Britain must show proof of dose at distance in relation to Totem 1’s Black Mist

The legal action on behalf affected Australian Aboriginal people has been halted by the British view that no proof of harm exists in relation to bomb fallout.

Specifically in relation to the test blast named Totem 1 of October 1953, Australian and British authorities state no harm could possibly come to anyone. This has been stated to me in a letter by the CEO of ARPANSA. The assertion is based upon British calculations of dose estimates from the cloud.

Disagreement still exists over the very existence of the Black Mist ground level atomic cloud which caused so much harm and suffering particularly to Aboriginal people at distances of 100 miles and more.

Authorities from Britain and Australia maintain that doses capable of producing any detrimental effect, either at the time or later, did not exist anywhere off site in relation to Totem 1.

Such an event as a Black Mist from a nuclear bomb detonated miles away is questioned as exceptional and highly unusual.

However, even within just the Australian archives, mention is made of one other, which was reported to the Chief Scientist at Maralinga at the time.

In the US record, photographic evidence of ground level and near ground level nuclear fallout clouds within the range of 100 miles from blast point have existed since 1953. The photographer was a local farmer in the Warm Springs and Dry Springs area of Nevada, about 100 miles from the Nevada Test Site Mercury. The photographer, the late Joe Fallini, was also an official radiation monitor appointed by the AEC. The levels of radiation were such that Joe used a camera mounted inside a lead lined box, fitted with an aperture for the camera lens.

Both Carol Gallagher and Richard Lee Miller included the Fallini photos of nuclear clouds near or at ground at 100 miles range from blast point in their books.

Miller’s book “Under the Cloud: The Decades of Nuclear Testing” is on Google Books. There is no short link to the photo of the Grey Mist (Nevada Test site has a sandy soil, Totem 1 was exploded on an Australian desert clay pan.) The long link to the photo, if it works for you, is http://books.google.com.au/books?id=adI-6jRDipgC&pg=PA316-IA3&lpg=PA316-IA3&dq=nuclear+cloud+warm+springs+nevada+joe+fallini&source=bl&ots=lHNoxVWB9u&sig=-synblP7E5ntBveX8p6d8IlB9lY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=quD6UPrLCsj1mAWxnYAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20cloud%20warm%20springs%20nevada%20joe%20fallini&f=false

If that does not work, here is a screen grab of the photograph:

In 1953 the AEC documented that sheep and cattle at that range suffered Beta radiation burn to their hides. The matter was secret at the time and an important one for the AEC to control. While the AEC admitted internally that beta burns were being found on livestock, no document mentioning the same condition in humans has been released to the public. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

On the one hand US authorities at the time knew that at 100 miles or more doses of radiation capable of producing Local Radiation Injury (Beta Burn) to livestock. On the other, British and American authorities maintain such doses at such ranges are impossible. Clearly this position impossible to maintain when evidence exists in the US archives which shows similar bombs at similar distances produced immediate effects in livestock. The US position admits to harming animals, but it denies any harm to humans. Even though Warm Spring children suffered skin rashes, sickness and other symptoms.

The loss of a husband and child to the fallout led one person to pursue justice over a period of many years.

It is actually up to Britain to prove that the Black Mist, with doses approximating those of the 1953 Warm Sorings , Dry Springs events, did not exist in Australia.

As it cannot prove this, it must accept reality and allow further legal progress toward Australian Aboriginal justice in relation to harms suffered because of the actions of the British and Australian governments.

The dose estimates of the British clash with the recorded readings taken the 100 mile mark in the US in 1953.

Onus is on the British government to show cause as to why a US tower shot in the kiloton range produced a far greater dose at 100 miles than is claimed and estimated for Totem 1. Totem 1 was a tower shot in the kiloton range and its cloud, broken up by wind shear was tracked by both Royal Australian Air Force aircraft and United States Air Force B29 aircraft. Both Air Forces lost track of the cloud. One Australian aircraft itself got lost in the attempt. The craft were at 20,000 feet, whereas the crews actually should have been in jeeps.

USAF air crew reported that their aircraft had never been so contaminated. These aircraft and crew were veteran cloud chasers of the US Pacific test site. They had never experienced such contamination, and they had lost the main cloud.

The Royal Commission made a grave omission when it ignored the idea that the relevant USAF flight logs should be consulted in relation to Totem 1 and the dispute over the existence of the ground level cloud which travelled from Emu Field to Aboriginal encampments around Wallatina and other places. Places at ranges comparable with Warm Springs and Dry Springs, Nevada, that same year.

I have previously posted AEC declassified documents of the same year and era which prove beta burn (local radiation injury, external dose) was diagnosed and admitted secretly by the AEC, but only in relation to livestock. The skin lesions which appeared on farmers and their children, as well as other symptoms and illness and deaths, were not and have been the subject of document declassified at the time of writing.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Britain must show proof of dose. And explain why its bombs were so dirty as to amaze US veteran cloud chasers while producing dose estimates which are, to any sane individual, totally beyond belief.

It is not a good look Your Highness.

Tugs forelock. Its 5.30 am. I’m going to bed.

3 Responses to “Britain must show proof of dose at distance in relation to Totem 1’s Black Mist”

  1. CaptD Says:

    Yet another reason to question authority when they promise but scoff at putting anything in writing…

    This is shameful especially since it involves people who for the most part did not even have a clue of what was happening to them and their lands!

    I’m guessing that history will show that these tests were also used as a way to get rid of the “native” population without actually just marching them all into death camps which would not be acceptable, but using them and their children as unknowing test subjects was OK’d because who would ever suspect…

  2. Atomic bomb tests harmed animals, but “no evidence” of harm done to Aborignes « Antinuclear Says:

    […] On the one hand US authorities at the time knew that at 100 miles or more doses of radiation capable of producing Local Radiation Injury (Beta Burn) to livestock. On the other, British and American authorities maintain such doses at such ranges are impossible. Clearly this position impossible to maintain when evidence exists in the US archives which shows similar bombs at similar distances produced immediate effects in livestock. The US position admits to harming animals, but it denies any harm to humans. Even though Warm Spring children suffered skin rashes, sickness and other symptoms…… https://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/britain-must-show-proof-of-dose-at-distance-in-relati… […]

  3. Double standards in assessing radiation effects on animals, versus on Aborigines, in atomic bomb tests « Nuclear Australia Says:

    […] On the one hand US authorities at the time knew that at 100 miles or more doses of radiation capable of producing Local Radiation Injury (Beta Burn) to livestock. On the other, British and American authorities maintain such doses at such ranges are impossible. Clearly this position impossible to maintain when evidence exists in the US archives which shows similar bombs at similar distances produced immediate effects in livestock. The US position admits to harming animals, but it denies any harm to humans. Even though Warm Spring children suffered skin rashes, sickness and other symptoms…… https://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/britain-must-show-proof-of-dose-at-distance-in-relati… […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: