[11]
A coworker with Frankie Lou Bentley at the Bank of Iron County office in Parowan, Wilma Lamoreaux, watched her fifteen-year-old son Kenneth die of leukemia in 1960.[12] During a two-year period, leukemia struck four youngsters in Parowan and Paragonah,[13] an extremely high rate for towns with a combined population of about one thousand. Normally, not even one leukemia would have been expected by medical statisticians.[14]
….In the nearby Escalante Valley cancer caused forty-eight of sixty-three “natural” deaths in official records since the atomic testing began–an extraordinarily high ratio.[16]
And there were other worries. One fifth of the male high school graduates of the 1950s and early 1960s in Cedar City discovered they were sterile,[17] …. For those who became parents, there were fears of genetic damage.
Elizabeth Catalan, who was a teenager while growing up in southwest Utah during the 1950s, lost her father to leukemia when he was forty-three, and a sister to complications from an enlarged thyroid. A surviving sister’s daughter remained on her mind: “I watched my beautiful little niece, Kay’s child, cope with the birth defect that left her with a ganglia that doubled the size of her tongue and wound around, like a weed, inside her neck and down into her shoulder.”[18] Elizabeth Catalan thought too about girls she grew up with, now women, coping with aftermaths of miscarriages and physical abnormalities in their children.
…In 1960 the population of Fredonia [Arizona, across the Utah border from Kanab] was 643. By 1965 four had passed away from leukemia–a truck driver, who died at age forty-eight; a fourteen-year-old girl; a lumber crane operator, thirty-six; and Gayneld Mackelprang, by that time forty-three years old and superintendent of the Fredonia Public Schools. A secret memorandum by the U.S. Public Health Service’s leukemia unit director, Dr. Clark W. Heath, Jr., noted, “This number of cases is approximately 20 times greater than expected.”[29] In the entire previous decade 1950 to 1960 no cases of leukemia had been reported among Fredonia residents. The memo, dated August 4, 1966, and sent to the head of the federal agency’s Communicable Disease Center, was marked “FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY, NOT FOR PUBLICATION.”[30]
….Cancer became commonplace in Fredonia. Rose Mackelprang ticked off the names of the next towns north along Highway 89–Kanab, Orderville, Glendale–where cancer and leukemia had appeared. “Some of them have died with leukemia, we have a lot of cancer, and it’s not the end of it. It’s still going on.” Federal agencies continued to deny responsibility.’
The spotlight shines
Residents of the ‘downwind areas’ knew what was going on since the 1950s – they couldn’t help but notice increasing leukemia and thyroid cancer rates in their towns and counties. Yet they just didn’t know who to believe. Since the mid- to late-1950s, few journalists, scientists and politicians were of the mind that the fallout was dangerous and likely to blame for some of these diseases, and deaths. But a vigilant and proactive public relations effort by the AEC, and a behind-the-scenes suppression of vital information – such as health analyses, and evidence that fallout may have already caused harm – kept downwinders confused.
By the summer of 1979, all of that had changed. Wrote Susan Q. Stranahan in ‘Downwind Deals,’ one in a series of freelance articles about victims of radiation poisoning and compensation published in AFP Reporter14:
“Several well-publicized Congressional hearings into the matter had been held …The governor of Utah, who had released 11 pounds of secret federal documents pertaining to the tests and the resulting fallout on the residents downwind of the Nevada Test Site…visited the White House seeking the president’s aid. A year before, a federal task force had determined that there were no safe levels of radiation and that exposure to radiation at low levels could in fact also cause cancer. But the report ignored the question of government liability for injuries caused by exposures from the testing. And a growing number of people were demanding an answer to that issue….”[15]
That wasn’t all. Also in 1979, a large number of files by the AEC became declassified and a University of Utah scientist published a study documenting an increase in leukemia rates among children in Utah. Dr. Joseph L. Lyon’s study was published in one of the most reputable medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine.16
Concurrent with this explosion of information about and attention to the downwinders, two ‘torrents of justice’ flowed towards their cause. Stranahan notes: “Out in Utah, Arizona and Nevada, lawyers were busy filing claims against the government on behalf of downwind residents. The amount sought in the claims already exceeded $2 billion and the attorneys were still processing others. They made it clear they were ready to go to court.” Literally hundreds of Utah and Arizona residents filed suit in federal courts alleging that exposure to Nevada fallout radiation was a major contributing factor in their contraction of cancers, leukemias, melanomas, and in some cases even the death of their kin.17
Determined to get a handle on the increasing number of lawsuits dealing with fallout, the Federal District Court of Utah struggled with the idea of pursuing each and every claim. By 1979, the district court counted nearly 1,200 total claims by plaintiffs seeking fallout-related damages relating to deaths and injuries.
The second ‘torrent’ was happening in the nation’s capitol. U.S. senators – led by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the late Teddy Kennedy (D-Mass.) – brought to Washington, D.C. expert after expert to aid them with the thorny issues of compensating large numbers of persons who sought injury-related damages from NTS fallout. Congress was intent on passing legislation to compensate downwinders.
Two thoughtful souls
These two torrents landed at the feet – so to speak – of two remarkable men who spent more time than just about anyone else at wrapping their heads around radiation compensation issues.
One was Bruce Jenkins of Utah, who was selected by the Utah District Court to preside over a collective trial for 24 select cases (out of the over 1,100 cases). Those two-dozen cases would act as ‘bellwethers’ to determine a judicial boiler-plate to apply to the other similar cases overloading Utah’s docket. This wasn’t to be a class-action suit. Jenkins told the federal government’s and the downwinders’ lawyers to select 24 “typical” cases and his decision, he later wrote, would ‘provide a legal and factual pattern against which the remaining issues in the pending cases may be subsequently matched.’
Following Jenkins’ final decision, a downwinder could, hypothetically, present his or her claims to a federal court judge and if their case met eligibility requirements then the judge would simply, and rather quickly, decide the severity of the damage and allot a suitable monetary award.
During the same general time period, the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources invited Dr. Charles W. Mays to testify on their draft, proposed bill titled ‘The Atom Bomb Fallout Compensation Bill of 1982′.
Quotes from Jenkins decision about AEC monitoring
“The attention of the NTS [Nevada Test Site] off-site monitoring programs was focused almost exclusively on measurement of external gamma dosage received in the few hours immediately following each detonation….”
“The off-site monitoring activities at NTS between 1951 and 1962 were overwhelmingly geared toward assessment of the … acute phase of fallout hazard….”
“Little attention was directed to careful monitoring of lower-energy gamma rays, or to measurement of beta radiation or determination of beta/gamma ratios. … Actual measurement of off-site fallout exposure continued only for a matter of a few hours at best; particularly in the early series; the few off-site monitors, pressured by tight scheduling of detonations, would return quickly to the NTS and leave again to monitor the next test before data from the previous test could be properly analyzed.”
“..Five days after the last explosion, there remained no one in the off-site organization to take any measurements. Everyone was gone…”
“Internal dose assessment based upon inhalation of fallout particles involved a similar lack of direct monitoring….Those persons responsible for off-site radiation safety were aware that a number of persons in the Nevada/Utah/Arizona area surrounding St. George and Cedar City worked out-of-doors, and faced an increased risk of inhaling “hot” particles. Yet warnings to stay indoors were sporadic and lasted only a couple of hours. Even when fallout persisted in the area at levels measurably in excess of background, the assumption that inhalation of fallout involved a negligible risk of harm was not tested by direct examination until limited studies during Operation TEAPOT (1955) which were published 3 or 4 years later…”
(Paul : this next bit is at the crux of the contention of the claim by ALRM regarding lack of proof which appears to be the justification for its decision to cease proceedings against the British government on behalf of radiation affected Aboriginal Australians. ie the claim (a feeble one on the evidence to hand as I have seen it and reported it) that there is no proof say disease is caused by radiation in the context of the claimants. However, Jenkins, the judge, had already established negligence existed. And he did not need to re prove radiogenic disease exists. That is accepted by any responsible authority.)
Making a case for radiation lodged in downwinders
The confluence of new information – from the autoradiograph of the ape lung tissue, to the facts and ideas presented in Congressional hearings, to the testimony gleaned by trial lawyers in Jenkins’ Salt Lake City, Utah, courtroom 18 – was sweeping laypersons, writers, journalists and politicians into a newly sparked debate about the linkage between low-level radiation exposure and health damage. Some must have been asking themselves: what possibly could a federal judge do to move this issue towards resolution (since it was really a question for scientists and medical researchers to answer)? That no one, at that time, could prove a link between radiation exposure and cancer was acknowledged by Jenkins, who wrote in his 215-page decision about the inability to “demonstrate through evidence a direct cause-in-fact relationship between radiation from any source and their own cancers or leukemias.”19
Does our cell structure behave much like Kodak’s photographic film? Is it vulnerable to – and damageable from – radiation that enters our bodies? Did the repeated exposures – including ingestion and inhalation of fallout from radioactive clouds from Nevada – increase Utahn’s and Arizonan’s chance of cancer and leukemia?
It would seem to most ordinary persons that the downwinders would have no case since, as noted Jenkins: “the injury is not specifically traceable to the asserted cause on an injury-by-injury basis.” A cancer doesn’t leave a tag, or note, saying “This tumor was caused by a few atoms of plutonium that lodged in the lower right part of the left lung from 1952 fallout.” A cancer caused by non-radioactive carcinogens, for example, doesn’t look any different than one caused by radioactive carcinogens.
Although in the 1980s scientists had reached a consensus that any exposure to radiation increases your chances of genetic damage, no matter how low of a dose, there was continued debate about what else (besides gene damage) is caused by low-levels of radiation. The ‘jury’ was still out on the effects of low-level radiation impacts on overall biology.
But, as Jenkins points out, just because you can’t prove an effect doesn’t mean that effect doesn’t occur: “While the extent of radiation injury to cells inflicted at “high” dose rates may perceptibly affect the functioning of the organism more dramatically than a series of “low” doses imparted to cells over a period of time, injury may nevertheless result. At the level of the individual cell, ionization is ionization, and a linear energy transfer is a linear energy transfer.”
What’s more is that just because you can’t prove someone caused an effect doesn’t mean they didn’t cause it to occur. Jenkins makes the fascinating point that lack of scientific proof of a radiation cause-and-effect and even lack of traceability to a specific cause doesn’t make proving liability an impossible task. Jenkins:
“That the court cannot now peer into the damaged cells of a plaintiff to determine that the cancer or leukemia was radiation-induced does not mean (1) that the damage was not in fact caused by radiation; (2) that the radiation damage involved did not result from the defendant’s conduct; or (3) that a satisfactory factual connection can never be established between plaintiff’s injury and defendant’s conduct for purposes of determining liability. Experience and the evidence in the record indicate that indeed it can.”
(Paul: the following is the crux:)
The Matrix of Justice
The climax of most Hollywood courtroom drama flicks has an embattled lawyer bursting through the courthouse doors at the last-minute waving iron-clad evidence – a fax, a shoe, a book, etc.. – that liberates their wrongly-accused client as the gavel-toting judge makes out the words “Case dismissed”. But evidence is so rare in the real world. That’s why, largely, we established courts and judges – because evidence is not always sufficiently abundant to prove absolute guilt or innocence. There is nearly always uncertainty. Judges and juries are tasked with deliberating and weighing incomplete evidence against the law as written – or as can best (the law) be interpreted to fit the situation.
Juries consider motive and possibilities. They determine if injury was deliberate, or not. They determine if injury was caused by accident, or not. They determine if either party acted in negligence, or not. The reason why citizens serve on jury panels is because there is no robot or expert that can do the job better.
One needs to see the matrix of justice20, not just the ‘trees.’ Justice is a natural belief, one that is universal across cultures and, arguably, time periods. And justice is more complicated than a ‘liberating’ shoe, or a book, or a photo, or a scientifically established fact. Technological evidence, like the expertly-conjured forensic proof we see nowadays on primetime television, argues Jenkins, is “merely one evidentiary element in the judicial matrix of decision and not necessarily as the sole justification for the judge’s legal decision.”
As it would turn out, lack of technological evidence isn’t grounds for a ‘case dismissal’ – not if the defendant deliberately failed to warn or help someone whose injury was contributed by the defendant’s actions. Not giving warnings or offering help was incidentally what angered ‘downwinders’ the most – that the AEC never warned them about the tests or the fallout radiation when it was allegedly known by the AEC that harm could result from such exposures. At the very core of it all the downwinders were leveling an accusation that the federal government and the AEC treated downwinders inhumanely.
When people are harmed by ‘Acts of God’ – like tornadoes or earthquakes – that is not inhuman; that’s nature. But when humans cause death and injury to other humans simply because they don’t want to tell a group of people that deadly chemicals are coming their way because their deaths and injuries would be bad PR that might jeopardize their bomb testing program, then this is inhumanity. Regardless of whether one can prove radiation caused an injury, the fact that harm could result from the fallout and the government could have chosen but didn’t choose to help or warn downwinders suggests the moral failure of individuals. Jenkins writes: “At the core of this case is a fundamental principle -a time-honored rule of law, an ethical rule, a moral tenet: [T]he law imposes [a duty] on everyone to avoid acts in their nature dangerous to the lives of others. The more particularized rules of negligence and proximate cause as a basis for liability which are applied in the body of this opinion are rooted in this principle of duty.”
Negligence and the burden of proof
The word ‘negligence’ appears 132 times in Jenkins’ decision. The word ‘negligent’ appears 51 times.
Paul : Is ALRM and or the legal firm engaged by ALRM to take the Aboriginal case to the British courts really saying that negligence and inhumanity did not occur during the British nuclear bombing of Australia? The denial of diagnosis for 30 years is one case in point. It is of course not the only one. The British admit negligence toward Aboriginal people (“A handful of natives” would not stand in the way of the British Commonwealth…” etc.) Aboriginal people know their own history better than I do. So the termination of the legal case on their behalf by the legal firm and or ALRM as “justified” by various statements in the media point internal considerations within the organisations rather than the actual merits of the case. An anonymous legal expert has already given his views as to the reasons for the dropping of the case. And none of those reasons involves the actual merits of the case. For the merits of the case are indeed abundant and clear.

Andrew continues:
‘Case law,’ or the body of decisions on legal cases that addresses specific issues not adequately addressed by the Constitution or federal or state codes of our judicial system, sets aside precedent for an exception to the premise ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Jenkins writes in his decision:
“In some of the cases in which plaintiff has been injured, but has no means of identifying the specific cause-in-fact of the injury, the burden of proof has been placed upon the defendant to establish the factual details of the incident and show that defendant’s conduct did not contribute to the victim’s injury.”
Jenkins referred to cases in which one person was harmed and although the blame couldn’t be pinned on the defendant, if it is proven that the defendant acted in a blatantly negligent fashion that could have caused the injury, then the burden of proof lies with the defendant.
Jenkins cited – as “probably the best known example” – a 1948 federal case, Summers v. Tice, that reads like a bar story, or brain teaser: Three people were in a forest and two fired their shotguns. The non-gun-firing third person gets hit in the eye with a pellet. Both shotguns are aimed in the direction of the victim but no one knew, or could know, from which gun discharged the pellet that ended up in the victim’s eye. The pellet couldn’t be traced to either gun.
In Summers v. Tice, the court relied upon an even earlier precedent – a 1927 case – whereby the third person (in this case the victim was a boy) was hit by a pellet from two hunters shooting at pigeons from across a highway. The court found that “… each is liable for the resulting injury to the boy, although no one can say definitely who actually shot him. To hold otherwise would be to exonerate both from liability, although each was negligent, and the injury resulted from such negligence.”
So, in cases of the sort – that involve radioactive ‘bullets’ or shotgun pellets or inept hospital staff – if the plaintiff can present evidence not necessarily to prove a particular act but rather can “give[s] rise to an inference of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury,” a court can rule nonetheless against the defendant.
Did the AEC act negligently?
So, the task of the plaintiff lawyers shifts from having to prove atomic-bullets caused leukemias and cancer to having to prove that the AEC acted negligently in ways that resulted in harm.
Of course, a series of loony questions follow: How exactly can one conduct a nuclear test negligently? Can one conduct a nuclear test and be ‘careful’ and un-reckless while doing it?
Aiming and shooting a shotgun in the direction of a boy or a fellow hunter is clearly negligent. But if you’re conducting above-ground nuclear tests that no matter what you do they will spew radioactive ‘bullets’ across the country – it happened with Trinity in 1945 and ‘Able’ in 1951 – how could you exercise better control? Is the answer that you shouldn’t blow up nukes at all? Or blow them up but say certain things to the public?
No one even today can control clouds – they break up, rejoin with other clouds and meanwhile traverse thousand of miles of sky. One former test site manager bemusingly told a journalist for a radio documentary that they never deliberately tried to hurt downwinders at the Nevada Test Site; there wasn’t any motivation, he argued, to do harm to people. But if there was no choice but to blow up nukes, while these test site managers demonstrated a degree of responsibility for conducting tests ‘safely’ they also to a degree ignored another responsibility and that failure constituted negligence which caused harm.
Writes Jenkins: “Distilled to its essence plaintiffs do not complain of what defendant did do. They complain of what defendant didn’t do – namely that it did not adequately warn, did not adequately and contemporaneously measure, and did not adequately educate the population at hazard in simple and inexpensive preventative and mitigating measures. At no time has the defendant ever asserted that as a matter of conscious choice it deliberately adopted a policy of not warning, not measuring and not educating the populace at hazard.”
The AEC was conducting nuclear tests and it was what they didn’t do before, during and after the explosions that was at issue.
Jenkins notes: “At the operational level employees of the United States had a duty to prepare and conduct tests carefully with full regard for public safety. The citizen adjacent to the testing site had a right to have that duty fulfilled.”
In the legal world, the word negligence has to do with something called ‘due care.’ The term ‘due’ refers to the term ‘duty’ – that a person needs to act in such a way to not harm the rights of others. They have the duty not to harm others if they can help it. If they have choices, they need to choose to not harm others. Those who choose to be careful fulfill that duty. Those who choose to be careless don’t. Depending on their choices, others’ rights’ might or might not be violated.
end quote.
At this point I will stop stealing Andrew’s work and ask the question: Does anyone remember the name of the Aboriginal man, a resident of the Warburton Mission, who died of thirst in a dried up creek bed in 1957 on the Warburton Reserve?
The British had fenced off many many acres of land, including the Reserve’s main water supply.
The British and Australian scientists needed the land for the nuclear weather and fallout monitoring station. And they needed to have access to the water. For in an area of high fallout, the scientists needed to wash thoroughly at least daily, and their Land Rover’s needed full radiators in the hot drought of 1957.
And even though the sticky paper fallout papers record the fallout at the station, the nuclear authorities did not say a word while the West Australian Parliament debated moving the children at the reserve further West. For their safety. In the end the WA government decided to leave the children where they were. (Warburton Range Film, Nicholls, Grayden and others, 1957, AIATSIS.)
Titterton’s response at the time was “If the Aborigines are so against the nuclear tests, let them vote against them at the election”. (He did say to that effect, in the 1950s.) The Aboriginal people of Australia were not recognized as citizens until after the `1967 referendum. And most could not vote. They were people who were not the responsibility of the Federal Government, but of the States. However the States acted as entities defined, as I feebly understand it, as being subject to Her Majesty’s pleasure and so the Aboriginal people were under Crown Protection none the less. And so it seems to me, feebly, for I am not a lawyer, that those who breached that duty of care so many times, should now, in the sense of the institutions who issued the orders, On Her Majesty’s Service, take full account of what was done. And this must demonstrated in the full gaze of the law as it is written.
No Matter How Much it Costs or who now it offends.

“After more than a year of reviewing his notes and thousands of documents, in early May 1984 Judge Jenkins announced his ruling. It was summed up in an article heading in the May 12th issue of the New York Times: ‘RADIATION-CANCER LINK KEY TO RULING.’30 The article noted “The landmark ruling Thursday by a Federal district judge that the Government had been negligent in the way it conducted nuclear tests in Nevada was based on the ”contributory role” that radiation from the explosions played in causing 10 cancers, nine of them fatal.”

That is not the total count. That is merely the number of participants in the action who were successful in that case.

The US Federal government appealed the Jenkins’ decision and won, primarily on that the basis that the Executive can do what it likes with impunity. As Andrew writes it: ” The panel argued that Congress gave the Executive Branch the right to devise its plans as seen fit because of the ‘broad safety language’ in legislation. It is not up to the Judiciary to interfere with Executive decisions, even over a decision to rank civilian safety as a secondary or tertiary consideration when blowing up nuclear bombs. The Judiciary cannot (a) contemplate nor (b) interfere with the serious and complex considerations weighed upon the Executive Branch such as how warning civilians or monitoring their safety might be an unwise allocation of either public monies or more personnel or even an error judgement in ‘social psychology’ (i.e., whether scaring people would be more harmful than the fallout). This, unbelievably, was the Appeals Court’s position – regardless of what happened to innocent people, the separation of powers must be respected and AEC be given full immunity.38″

And so I ask, given that the Aboriginal people were under Crown Protection at the time, where does English justice stand on the matter? What is Crown Protection if the events suffered by so many and the consequences endured by so many are taken into account by that Crown?

If Aboriginal People in Australia were under Crown Protection at the time, where is the immunity where that stated obligation is clearly breached?

Marshall Islands criticizes U.S. over nuclear compensation ‘Exploding epidemic of cancer cases,’

January 22, 2013

This situation stills stands.

11 MARCH 2012

Marshall Islands criticizes U.S. over nuclear compensation
‘Exploding epidemic of cancer cases,’
$2 billion
in unpaid claims.

By Giff Johnson
Marianas Variety

Marshall Islanders accused the United States government of refusing to provide adequate nuclear test compensation on the 58th anniversary of the largest American hydrogen bomb test that exposed thousands of islanders to radioactive fallout.

Islanders marked the national holiday in the Marshall Islands for March 1 with a candlelight vigil for those who suffered and died as a result of the 67 U.S. tests at Bikini and Enewetak.

U.S. Ambassador to the Marshall Islands Martha Campbell told the event in Majuro Thursday evening that “the United States has provided nearly $600 million in compensation and assistance to the Republic of the Marshall Islands to help the affected communities overcome the effects of nuclear testing,” and noted that the U.S. and Marshall Islands governments had agreed to “a full and final settlement of all nuclear-related claims” in 1983.

But Foreign Minister Phillip Muller called on the United States to pay the more than $2 billion in unpaid awards made by a Nuclear Claims Tribunal that exhausted its U.S. government-provided funding.

“Today we are witnessing an exploding epidemic of cancer cases,” said Charles Domnick, an islander who was 12 years old and living on an island about 400 miles downwind when the U.S. detonated Bravo, a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb test at Bikini. “Cancers, birth anomalies and other radiogenic diseases make a compelling argument for the United States to reopen the nuclear issue,” Domnick said. “But because our population is limited, the United States takes the position these numbers are statistically insignificant and that we have in fact received compensation for all damages past, present and future.”

Domnick criticized the settlement agreement reached nearly 30 years ago as unfair to the Marshall Islands. “What kind of a champion of democracy would have the callousness to demand from people it injures forgiveness for all future liabilities?” he said.

Muller said the Marshall Islands was “insulted” that the U.S. government chose March 1 as the date to announce a missile test launch between Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and the Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands. He said it was “an unfortunate date” for the U.S. to schedule a Minuteman missile test. The U.S. announced the test last week, but on Wednesday cancelled the launch.

end quote.

In so far as proofs exist, they exist in abundance in the Marshall Islands, and this proof exists both as the result of the actual experience of the people and as a result of the USA, being under the gaze of the (invited) world media and standing condemned by Japan for causing the death and injury of Japanese fishermen in the fallout path, conducted blood and urine tests, carried skin biopsies and assessed risk. The US Congressional Records of 1957 and 1959 were too optimistic but do present some the proofs. For example, AEC’s Cronkite reported to Congress that Strontium 89 in the Marshall Islander people in 1954 was “at the maximum permissible level”.

The skin biopsies confirmed that beta radiation burn, a recurrent affliction were wounds have a tendency to reopen over many decades, and which may involve the death of areas of tissue. This was minimized at the time “No need for plastic surgery, no sight of cancer or malignant change”, in 1957.

However by 1987 the recognition the proof allowed had resulted in the identification of many cases of skin cancer in those afflicted by beta burn.

And so on.

In Australia, there is still proofs. This consists of disease types, but diagnosis was delayed and took place within the wrong school of medicine. Radiation was discounted and doses were never measured, but were estimated. Increasingly, it is apparent that the dose estimates involve self serving algebra concocted deep in the heart of London.

Yet still there are the wide spread reports of blindness and skin burns. The deaths of people in the isolated outback.

None of this taken seriously or seriously responded to. Even the Royal Commission failed to adequately respond.

The entire situation is one of deliberate blindness, a type of official nuclear blindness. That the same situation exists in the United States as exists in Australia is ironic when the presence of world media forced the US to conduct reasonable testing upon the afflicted people of the Marshall Islanders. That nation did not conduct such tests on its own Down Winders, nor does it allow the harms suffered in America as a result.

And so the Anglophile world follows the lead of the United States, and noone is encouraged to say “I am a Marshall Islander too”.

Nothing is sacred when comes to protection of the interests who would continue to generate radionuclide pollution of the world.

France goes it’s own way, admitting harm one minute and denying justice the next.

In Japan, if you have symptoms similar or the same as those suffered by the Marshall Islanders (and others) then it was not the nuclear clouds from 3 exploding reactors that was the cause. You are sick, according to the government sponsored experts because you are “weak minded. Happy people are not affected by radiation”. And that is a quote.

Is it right? Of course not. Radiogenic disease is function of biology including abnormal cellular chemistry.

No other industry has enjoyed such propaganda in the preservation of its status within the free market world. It is a military imperative, just as propping up the car industry is.

Who will build the trucks and tanks en mass next time there is a need? Same thing with nuclear weapons. You need reactors for the bomb fuel. That is why the first one was built. It was the reason the Australian government wanted one in the 60s and the reason why it wants one now.

Email traffic 8 Why the Action on behalf of Aboriginal Australians was dropped – theories by Anon.

January 22, 2013

Touche !

Scenario 1: the Cth A-G’s told the ALRM board to drop it as outside the “manual” of ALS services able to use Cth $ – for purely domestic cost-cutting same as cutting single mothers’ pensions for the dole for single mothers;

Scenario 1a: the Cth A-G’s told the ALRM board to drop it as outside the “manual” of ALS services able to use Cth $ because Britain required them to do so as a condition to allow Australia on the Security Council of the UN to use the UK African embassies as Australian diplomatic missions;

Scenario 2: the ALRM board freely decided to drop it as outside the “manual” of ALS services able to use Cth $ to earn supposed brownie points with the Cth A-G’s;

Scenario 2a: the UK Hickman & Rose advise and report was negative on causation and time limitation as a ruse to get out of the obligations of a solicitor to ALRM as the client after H&R learned that ALRM board had sacked the ALRM Director who alone had engaged H&R as UK solicitors for ALRM & ALRM board freely decided to drop it as outside the “manual” of ALS services able to use Cth $ to earn supposed brownie points with the Cth A-G’s;

Scenario 2b: the UK Hickman & Rose advise and report was negative on causation and time limitation to end the obligations of a solicitor to ALRM as the client after H&R learned that ALRM board had disapproved of H&R’s legal engagement and then because of this had sacked the ALRM Director who alone had engaged H&R as UK solicitors for ALRM, & ALRM board was unable to proceed without a UK solicitor to brief UK pro bono counsel.

Scenario 3: ALRM board had no advice that there was a reasonable prospect of success from either an external or in-house source after it terminated its former Chief Counsel and offered him an administrative position only as a lackey to the board as Director of Legal Services.

Scenario n (where n = any number of alphanumeric combinations of 000aaa to 999zzz)

end quote.

I see. So the UK government does not feature overtly at all.

But it was darn good “weeding” job none the less, where considerations about “appropriate use ” of Aust AG $ = don”t upset the Poms.


Email traffic 7 Dave Whyte, A legal path to Compensation

January 22, 2013

Hello Ian,

Many thanks for the information on the mBAND. I have attempted to obtain, on payment. any cytogenetic test within the UK but they refuse to carry one out when they realise I am a nuclear Veteran.

Out of interest, I have attached a copy of a letter sent to me from David Cameron’s Office in December 2009 when he was leader of the Opposition and a copy of my recent letter (December 2012) requesting an update on the situation. I am still waiting for an acknowledgement.

All the best


Subject: RE: A legal path to compensation.


The answer lies in the newer mBAND test, not the less specific mFISH test


Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:46:40 +0000

Hello Patrick and all interested Parties,

Many thanks for your e-mails. I still believe the answer lies in a cytogenetic ‘FISH’ blood analysis of all nuclear Veterans. I have attached a copy of a letter received from the Scottish Parliament which shows the edicts of the HPA (controlled by the Ministry of Defence) are being adhered to.

The attempts to discredit the value of the cytogenetic blood analysis due to the time factor are proven to be incorrect as attachment img 006 proves. They were even able to distinguish which bomb caused the most damage after almost 50 years.

In addition to the cytogenetic blood analysis carried out in 1983 at the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh and the 47 ex-New Zealand Naval Ratings in the Rowland study, the HPA (formerly the NRPB) covertly sent 18 samples of nuclear Veterans blood to the Leiden University in the Netherlands in the 1990s for a Cytogenetic blood analysis.

The HPA have yet to reveal the true findings. If these samples had proved negative, the results would have been posted for all to see that no harm befell the Servicemen. Secrecy is only required if there is something to hide.

Perhaps the secrecy surrounding the radiation levels nuclear veterans received has more to do with safeguarding the Civilian nuclear industry than concern over those who were radiated.

All the best


End quote.

Here we have a modern day denial of examination, measurement and diagnosis. Just as the original game plan called for. When diagnosis does take place, make sure its general medicine only making the calls and not radio-biology or health physics. Though Health Physics these has been perverted by hormesis and university funding via the cult of hormesis within nations’ power structures.

The same denial of actual examination, measurement and diagnosis is being conducted in Japan today as people seeking urine and blood tests for fission products and fuel are turned away from public hospitals on the order of the Japanese government and nuclear village. Any sign of illness in the people of Fukushima is and has been literally put down to “mental weakness”. This is all familiar stuff to Aborigines and Nuclear ExService Personnel.

Cytogenetic Effects of the Action of Ionizing Radiations on Human Populations Full text pdf link

January 21, 2013

Email traffic 6 Dave Whyte A legal path to compensation

January 21, 2013

From: “Dave Whyte” <

Hello Patrick and all interested Parties,

Many thanks for your e-mails. I still believe the answer lies in a cytogenetic 'FISH' blood analysis of all nuclear Veterans. I have attached a copy of a letter received from the Scottish Parliament which shows the edicts of the HPA (controlled by the Ministry of Defence) are being adhered to.

The attempts to discredit the value of the cytogenetic blood analysis due to the time factor are proven to be incorrect as attachment img 006 proves. They were even able to distinguish which bomb caused the most damage after almost 50 years.

In addition to the cytogenetic blood analysis carried out in 1983 at the Western General Hospital in Edinburgh and the 47 ex-New Zealand Naval Ratings in the Rowland study, the HPA (formerly the NRPB) covertly sent 18 samples of nuclear Veterans blood to the Leiden University in the Netherlands in the 1990s for a Cytogenetic blood analysis.

The HPA have yet to reveal the true findings. If these samples had proved negative, the results would have been posted for all to see that no harm befell the Servicemen. Secrecy is only required if there is something to hide.

Perhaps the secrecy surrounding the radiation levels nuclear veterans received has more to do with safeguarding the Civilian nuclear industry than concern over those who were radiated.

All the best


Image 6

Chief Medical Officer, Public Health and Sport Directorate
Public Health Division

T: 0131-244 2501 F: 0131-244 2157

Mr Dave Whyte

Our ref: 2011/1026478
23 December 2011

Dear Mr Whyte

Thank you for your email of the 29 November 2011 to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. Ms Sturgeon has asked me to reply to your email.

As you will know, the Health Protection Agency (HPA) has a UK-wide statutory remit for the provision of information and advice in relation to the protection of the community from radiation risks. The HPA has advised that the “Fluorescence In situ Hybridisation” (FISH) test, which detects stable radiation-induced chromosome translocations, is not uniquely diagnostic for previous radiation exposure, and especially so in this specific case since so long has passed since the nuclear tests. There could be a number of other reasons for any changes detected by such a test, and chromosomal translocations caused by other natural factors can also accumulate with age. Therefore, the test is inconclusive, and it is not generally accepted by the medical profession as a definitive test.

You refer to the Early Day Motion from 15 May 2007 which the First Minister signed. Clearly Mr Salmond signed this motion in his role as a member of the UK Parliament at the time, and in response to a matter that is reserved to the UK Parliament, and not in his role as First Minister of the Scottish Government.

However, as you know there was a debate on this issue in the Scottish Parliament on 24 November 2011. Keith Brown MSP, Minister for Housing and Transport, who has portfolio responsibility for veterans’ issues, closed the debate. Mr Brown made clear this Government’s position that where ill-health is proven to be a result of service in the Armed Forces, regardless of where or when that service occurred, it is right that the UK Government provides adequate compensation. As this is a wholly reserved matter it is for the UK Government to resolve.

Syed Kerbalai
Health Protection Team

Email traffic 5 Dave Whyte A legal path to compensation for victims of British nuclear testing in Australia

January 21, 2013

From: “Dave Whyte” <

Office of the Chief Prosecutor
The International Criminal Court
PO Box 19519
2500 CM, The Hague
The Netherlands
Mr David Whyte v United Kingdom

17July 2012


I hereby present my statement.

I wish to inform the International Criminal Court of my accusation that the United Kingdom are guilty of ‘Crimes against Humanity’, and recklessly endangering the health of British Troops and their Allies (Australians, Canadians, Fijians and New Zealanders) during the ‘Cold War’ of the 1950’ and 60’s whilst testing nuclear weapons. This was not connected to any military operations which the UK was conducting against any other state following a declaration of war. Indeed it was its own troops and their subsequently conceived children who were the victims. I further charge the United Kingdom of failing to arrange a blood analysis to discover the level of genetic damage caused to each individual whilst they are still alive but, at the same time, they have reserved the right of access to the corpse and all medical information relating to the individual on death under Medical Research Programme MR185, initiated without the knowledge or consent of nuclear veterans.

I respectively submit consideration be given to enact Article 7 (1) of the Rome Statute in respect of ‘Crimes against Humanity’ committed by the United Kingdom against their own Troops and subsequently conceived Children.

I have attached evidence showing:

i) Recognition be named individuals in power of the long term health hazards of experimentally exposing troops to ionizing radiation, including knowledge of subsequent health hazards to their future offspring;
ii) Their decision to proceed never the less;
iii) Their implementation of a systemic policy to block any link between future radiation related illnesses and participation in the nuclear tests;
iv) The subsequent systemic policy implemented by named individuals of covertly monitoring the health of survivors, with selected blood testing and post-mortem tissue analysis, while denying them regular medical monitoring whilst alive.
v) Forcing many of the survivors and their families into financial hardship by making it difficult if not impossible to obtain medical pensions for the illnesses suffered;
vi) Totally disregarding the plight of their offspring whom the named individuals originally and currently knew would be born with radiation related genetic mutations.
Could the Office of the Chief Prosecutor please look into these issues and consider referring the individuals named to the Court for prosecution, since clearly the UK has not and will not do so.

Little or no information appears to have been collated regarding the numbers of service Personnel who were rendered sterile: or the numbers of stillbirths, miscarriages or children born with genetic defects. The fact, unfortunate Fathers of these poor Children had attended one of the British nuclear test sites does not appear to be considered.

The United Kingdom is also guilty of conducting psychological torture by refusing to answer pertinent questions relating to levels of radiation received and refusing to permit diagnostic treatment to discover the level of genetic damage and other ailments caused. (FISH blood analysis and X-Ray Fluorescence.)

The criminal atrocities committed against members of the British Armed Forces, and their Allies, were premeditated and planned with full knowledge of the consequences regarding the future medical health problems of participants. These crimes were not committed in the defence of the Country, but were designed to obtain medical and scientific knowledge on the effects of ionised radiation on the human body by using their own loyal Servicemen and Allies as ‘Human Guinea Pigs’ without their knowledge or consent.

The United Kingdom was also fully aware of the likelihood of genetic damage being transferred from generation to generation for several hundred years yet did nothing to lessen the chances of those Servicemen involved from being contaminated with radiation. Servicemen were not informed of the likely damage to their health whilst attending these nuclear trials, and were denied the opportunity to refuse to participate and denied the use of protective clothing or respirators.

Although I will list various aspects that were relevant to me personally, variations of the themes mentioned will have been performed by others.

I start, by presenting some attachments that give an indication of the knowledge the United Kingdom had of the effects of ionised radiation in the long and short term on the health of the participants and the actions planned to obtain further information.

Although there are many people who will have played a part in permitting these atrocities to be committed most of the evidence against them has been either destroyed or suppressed so that ordinary Citizens are denied access to the documents.

Attachment 1 dated 20th May 1953: 2nd Para 10th line states: ‘The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection’. This was discussed and agreed by the Chiefs of Staff Committee that Servicemen should be used to discover the effects radiation would have on the human body with and without protection.

Attachment 2 dated November 14th 1955: Shows the British Authorities were warned of the genetic damage liable to be received by personnel attending the British Nuclear tests. This letter was written by Sir Harold Himsworth, Secretary of the General Medical Council. The Prime Minister’s (Sir Anthony Eden) Comment on the risk of genetic damage to the British Troops and their allies was: “A pity, but we cannot help it.’

Attachment 3 dated in 1956; 3rd line refers to the ‘Possible effects off the ingestion of radio-active fall-out (by men and animals will be among the subjects studied.’ I wish to draw attention to the entire last paragraph, in particular the comment ‘Elaborate arrangements for the welfare of the animals are being made, and the scientists who will be in charge of them have wide experience of work of this type in the United Kingdom and in Australia.’
It will be noted that no arrangements were been made for the welfare of the ‘Men’ taking part.

Attachment 4 Published in 1956/57: Shows the United Kingdom were fully conversant with the requirements for personnel entering radioactive zones, training was being given on the correct procedures to adopt when entering a radioactive zone yet none of these procedures were adopted for most service personnel during the actual tests.

In 1958 I was a serving member of the Royal Engineers in the British Army and I was ordered to attend the British nuclear tests at Christmas Island. I witnessed three hydrogen bombs and two Atomic bomb detonations.

I had no role to play during the detonation of the Hydrogen bombs, other than witness the explosions but I was supplied with a white linen ‘Flash Suit’ to wear for the hydrogen bomb Grapple ‘Y’ in order to deflect the heat flash. This suit was not designed for protection against radioactive contamination.

I worked with the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE) Staff at ground Zero for the two Atomic tests ‘Pennant’ and ‘Burgee’. I was officially part of the ‘Technical Services Forward Group’ (TSFG) and my duties were to carry out any tasks required in the area of ground zero. I assisted in fitting Flame Proof lamps in the building where the atomic bomb was being assembled to prevent the possibility of an accident. I also shored up the roof of the bunker at ground zero which held all the measuring instruments. It was feared the roof of the bunker may collapse under the blast from the bomb.

On the day of the bombs Pennant and Burgee (22 Aug 59 and 23 Sep 59) I was one of the last to leave the area of ground zero. Both atomic bombs were mounted under Barrage Balloons at the height of approximately 1,000 feet. A Warrant Officer and I had a theodolite and were taking accurate positions of the balloons swaying in the breeze and radioing this information to control. We sent about six readings so the movement could be calculated when the bombs were detonated. After sending the readings we travelled to the assembly point then the bomb was detonated.

Two hours after detonation of both Pennant and Burgee I entered the area of Ground zero to pick up all the radioactive debris and load it into my vehicle. I was not given any protective clothing or a respirator to wear, although these were mandatory for all Civilian AWRE Workers. I was supplied with a radiation film badge and a QFE (Quartz Fibre electroscope) dosimeter which showed the level of ‘Beta’ radiation. I was informed that if the reading reached 7 Roentgens per hour, I was to work for a maximum of two hours then get out the area. The level only showed 5 roentgens per hour so I worked for 2.5 hours and completed my task on both occasions.

I drove my cargo of radioactive debris to the decontamination centre and when I was entering the centre an AWRE worker dressed in full protective clothing and wearing a respirator jumped into my vehicle and drove it away to empty it. Inside the decontamination centre they took my radiation film badge and QFE dosimeter then checked me over for radioactive contamination. After Burgee, it was discovered my clothes were radioactive and I was advised to wash them out when I got back to my accommodation.

I am now informed that my radiation film badges have gone missing and they do not have the full body radiation levels I received. No record was kept of the readings on my QFE dosimeters, yet the Authorities dispute the reading of 5 roentgens per hour (Beta reading shown on my QFE Dosimeter) but have produced no proof of the actual levels. The Authorities had also failed in their duty of care to provide a log book for entering unusual circumstances discovered at the decontamination centre, such as my contaminated clothes.

It is my belief; details of the full body radiation dose I received are being deliberately withheld to prevent me discovering the extent of radiation I received. I had a blood count taken prior to the tests and a further blood count after the tests were completed. The count taken prior to the tests was placed in my service medical history but the count taken after the tests has mysteriously disappeared.

During the months of August, September and October I was living in the area known as ‘B’ Site (map at attachment 5) along with approximately two hundred Men. During this stay there was not only the two Atomic bomb detonations of Pennant and Burgee on the 22 Aug and 23 Sep but also the hydrogen bomb tests Flagpole and Halliard on the 2nd and 11th Sep 1958. On the day of each test any person not assigned to specific duties moved to the assembly areas prior to detonation but were allowed to return within a couple of hours after detonation. Attachment 18 is a photograph showing the condition of our living quarters when we returned after detonation of Atomic bomb Pennant on the 22 August 1958. The blast from the bomb had blown our tents down, and could not have failed to have blown radioactive particles into the accommodation area. Civilian AWRE Staff, dressed in full protective clothing were monitoring the area for radiation at the time we were permitted to return to our living quarters. I have attempted to obtain the logs showing the radiation levels recorded at the living quarters at ‘B’ site throughout the months of August September and October 1958 but the Authorities have failed to supply the information requested.

‘B’ site was in the forward area and attachments 6 and 7 show the forward area as being contaminated for 9 days after pennant detonation and 6 days after Burgee detonation. Attachment 8 shows Civilian AWRE Staff entering the forward area had to go through their ‘Health Control’ and wear protective clothing when entering the forward area. The Men living at ‘B’ Site, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, were not warned the area was radioactive and wore only their shorts and a pair of flip flops. It appears this may have been part of the ‘Medical Experiment’ to discover the problems derived from living within a radioactive zone. The participants had no knowledge of this, and certainly did not give their consent to be part of any experiment which would endanger their life or safety. I have no information, (the Ministry of Defence refuse to supply the information under the Freedom of Information Act) showing the increase in radiation levels at ‘B’ site after detonation of the Hydrogen Bombs. Under the law of probabilities it is suspected the levels would have been higher than those permitted under International Law.

18 months after I left Christmas Island I was posted to Aden for a tour of duty and was admitted, on two separate occasions into the Royal Air Force Hospital in Aden suffering from various ailments which they failed to diagnose. On the second visit to hospital in September 1960 a Lymph node was removed from my right elbow and sent away for analysis. The result of this analysis has never been placed in my Service records and no trace can be found of the hospital records to show the result of the analysis or the results of the other tests I had undergone during my admission to hospital. It is now known, the Michael Redfern QC inquiry into the removal of body parts, without permission of the deceased nuclear Workers and nuclear veterans family or Friends, discovered a register of 118 lymph nodes removed for analysis (attachment 10). Michael Redfern QC was unsure who supplied the Lymph nodes. I made enquiries to discover if the lymph node removed from my body in Aden had been included in these 118 cases but the Authorities were unable to inform me whether, or not, this was the case. It is noted in page 89 of the Redfern report (attachment 14) Para 21 Shows Service Veterans who had attended nuclear weapons tests were unwittingly subject to the covert removal of body parts. The Redfern report gives the motives (attachment 15) as: ‘Scientific Research and potential claims for damages.’ Nuclear Veterans did not consent to this intrusive investigation, and the relatives of the nuclear Veterans, whose loved ones had body parts removed, were denied access to the information in order to claim compensation. Surviving nuclear veterans are also being denied access to all the information surrounding this era, in order to prevent them claiming compensation for being deliberately exposed to radiation for scientific and medical research.

I have suffered various medical problems which I blame on the radioactive contamination I received during my tour of duty at Christmas Island during the bomb tests. I was informed I could apply for a War Pension but I would have to provide proof that radiation was the cause.

As my only positive proof had mysteriously disappeared: My radiation film badges: my QFE dosimeter readings: my blood count: my lymph node diagnosis and my hospital records. I attempted to discover the level of radiation at ground zero between two hours and four hours after detonation of both Pennant and Burgee, but was thwarted at every attempt. Eventually I received a copy of a graph (attachment 9) showing the time scale of Gamma radiation decay. The Authorities failed to supply the scale of radiation for the left hand axis of the graph rendering it useless as evidence. This started a six year campaign of ‘Freedom of Information Questions’ to obtain the missing radiation levels. I was given the general run-around by being told to purchase a book by Lorna Arnold: on several occasions I was told the information was available in the National archives, this turned out to be false: I was given a set of figures for the graph which bore no resemblance to the facts and finally I was told they did not have the figures as they must have been destroyed. Attachment 22/22A/22B is a sequence of letters to the ‘ web site showing my request for an internal review after having been told the information was not available. Mrs Sondhi confirmed the information I requested was not held by MOD or any other Department. I knew important data such as this for a major nuclear trial would never have been destroyed, and took the Ministry of Defence to a First Tier Tribunal for failing to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act. (More on the First Tier Tribunal later) The Ministry of Defence finally admitted they had the information I had been requesting and sent me a copy with an apology.

Mrs Sondhi had provided false information. On the 11 February 2011 (attachment 22B) I comment: “That, as you know, is a pack of lies”: This appears to be a reply to a letter sent by the CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER) shortly before the 11 February 2011 and must have been removed from the web site by that Department.

The Ministry of Defence are continuing their defiance of the ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000’ by deliberately supplying false and misleading information, or adopting a ‘Conspiracy of Silence’ when information is requested.

It is noted the failure of Staff from both the DE&S Policy Secretariat and the AWE in signing their names to any documents they send in reply to FOI’s is becoming normal practice. In order to conform to the regulation under the FOI Act 2000 it is obligatory to request an internal review if it is considered the information given is incorrect. This I have done in the past and received replies from Mr Andrew Tranham, Mrs Ushi Sondhi, Mr Gareth Rowlands and Mrs Marjorie Wilson (AWE) confirming the false and misleading information given previously. This was substantiated by the First Tier Tribunal EA/2011/078 on 16 February 2012 in which the Ministry of Defence had produced numerous different answers, all false and misleading, regarding the radiation levels at ground zero after atomic bombs Pennant and Burgee at Christmas Island in 1958. Attempts had been made for at least five years to obtain this information. It was thanks to the impartiality of Judge Chris Ryan presiding, and Members of the panel Mrs Jaqueline Blake and Mr Roger Creedon that the truth finally emerged and I finally received the information I had been requesting over many years with an apology.

Attachment 23 shows the practice of refusing to supply information is still inherent within the Ministry of Defence. Like the ‘GAMMA’ radiation levels, the MOD or the AWE will hold the ‘BETA’ radiation levels but are refusing to release the information thereby causing unnecessary anxiety and apprehension at being denied access to the levels of radiation received. The devious attitude of the DE7S Policy Secretariat is further highlighted at attachment 16 in their answer to a straight question on the decontamination of the area where I was ordered to work. It will also be noticed this document was not signed. This appears to be quite prevalent at MOD Abbey Wood and could be construed the author of the correspondence is attempting to avoid the accusation of culpability. Once again I am being denied access to information relating to the radiation exposure I was subjected to without my knowledge or consent.

During a hearing at the European Court of Human Rights in the case McGinley and Egan v The United Kingdom (Case No: 10/1997/794/995-996) on the 6 June 1998 it was recorded: “100: The Court recalls that the Government have asserted that there was no pressing National Security reason for retaining information to radiation levels on Christmas Island following the tests”. Considering the refusals I have had over the past years, and am still receiving the statement made to the Court could be described as perverting the course of justice, or perjury.

Secrecy regarding the true levels of radiation can be detected as far back as 22 December 1955. The late Lord Penny (Director of operations) knew the dangers of radiation but did not impart his knowledge to the service personnel ordered to attend the detonations of the nuclear devices. He was also guilty of misleading our Allies in Australia by attempting to deny them access to the true levels of radiation on detonation of these devices. (Attachment 19)

In addition to the refusal by the United Kingdom to release all documents relating to the nuclear tests a ban appears to have been placed on any nuclear Veterans being permitted to have the ‘M-FISH’ (multi- Fluorescence in situ Hybridisation) blood analysis performed in the United Kingdom, even on the offer of payment. The ‘FISH’ blood analysis was performed on a nuclear Veteran in 1983 at the Western General hospital (attachment 11), and an inordinate level of chromosomal translocations were detected. It was suggested that all nuclear veterans should be tested to ascertain whether this was an isolated case or endemic to all nuclear veterans. The United Kingdom decided against having the nuclear Veterans blood tested in preference to a ‘Paper’ study based on deaths and cause of death. No tests were arranged to discover the level of genetic damage. In 2004, an ‘M-FISH’ blood analysis was carried out at the Massey University in New Zealand on 49 ex-Ratings of the Royal New Zealand Navy and it was discovered they had a far higher number of chromosomal translocations than individuals who had not been at a nuclear test site. This was known as the Rowland Study.

It has recently been discovered through Freedom of Information question that blood samples from 18 nuclear veterans were covertly sent to the Leiden University in the Netherlands (attachment 12), for the ‘FISH’ blood analysis. It appears individuals donating the blood samples were not informed of the true purpose of these samples and have never been informed of the findings. (Attachment 13)

Civilian Nuclear Workers are permitted to have the ‘FISH’ blood analysis denied to Service Nuclear Veterans. Attachment 17 proves 294 retired ‘Civilian’ nuclear workers were given the blood analysis in order to discover the level of chromosomal damage caused by a lifetime’s work in the nuclear industry. The United Kingdom is not prepared to test the blood of nuclear veterans and compare it with the results of the Civilian nuclear Workers.

We have a ‘Veterans Affairs Minister’, (Mr Andrew Robathan) whose duty is to care for the Veterans needs. I wrote to him on the 10th May and again on the 14th June 2012 asking many questions but to date, (3 August 2012) I am still awaiting an acknowledgement, let alone answers. (copies of letters at attachments 24 and 25). The refusal by a Veterans Affairs Minister (Mr Andrew Robathan) adds to the psychological torture by denying me access to the levels of radiation I was forced to endure and is further compounded by the refusal to permit a full blood analysis to determine the degree of genetic damage caused by the radiation.’

The United Kingdom is very quick to condemn other Countries for Human rights violations and criminal acts against humanity yet they fail to acknowledge or practice the articles in: The Lesvos declaration/ Euratom directive 96/29/Declaration of Helsinki or the Nuremburg Code

In order to avoid payments of compensation, the United Kingdom are now denying there was any radiation and are refusing to release all documents of this era which would show the level of criminal negligence committed.

I believe I have submitted adequate evidence to show the United Kingdom Guilty of the charges raised.

Yours sincerely

David Whyte

Email traffic 4 Dennis Hayden

January 21, 2013

From the Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI )

To : Office of the Chief Prosecutor
The International Criminal Court
PO Box 19519
2500 CM
The Hague
The Netherlands

31 July 2012
A Statement in Support of the Submission

Mr David Whyte v United Kingdom

1. We confirm that all matters contained in this statement are true and, unless specified by us to the contrary , are based on evidence accrued and collated by the Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI ) , Members of the Executive : Mr Dennis Hayden of 31 Beauchamp Meadow , Lydney , GL15 5NS, UK ( Co- Founder of the CVFI ) and Mr Ken McGinley of 12 Walpole Place , Johnstone Renfrewshire, PA5 0RE, UK ( Founder and Chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association- BNTVA – 1983 to 2001 ) .

2. The evidence in this Statement of Support is taken from a small selection of many archive and other documents accrued and collated since the founding of the CVFI in 2002 and, in the many decades since the United Kingdom’s first atmospheric nuclear weapons test at Monte Bello Island , off the north west coast of Australia in 1952 , by Mr Ken McGinley during his almost two decades as Chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association . Purely for the sake of brevity further documents which also support the case that the United Kingdom is guilty of crimes against humanity are available but not included .

3. We note the evidence given to the International Criminal Court by UK nuclear test veteran Mr David Whyte listed on page 2 of his submission, i) to
iv ), and Mr Whyte’s request for the Office of the Chief Prosecutor to look into the issues and consider referring individuals named to the Court for prosecution since the UK “ has not and will not do so” . ( See Footnote Attachment 14 ].

4. The CVFI submit and offer further evidence that crimes against humanity have been conducted by a long – running , systemic and deliberate policy of denial , misinformation , withholding of evidence ( necessary to enable veterans and widows to claim pensions and other entitlements) , by the use of and control of : inter – departmental contractual agreements to carry out covert blood testing , secret removal of body parts in post mortems (as part of medical research programmes ) . The use of such covert practices being for the benefit of the State rather than to afford a duty of care to the veterans , their widows and genetically damaged children .

5. Crimes against humanity against loyal members of the UK Armed Forces and participant Commonwealth Allies were initiated and set into practice by many named persons, now deceased, who cannot therefore now be prosecuted . We submit this confirms the long running systemic abuse of power by the UK : an abuse which has been continued for over 60 years and is still being used today.

6. Therefore , we submit the following are culpable for prosecution :

a) All living UK Prime Ministers ( lately headed in the current UK Coalition Government by Prime Minister , David Cameron MP and Deputy Prime Minister , Nick Clegg MP) .

b) All living UK Secretaries of State for Defence (lately in UK Coalition headed by Philip Hammond MP , with Nick Harvey MP as Minister of State for the Armed Forces) . That is, all living persons who have held these posts since Sir Anthony Eden’s Prime Ministerial 1955 Edict in response to warnings of genetic damage to participants at UK nuclear weapons test locations i.e :

“ A pity , but we cannot help it”

All of the above politicians, briefed by Ministry of Defence officials to follow the Eden Edict are , we submit , therefore culpable for crimes against humanity .

Also , we therefore ask the Chief Prosecutor to also consider culpability of :

c) all living Ministry of Defence ( MoD ) officials responsible for Armed Forces Personnel and Veterans Policy ( lately headed by Dr Ann Braidwood ) who have advised and briefed Ministers on the intention of Eden Edict to deny a duty of care for those killed , injured or made ill as a result of nuclear test service underpinned by the oft quoted doctrine : “ the standard practice of Government to settle these issues is by litigation”, whilst simultaneously denying access to such information and evidence as is necessary for veterans and widows to enable them to take legal action to which they have been forced with no other option . These officials , we submit , all are equally culpable for crimes against humanity .

7. We note in Mr Whyte’s submission page 9 , third paragraph,

“ The Ministry of Defence are continuing their defiance of the ‘ Freedom of Information Act 2000 ‘ by deliberately supplying false and misleading information , or adopting a ‘Conspiracy of Silence’ when information is requested .”
8. In matters relating to the biological effects from exposure to ionising radiation the term “ Conspiracy of Silence” was first used by Professor Alex Haddow the Director of the Chester Beatty Research Institute , The Royal Cancer Hospital , in a 2 page letter to Sir John Cockcroft of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment dated 12th November 1951 . ( Attachment 1 and 1A ) .
Professor Haddow wrote:
“ The biologists can only indicate , ( and have already done so ) , the nature of certain possible hazards , but I believe the time has now come when physicists must give some opinion ( reassuring or not ) as to the future : otherwise it will become increasingly difficult to counter those who already believe ( perhaps wrongly ) that there is some sort of conspiracy of silence .”
9. In the second paragraph of Professor Haddow’s letter, he continued :
“ To my own mind there appear to be all possibilities , ranging from (a) virtual absence of any perceptible risk in the foreseeable time , to (b) the possibility that purely military considerations will over-ride any other advice.”
10. We respectfully submit evidence to show Professor Haddow’s reference at (b) above is clearly an accurate assessment. As will be shown the ‘conspiracy of silence ’, referred to by Professor Haddow in 1951, has been enforced for over 60 years by the UK and is continued to this day in defiance of the “ Freedom of Information Act 2000” by supplying false and / or misleading information, by deliberately withholding evidence of radiation levels at nuclear test locations , by losing and / or destroying: individual dose records , tissue , blood , organ and bone samples removed from living or deceased nuclear test veterans, hospital records and other evidence .
11. In the hearing of McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom ( Case No: 10/1997/794/995-996 ) at the European Court of Human Rights , Strasbourg in 1998 it was recorded :
“ 100 : The Court recalls that the Government have asserted there was no pressing National Security reason for retaining information on radiation levels on Christmas Island following the tests .”
As Mr Whyte states, in his six year struggle, to gain such information the above continued flouting of assertions by the UK could be described as perverting the course of justice , or perjury .
12 .We submit the following archive documents [ Attachments 1 to 14 ] show abuse of the normal conduct of any democratic State professing to live by an ethical or a moral civilised code .
13 . Professor Haddow asked earlier questions [ Attachment 1 para 2 ] as follows
“ In any event one is entitled to ask certain questions , e.g . , if slight contamination occurs 2,500 miles away [ a reference to a nuclear accident at Rochester in the U.S .] what is the situation say a hundred miles around a nuclear explosion site ? Secondly , if we are booked -as we seem to be – for an almost infinite series of test explosions , of which I imagine we have already hadsomething in the order of twenty , how long can this be protracted without some long-lasting effect ( even slight ) on a terrestrial scale ?”
Sir John Cockcroft replied to Professor Haddow’s letter and the above questions on 15 November 1951 ( Attachment 2 ) :
“ We of course are not at all concerned with conditions within a hundred miles of the explosions and it should be the job of the U.S. scientists to worry about this and not ourselves .”
14 . We submit to the Chief Prosecutor this total lack of concern is complicit to the negligent, criminal and inhumane attitude of it is “a pity , but we cannot help it” now referred to as the Eden Edict initiated during the Cold War .
The phrase “ it should be the job of the U.S. scientists to worry about conditions within a 100miles ” we contend is a criminally negligent lack of concern for servicemen almost all of whom , lived , worked and breathed in an environment within 20 miles of explosions, without protective clothing and respirators , and many, like Mr Whyte , were billeted much, much closer to the prompt gamma radiation released at the time of detonations of atomic bombs and were all vulnerable to the more dangerous, long term hazard of radioactive fall out, i.e. radioactive alpha and beta particles [ radioactivity able to gain access to the inside of the body to lodge in tissue , organs and bone by way of inhalation , ingestion , entering the skin by hair follicles , by skin pores or by cuts or abrasions in the skin ] . [ Attachment 7 -by Dr Gordon Edwards Ph D , gives easy to understand details of the hazard of ingested alpha and beta radiation, known to science as early as the 1920’s .]
15. Cockcroft’s short dismissal of Professor Haddow’s 1951 questions by leaving the U.S. scientists present at UK nuclear test locations “to worry about this ” is , we submit , an abdication of accountability and responsibility by proxy .
16. We respectfully also the draw attention of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor to the last sentence of Professor Haddow’s 1951 letter :
“ One thing does frankly rather terrify me , namely the appearance of morale committees and stooges whose only job seems to be to provide the “right” answers and avoid anything in the nature of unpleasantness. All we require are the facts.”
Sir John Cockcroft, for the AERE , response to this concern is simply :
“ I’m not quite sure what you mean by morale committees and stooges , are you suggesting these exist in our country ?”
17. We submit not only did stooges exist in 1951 but archive documents held by the CVFI and lodged with Rosenblatt Solicitors of London who are leading the Atomic Veterans Litigation Group in the UK and by Ian Anderson , the CVFI’s legal advisor who is an International Advocate and Attorney at Law based in
New York show official “stooges” are still used by the UK government today . Professor Haddow’s plea : “ All we require are the facts ” is still being ignored over 60 years later .
18. Your attention is also respectfully drawn to the following additional evidence of the presence of “stooges” whose only job is to provide the ‘right’ answers :
A ) The manipulation of safety records by safety committee officials . This is shown in [ Attachment 3 ]
i) An ‘Operational Immediate’ signal /telegram dated 1956 in regard to statements on genetic effects or radioactive iodine or strontium [ both fall out radioisotopes] the latter, strontium , being a bone- seeking carcinogen, once ingested into the body, with a 28 year half life . This document states :
“ We do not want you to release any statement on genetic effects or on radio-activity or strontium pending the arrival of Penney . If you have to , a safer interpretation of the MRC [ Medical Research Council ] report in the last sentence of paragraph 4 would be “ has not shown an increase” rather than “shows an increase”.”
We submit the “safer interpretation” is to hide the genetic effects noted by the MRC on radioactivity and to diminish the hazards and a clear example of criminal manipulation figures by official ‘stooges’ of the safety committee .
ii) W.G. Penney, later Lord Penney, the Chief Scientist in charge of the UK Nuclear Weapons Test Programme ( Attachment 4 para 3 ] wrote in 1955 :
“ On the balance I am recommending that if they [ the Australians ] ask us to give them a little piece of the filters [ showing samples of radioactivity ] , but that we wait a few days so that some of the short – lived key isotopes have decayed a good deal. ”
We submit this is an example of misleading the Australian scientists of the Australian Weapons Test Safety Committee ( AWTSC ) to allay the concerns of the Australian public and particularly Australian scientist Dr Hedley Marston who, as a concerned whistle – blower, was shocked by the levels of fall out particles , particularly strontium and iodine , entering the food chain through radioactive contaminated live stock .It is well documented that Dr Marston was vilified and sacked for expressing his concerns to the AWTSC .
B) The admitted need for insurance cover against radioactive hazards by Lord Penney [ Attachments 5 & 5A ]
This report by W G Penney , later Lord Penney , prior to the first UK nuclear test at Monte Bello in 1952 [ 5A para 13 ]states :
Finally there arises a major problem on Security aspects …(b) The provision of adequate Insurance cover for the participating personnel , especially against Radioactive hazards , without undue disclosure to insurance companies.”
We submit this is proof of the need for insurance against radioactive hazards and fully appreciated by the UK at the time . The fact became an ever greater priority when by 1958 , with the ‘Grapple Series’ of nuclear tests at Christmas Island, the yield of the weapons became thermonuclear thus increasing from kiloton yield bombs detonated at Monte Bello , Emu Field and Maralinga to megaton detonations at Christmas Islands in the Pacific.
C) The admission of safe upper limits as far as health and safety by Lord Penney [ Attachment 6 ]
This is in a letter by Penney to Sir Edwin Plowden dated 1955 in reference to bomb testing at Monte Bello . [Attachment 6 . ]which states :
“ …the figure to which we are now working as far as health and safety are concerned . ….We expect the yield to be 40 or 50 kilotons , but it might just go up to 80 kilotons which is the safe upper limit .”
The letter mentions the first detonation should be 10 and 20 K.T. and “ this time” as far as health and safety are concerned we are working on 25 .
We submit on the scientific evidence available at the time and today there is no safe yield of nuclear weapons . By 1958 the 80 kiloton so-called “ safe upper limit” for health and safety reasons would be totally ignored with the detonation of a series of megaton bombs [ i.e. one megaton = 1,000 kiloton and is equivalent to 12.5 times the yield of 80 kilotons Penney considered ‘the safe upper limit’ ].
19 .As mentioned in page 14 above it has been established since 1925 in science there is no safe dose of alpha fall out radiation once ingested into the body .[ Attachment 7 ] A point graphically demonstrated in London in November 2006 by the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko . An invisible to the eye amount of fall out alpha particle polonium -210 [a radioactive isotope used in nuclear bomb trigger mechanisms ] ingested from a teapot into Litvenenko’s body is a causal link to death UK government sponsored National Radiological Protection Board – NRPB – scientists (now renamed the Health Protection Agency , HPA ) admitted are only a hazard to health ‘when inhaled , ingested or entering the body by a cut or abrasion in the skin etc.’[Attachment 8]
Our contention is the committees of ‘stooges’ feared by Professor Haddow in 1951 , contrary to Sir John Cockcroft’s short letter [ Attachment 2], existed in 1951 and still exists in the United Kingdom today .
20. We respectfully submit , Lord Penney’s referral to an upper limit for safety reasons of 80 kilotons confirms the concerns of Professor Haddow in 1951 “ that purely military considerations [ other than safety considerations] were allowed to over-ride any other advice.” Nuclear test veterans all lived and worked within just 20 miles or less of nuclear detonations ( in the case of Mr Whyte he was much , much closer ), without any protective clothing or respirators , and therefore all were in grave danger of genetic damage leading to long term ill health and premature death by inhaling or ingestion of fall out .
21. We submit the following evidence as examples of how senior UK politicians react to the Eden Edict “ a pity but it cannot be helped ”.
In 1993 Dr John Reid MP , [ Atttachment 9 ] in a letter written as a Spokesman for UK Labour party on Defence Policy, copied to the then Leader of the Labour party the late John Smith PC , MP wrote :
“ It is our firm view that the nuclear test veterans should be regarded in the same way as any other servicemen or women who has been injured in the service of their country and we have constantly asked the Government to take this approach . …the Government still refuse to concede the principle involved but you can be sure that we will maintain our pressure upon them to do so since it is only in this fashion we can reasonably expect that justice will be done even after all this time .”
After the Labour party election victory in 1997 the administration led by Tony Blair ,as Prime Minister , took office and Dr John Reid MP became Secretary of State for Defence. Reid immediately reneged upon his above expressed conviction on gaining office .
22 . In 2009 Liberal Democrat , Defence Spokesman , Nick Harvey MP provided Rosenblatt Solictors of London with a written witness statement of support for a settlement of nuclear test veteran’s claims for compensation .His staunch support , a statement of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg’s policy towards the nuclear test veterans, lasted only until 2010 . On becoming Minister for the Armed Forces in the UK’ s current Cameron – Clegg Coalition government formed following the general election of 2010 , Harvey immediately backward somersaulted and reneged upon his previous held convictions and the policy of the Liberal Democrat party prior to the election .[ Attachment 10 ] .
The new Minister for the Armed Forces , Nick Harvey , when asked to explain his action said , since he had become a Minister said he had become privy to new information concerning the nuclear veterans. This excuse , used by countless politicians before him, we submit has no substance. Harvey, when asked to reveal the “ new information” he had became privy to, has remained silent .
23. The UK Conservative party do not come out in any better light in this matter. For example, in 2007 , following the assassination of Litvenenko by ingested fall out radiation Mark Harper MP , then a Shadow Conservative Minister for Veterans , wrote a letter expressing a full understanding of the prime causal link to ill health in persons exposed to fall out type radiation [ Attachment 11 ] yet failed to concede this could possibly apply to the legacy ill health in nuclear test veterans .
24. In June 2009 , following a Limitation Trial to time bar the nuclear veterans from taking full court action against the Ministry of Defence , the MoD used the Limitation Act as a legal technicality to delay court action . In his verdict, allowing cases to proceed to full trial the Judge , Mr Justice Foskett wrote “ fall- out radiation is the prime causal link to ill health in nuclear test veterans.”
Three years later the nuclear test veterans have still been unable to present the scientific evidence that fall out radiation is the prime causal link to legacy ill health suffered by the veterans .
25. Politicians are briefed by officials of the Ministry of Defence and, on becoming Ministers or when asking questions as Shadow Ministers , we submit they are misinformed and ill informed . As a consequence, we submit they become too weak and /or are too dishonest, or are coerced to believe it is in the national interest to remain silent and / or a combination of all of these factors. This renders them unable ,unwilling or too weak to seek any change of policy . For this reason we submit they are all culpable of crimes against humanity .
26. The abuse of power by the UK Ministry of Defence and contractual departments acting as their surrogates has impacted adversely on the long term health of many thousands of UK nuclear test veterans , on our Allies from Commonwealth countries such as Canada , Australia , New Zealand and Fiji who participated in the tests, their widows and genetically damaged children and grandchildren .
As an example of the international abuse by direct action of the UK government we submit two examples for consideration by the Chief Prosecutor .
1) In 1999 the Leader of a New Zealand political party a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand , Winston Peters MP was warned by the British High Commisioner to New Zealand that any help by the New Zealand government given to the New Zealand nuclear test veterans would be regarded as an “ unfriendly act .” [ Attachment 12 ]
2) The Australian Royal Commission in the mid 1980’s investigating the UK nuclear tests carried out in Australia identified Sir Ernest Titterton , an Australian scientist who headed the Australian safety committee AWTSC was , in fact, an agent working for the UK government to minimise the record of radioactive fall out from the nuclear tests in Australia.
27 . It is a fact that every other nuclear nation has apolgised for , compensated and honoured , with gratitude , the sacrifice of their nuclear test veterans and the sacrifice of their families except the United Kingdom .
28. In order to keep this document as brief as possible we have been unable at
this time to disclose other documents held that are of relevance to this subject , however ,
29. The CVFI was approached by the Scottish Parliament in late 2011 following a debate in the Scottish Parliament to provide more evidence . We therefore enclose copy of a “ Chronological Time table of Evidence” sent to the Scottish Parliament in December 2011 . [Attachment 13 ]
30. This statement should give the Office of the Chief Prosecutor sufficient evidence of complex and long running systemic abuse of power by the UK government that has resulted in crimes against humanity. We believe this statement and attachments provide sufficient additional evidence to support the case of Mr David Whyte v. United Kingdom and we therefore respectfully submit it for the consideration of the Chief Prosecutor.
31. Finally , with regard to scientists particularly since the 1980’s culpable of assisting crimes against humanity, we submit that the following action is being taken :
1) the names of scientists, living and dead , are being collated and will include :
2) those drawn to our attention through government sponsored and controlled committees and departments , who have contributed as “ stooges” to crimes against humanity committed against loyal servicemen , by the use of , for example :
3) significantly flawed and inaccurately compiled epidemiological studies – statistical studies , based only on death certificates – without any cytogenetic blood testing of individuals to assess the degree of translocated chromosomal aberrations in their DNA compared to men of similar age and habit who had not attended a nuclear test location or compared to nuclear power workers who have been blood tested in retirement ,
4) those who have been lead authors in writing scientific papers not subjected to peer review, passed as evidence to Ministers , prepared and designed to denigrate other peer reviewed scientific papers ,
5) those involved in inter-departmental covert removal and covert analysis of tissue , blood , organs and bone for medical research purposes by government pathologists with support of government scientists and coroners etc ( as indicated by the Redfern Report of 2010) and
6) those who have taken part in the non – disclosure of the results of such medical research performed without consent of veterans families and other acts against the interests of those who participated in the UK weapons test experiments .
All of this detail is currently available and a dossier is in process of collation as evidence .

Yours sincerely ,
Dennis Hayden
Ken McGinley
For and on behalf of the Combined Veterans’ Forum International .
Dated the 31st day of July in the year 2012 .
Footnote :
Mr David Whyte has sent his submission to the Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Intenational Criminal Court and states this is because the UK “ has not and will not” admit to its crimes .
The determination to avoid accountability and responsibility has been confirmed recently by criticism of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Prime Minister Cameron , Former Prime Minister Blair together with Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell are reported , in the UK Daily Mail newspaper of 17 July 2012 [ Attachment 14 ]saying the legislation is a ‘horrible mistake’ ”.
The Information Commissioner , however , insists the scope of the Act “ should not be reined in but extended and claimed secret documents were being destroyed and officials were using private email addresses to avoid scrutiny .

List of Attachments / referring to Mr David Whyte v. United Kingdom

Attachment No. Details

1 & 1A Letter dated 12 Nov 1951 from Professor Alex Haddow ,
Director of the Chester Beatty Research Institute, Royal
Cancer Hospital London to Sir John Cockcroft , Atomic
Energy Research establishment , Harwell .

2 Sir John’s 15 Nov 1951 response to Professor Haddow.

3 Operational Immediate signal / telex dated 31 July 1956 –
Statement on Genetic Effects and Radioactive Iodine and
Strontium .

4 Letter dated 2 December 1955 from WG Penney , later Lord
Penney , Scientist in Charge of the UK Weapons Tests to Sir
Frederick Brundrett , Ministry of Defence .

5 & 5A Report prior to October 1952 first atmospheric atomic by UK
Monte Bello Island by the Chief Scientist WG Penney .

6 Letter dated I October 1955 from WG Penney to Sir Edwin
Plowdon UK Atomic Energy Authority , London.

7 26 page Report on Health Effects from Ionising Radiation –
by Dr Gordon Edwards PhD , for the Canadian Environmental
Advisory Council in 1996 .

8 Email commenting on the Admission by UK Health Protection
Agency scientists of the hazard of ingested low dose , low level
fall -out type radiation – dated 29 November 2006 .

9 Letter from Dr John Reid MP dated 24 August 1993

10 Email dated 10 July 2010 to Joseph Watts , Journalist “ A call
for full disclosure or the resignation of Minister Nick Harvey .”

11 Transcript and comment on letter from Mark Harper MP
dated 1 March 2007 , original letter available on request.

12 Email with details of Press Release by Winston Peters leader of
NZ Political Party dated 12 August 1999 sent by Roy Sefton,
Chairman of the NZNTVA.

13 CVFI report 14 December 2011 to the Scottish Parliament .

14 Daily Mail 17 July 2012 report : “ Information Tsar Attacks
Secrecy in Whitehall” , by Political Editor , James Chapman .

From the Combined Nuclear Veterans’ Forum International ( CNVFI )

To : M.P. Dillon
Head of Information and Evidence Unit
Office of the Chief Prosecutor
The International Criminal Court
PO Box 19519
2500 CM
The Hague
The Netherlands

14 December 2012

Dear Sir , Madam

At our request Mr David Whyte has kindly sent the CNVFI copy of your letter reference : ORP-CR-237/12 dated 07 December 2012 .

We thank the International Criminal Court for the interest taken in Mr Whyte’s submission to the Prosecuter and confirm that there is much more evidence still to come. For this reason we are extremely grateful for confirmation that the information submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor will be held in ICC’s archives and the decision not to proceed may be reconsidered if new facts, or evidence, provide a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed .

Without prejudice we submit the following new evidence recently obtained in answers from Freedom of Information Act questions . It is our belief these further facts will tip the balance of the scales of justice towards criminal negligence and crimes against humanity against the individual Mr Whyte .

This new evidence , in official UK government documents, is referred to in the closing pages of a 255 page book published in November 2012 entitled:

” Beneath Heaven and Hell”, ISBN 978-1-291-20928-6 by investigative journalist Alan Rimmer .

We therefore request the following two official UK government documents named below , regarded as prima facie evidence, be added to our Statement in Support of the Submission of Mr Whyte v. United Kingdom dated 31st July 2012 . The additional documents we refer to are :

1) ” Weather and Wind Directions During Christmas Island Nuclear Tests” a 10 page report in 1985 by the Director General of the Meteorlogical Office , Bracknell , Berkshire , UK in answer to a request from a senior official ( name redacted) at Aldermaston.

This official inter -department UK government document admits heavy rainfall over the Christmas Island test area deposited radioactive fall out on the servicemen .This document is government admission and confirmation of similar conclusions of an independent study by Lt Cmdr Gerry Wright ( Retired ) of the Royal New Zealand Navy and also a totally independent study by Dr Chris Busby and Dai Williams in 2010 with eye witness testimony from the ground , at sea and from the air .

This report repeats twice that the rainfall was caused by nuclear testing at Christmas Island . Buried also in the text is a passage strongly indicating servicemen were deliberately exposed to radioactive fall out.

2) ” Environmental Monitoring of Christmas Island 1957 -1958″ a 42 page report written by four officials from the UK Atomic Weapon Establishment Safety Directorate.

This document admits fall out readings at Christmas Island was generally three times higher than the recommended safety limits and in some areas radiation levels were recorded at 300 times the recommended safe limit of 1 microcuries per square metre .

For over 50 years the UK government has denied any fall out occurred and that radiation saftey levels were not exceeded . The UK government’s own official documents recently released by Freedom of Information questions now admit they have been lying .

Both of these recently acquired documents are extremely relevant to Mr Whyte’s submission and there is still more evidence to come .

We note your letter to Mr Whyte states that if he wishes he could pursue raising the matter with appropriate national or international authorities .The matter has been and is still being pursued at a national level but this was blocked by a narrow 4 to 3 verdict by the UK’s Supreme Court using the technicality of UK’s 1984 Statute of Limitation Act to time bar claims against the UK Ministry of Defence for compensation in a class action of over 1000 nuclear veteran and widow claimants .

A spokesman for the UK’s Ministry of Defence ( MoD) issued a statement after the March 2012 UK Supreme Court verdict and said :

” The Ministry of Defence recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in the tests . They were importnat tests that helped to keep this nation secure at a difficult time in terms of nuclear technology.”

“The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the MoD that claims brought by nuclear test vetrans were time barred and declined to allow the claims to proceed under statutory discretion.”

“Perhaps of greater significance is that all justices recognised the veterans would face great difficulty proving a causal link between illnesses and attendance at the tests.”

“The Supreme Court described the claims as having no reasonable prospect of success and that they were doomed to fail.”

We respectfully submit to the ICC Prosecutor that application of a time bar by UK national legal authorities preventing cases to be heard, individual by individual, in a full High Court hearing does not alter the fact that the sevicemen were deliberately exposed to the prime causal link to ill health , that is by inhaled and ingested radioactive fall out .

The UK MoD’s ‘debt of gratitude’ to those who took part in the nuclear test experiments has in fact been the irresponsible denial of any remedial after care and regular health checks that such exposure demands and therefore, the United Kingdom’s government have committed and act of criminal negligence .

Nuclear powers, with secret vested national interests , should we believe not be the final arbiter of an international human right that individuals potentially exposed to ionising radiation should be morally and ethically entitled to know the level of ionising radiation to which they are exposed. The case of Mr Whyte is one such case: an individual with a human right to also be correctly informed of the potential legacy ill health of such exposure .

We submit Mr Whyte’s submission is a case of international interest because allies from Australia , New Zealand , Fiji and other Commonwealth nations have also suffered severe health consequences resulting from fall out and radiation levels in excess of recommended safety levels whilst taking part in the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons test experiments at locations in the Pacific and Australia.

We thank the Prosecutor for the opportunity to submit new facts and evidence to support Mr Whyte’s case .

Yours sincerely ,

Dennis Hayden

Ken McGinley

For and on behalf of the
Combined Nuclear Veterans’ Forum International .

Dated the 14th day of December in the year 2012 .