In Contradiction to the British Position that Proof of Radiological Harm Does Not Exist.

1. Primary Reference: Cronkite, E.P., “MEMO, SUBJECT: BIOPSIES OF SKIN”, Unclassified,
CASTLE OPERATION; BRAVO EVENT; BETA LESIONS; BETA BURNS;
SKIN BIOPSIES; MEDICAL SURVEILLANCE, DOE/NV Nuclear Testing
Archive, P.O. Box 98521, City: Las Vegas, State: NV, Zip: 89193-8521 as follows:

Repository Catalogue Entry:

Copy of document from the above repository:

Because the media had been invited to witness the bomb detonation, when the disaster occurred the press was present. Victims were photographed and filmed. The disaster also afflicted the crew of a Japanese fishing vessel, the Lucky Dragon No. 5. When the crew were admitted to hospital in Japan, the nation reacted with horror that again Japanese people had been afflicted by a US nuclear weapon. Tuna was off the menu.

The media was not present at the Aboriginal encampments in Australia in October 1953 and at other times throughout the period of the British nuclear bombing of Australia. To the contrary, the media was controlled by the D Notice system, which was a censorship.

Further, the diagnosis of radiation related health effects did take place at the time of the Marshall Islands disaster, while such diagnosis was denied in Australia. When afflicted people asked for a diagnosis, doctors refused to supply an answer. (Lennon) Medical records remain lost and or sealed. (Australian Atomic ExServicemens’ Association) (see previous post relating to the loss of documents and the story of Hutton’s sickness.)

Further, while Britain did not even consider blood and urine tests, these were immediately carried out by the USA upon the Marshall Islanders. Therefore historic records exist which can be matched to various fallout substances found in urine and blood and to disease and premature death.

The modus operandi of both Britain and the USA in relation to populations was, in general, similar. The Marshall Islands, due to the international knowledge of the event, took place under the glare of journalists who thought and questioned independently. This is rarely the case today if current events are, in the main, any example.

The modus operandi involved the hiding behind statistics in such a way that victims were asked to prove the link. In the case of proper application of Health Physics practice, this modus operandi would not stand. For blood and urine samples would be taken. Just in case. Interestingly, hospitals in Japan have been ordered by the Government to refuse patient requests for such tests in relation to a need to determine internal dose from that nation’s nuclear emissions.

The need to show proof today then is the result of a deliberate with holding of Health Physics facilities and practice from potential nuclear victims at the time. If blood tests and urine samples were not taken at the time and studied by a health physics specialist, the rural and Aboriginal person had only general medicine in general practice as a point of medical contact. This is insufficient for diagnosis within the context of the event.

It is simply this deliberate failure to undertake what is in fact routine health physics testing at the time and the failure to diagnosis in a health physics framework at the time which enables, it falsely believes, the British authorities to demand proof of harm from victims which it knows itself was not generated at the time. For the British government was the responsible agency. It’s demand for proof then is an admission of failure of duty of care at the time. For had it acted upon the knowledge of Health Physics circa 1953, it would have known to check for skin lesions and to take blood and urine samples.

Instead, it has lied and denied since the 1950s.

As there are no actual urine and blood sample data for the affected Aboriginal people, the only common means of showing proof is in the case of Beta Burn.

Many people in Australia’s outback suffered this affliction. It is well documented as shown by the document above. British and Australian authorities refused at the time to diagnose this condition, as already noted. Diagnosis was delayed for 30 years and it is reported (Lennon) that general medical staff (no Health Physics expert has ever studied the wounds, the IAEA failing to answer questions in this regard.) refused to consider radiation from 1950s bombs in the 1980s as a cause.

And so grossly delayed diagnosis has occurred, and proper medical tests were not conducted at the time of exposure.

It is very arrogant then for the responsible authority, the British government, to demand proof from Australian Aborigines when in fact the onus to provide the data obtained at time of exposure from individuals falls upon the British government.

Of course it cannot supply the data for it deliberately took no relevant tests, nor did it conduct any appropriate examination or biopsy of skin. The proper practice as illustrated by the US response at the time to the Marshall Islands disaster of 1954 could quite easily have been used by Australia and Britain in relation to known vulnerable populations of Aboriginal people, many of whom had been forced to concentrate at the Warburton Reserve, adjacent to the nuclear weather and fallout monitoring station. In October 1953 it was people to east of this location who were most affected.

One cannot conclude that Aboriginal people were not affected by fallout when they are co located with a fallout monitoring station. Those 28 stations were responsible for the placement and collection of “sticky paper” pads which caught fallout particles. These were used to determine dose to the Australian population. However, in 1954, the then secret document “Report on Project Gabriel” reported that the sticky paper method, while assumed officially to be 100% accurate, was in fact 50% or less accurate. This is because to gum used on the paper pads was inadequate and the fallout particles fell or blew off or were washed off by rain.

This report was declassified 30 years after the event.

So the proof of low dose relied upon by the British government – the sticky paper results – is known to under read the actual fallout amount by 50% or more.

Further, the sticky paper results for the areas affected by the Black Mist event have never been released to the public, so we do not know the half of it.

Report on Project Gabriel pdf: http://www.hss.energy.gov/HealthSafety/IHS/marshall/collection/data/ihp1b/5674_.pdf

Description of Project Gabriel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_GABRIEL

The head of the Australian Atomic Weapons Test Safety Committee admitted to the Royal Commission that he did not disclose everything of relevance to the Committee (and government and people via his D notice control of the media) because he was “subject to both the secrecy provisions of the United States and of Britain”. The Royal Commission in fact found to the effect that Titterton was directed by Britain and acted in the British interest rather than in the interests of Australia.

In fact then, while one would expect the Head of the Safety Committee to be able to reliably produce proof of harm or safety, this is in fact not the case. The Royal Commission found Titterton seriously lacking in reliably of evidence.

In this case, while the British authorities demand proof, they know very very well that the entire excserize mounted in the 1950s was done so with a deliberate aim of concealing evidence. And the Australian Atomic Ex-Servicemen’s Association has copious amounts of official documents to show this.

As for the method of determining the actual fallout – the sticky paper method – Titterton, as a former member of the Manhattan Project and a scientific participant in US nuclear testing post war, was fully appraised of the content of the Report on Project Gabriel.

Australian Nuclear Test victims must be aware that the nuclear testing by Great Britain was not conducted in a manner which was fully independent of US interest, participation and monitoring. For Great Britain also, like Titterton, subject to US control of information, shared on the basis of war time cooperation and in the interests held at the time.

Ignore the American proofs and the case becomes much harder to fight. Consulting the US data enables one to say hey, the British have the proof and they were the ones with the onus to provide it. It is totally beyond the pale to expect the Aboriginal people attempting to gain justice to have taken their own skin biopsies, and blood and urine samples in the period in question or at any other time. It is an abomination that the nuclear test authorities have actually suppressed the medical and legal records. It is criminal to then turn against the people seeking justice and deny them access to the courts for lack of proof.

In 1957 in London, England, a book was published which held microphotographs of chromosomal damage characteristic of radiation exposure. The book was entitled “Atomic Radiation and LIfe” by Peter Alexander.

Today the techniques of examining individuals for this damage have greatly advanced. Massey University in New Zealand have advanced the science of study and have identified elevated DNA damage in nuclear veterans. The British government refuses to accept this science. Even though Peter Alexander presented the same concept and results without controversy in London in 1957. Perhaps the British are a bit unscientific in this regard.

See http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=7B5D3A49-96BF-57FE-A849-E369E6196A27

If British science is so far behind the current state of knowledge held by its former colonies, perhaps nuclear victims should consider presenting the same information derived using 1957 British methods.

The lack of health physics oversight, testing and diagnosis by British authorities of vulnerable populations in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s is a severe breach of duty of care. The placement of a British agent as head of the Safety Committee and the exclusion of medical experts from the committee shows callous disregard and a deliberate ploy to deny access to proofs so easily obtained in 1954 in the Marshall Islands by the United States in similar circumstances to that October 1953 in South Australia.

The onus of proof lies with the British authorities. The Americans don’t get off much better. They gave high priority to beta burns on livestock and totally denied the same suffered by US humans. The cattle went to market none the less.

Does anyone see nuclear industry using the same modus operandi anywhere in the world today?

First one to get a radiological blood and urine test at Fukushima Hospital wins a free beer.

Well rehearsed routine.

However, consulting the US Congressional record we find this that E.P. Cronkite went on to provide detailed testimony on the nature of beta
radiation burns in general and those suffered by the Marshall Islanders in
particular to a 1957 US Congressional Sub Committee Hearing. He stated
that “Evidence for the development of Skin lesions commenced approximately
2 weeks after exposure….. With deeper lesions the pain was more severe.
The deeper foot lesions were the most painful and caused some of the people
to walk on their heels for several days during the acute stages.
Some of the more severe lesions of the neck and axillae were painful…..
Later the skin began to shed from the inside of the pigmented plaques to the
outside, and in some cases resulted in the production of large depigmented
areas.” He refers the Hearing to Kodachrome photographs of the afflicted
people. In regard to internal contamination of the afflicted people he states:
“Rare and alkaline earths accounted for about 70 percent of the urine
radioactivity. Strontium 89 was about at the maximum permissible level……”

Source: 85th Congress 1st Session JOINT COMMITTEE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON ATOMIC ENERGY SUMMARY-ANALYSIS OF HEARINGS MAY 27-29,
AND JUNE 3-‘7,1957 ON THE NATURE OF RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT AND
ITS EFFECTS ON MAN AUGUST 1957, Printed for the use of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE 8.57190 WASHINGTON : 1957, P935 STATEMENT OP DE.
EUGENE P.CEONKITE, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY]

These same injuries were suffered, and are still suffered by Australian Aboriginal people.

The US account of Beta burns as Given in Testimony to the US
Congressional House Committee Hearings, 1959.
“86th Congress 1st Session. BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR. Part 1 980 Pages JUNE 22-26, 1959,
AUGUST 1959 Printed for the use of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1959
380 EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR BETA RADIATION SKIN LESIONS
(BETA BURNS) FROM FALLOUT RADIATIONS
INTRODUCTION:
“With regard to symptomatology, the events of March of 1954 served to
demonstrate conclusively, (1) that high-level radioactive fallout can result
in extremely widespread serious injury and even death in an affected
population, and (2) that extensive beta lesions of the skin can result, in
the absence of a lethal exposure to penetrating gamma radiation, in an
unprepared population exposed to large amounts of radioactive fallout.”
“In this presentation the nature and extent of skin damage that might result
from exposure to large amounts of radioactive fallout will be reviewed. In
doing this heavy reliance will be placed on the Marshallese data (although
other examples are available), since these data represent a well documented example of fallout beta lesions in a sizable population of human
beings, and since the author observed and helped care for the individuals
involved and thus can speak from first-hand experience…… The skin lesions
first appeared as small, raised pigmented areas, which later coalesced to form
more extensive lesions. The nature of these lesions is indicated in figures 1 to
6.” (pp. 384 to 389).
“Most of the lesions were superficial and exhibited dry desquamation or loss
of skin surface much like a fairly severe sunburn. Essentially all lesions were
located in skin areas not covered by clothing, and they were most prevalent in
the folded areas of skin where perspiration would tend to collect. Even thin
clothing apparently served to prevent visible damage. The superficial lesions
required no therapy beyond bland, soothing preparations, and apparently
complete healing occurred within a few weeks. Some of the lesions were
deeper, however, and showed wet desquamation or loss of skin. Such lesions
became infected, and required treatment with antibiotics. The affected areas,
with the exception of one, also healed in a matter of weeks, with some
residual scarring, atrophy and depigmentation. On follow up examinations in
the 5 years since the accident (3-7), none of the lesions has shown a
tendency to break down, nor has premalignant or malignant change
occurred…..” [6] end quote.

Further in time from the event however we find the following results from the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal:

http://www.nuclearclaimstribunal.com/claim.htm

quote:

1 Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia) $125,000
2 Cancer of the thyroid
a. if recurrent or requires multiple surgical and/or ablation $75,000
b. if non-recurrent or does not require multiple treatment $50,000
3 Cancer of the breast
a. if recurrent or requires mastectomy $100,000
b. if not recurrent or requires lumpectomy $75,000
4 Cancer of the pharynx $100,000
5 Cancer of the esophagus $125,000
6 Cancer of the stomach $125,000
7 Cancer of the small intestine $125,000
8 Cancer of the pancreas $125,000
9 Multiple myeloma $125,000
10 Lymphomas (except Hodgkin’s disease) $100,000
11 Cancer of the bile ducts $125,000
12 Cancer of the gall bladder $125,000
13 Cancer of the liver (except if cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated) $125,000
14 Cancer of the colon $75,000
15 Cancer of the urinary tract, including the urinary bladder, renal pelves, ureter and urethra $75,000
16 Tumors of the salivary gland
a. if malignant $50,000
b. if benign and requiring surgery $37,500
c. if benign and not requiring surgery $12,500
17 Non-malignant thyroid nodular disease (unless limited to occult nodules)
a. if requiring total thyroidectomy $50,000
b. if requiring partial thyroidectomy $37,500
c. if not requiring thyroidectomy $12,500
18 Cancer of the ovary $125,000
19 Unexplained hypothyroidism (unless thyroiditis indicated) $37,500
20 Severe growth retardation due to thyroid damage $100,000
21 Unexplained bone marrow failure $125,000
22 Meningioma $100,000
23 Radiation sickness diagnosed between June 30, 1946 and August 18, 1958, inclusive $12,500
24 Beta burns diagnosed between June 30, 1946 and August 18, 1958, inclusive $12,500
25 Severe mental retardation (provided born between May and September 1954, inclusive, and mother was present on Rongelap or Utirik Atolls at any time in March 1954) $100,000
26 Unexplained hyperparathyroidism $12,500
27 Tumors of the parathyroid gland
a. if malignant $50,000
b. if benign and requiring surgery $37,500
c. if benign and not requiring surgery $12,500
28 Bronchial cancer (including cancer of the lung and pulmonary system) $37,500
29 Tumors of the brain, including schwannomas, but not including other benign neural tumors $125,000
30 Cancer of the central nervous system $125,000
31 Cancer of the kidney $75,000
32 Cancer of the rectum $75,000
33 Cancer of the cecum $75,000
34 Non-melanoma skin cancer in individuals who were diagnosed as having suffered beta burns under number 24 above $37,500
35 Cancer of the bone $125,000
36 Autoimmune thyroiditis $12,500
end quote.

It’s all very well to be optimistic in 1959. By the 1980’s, the situation among the people was very grim and tragic.

Quote “In June 1983, a formal Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Marshall Islands for the Implementation of Section 177 of the Compact of Free Association was entered into (Section 177 Agreement). In that agreement, the U.S. recognized the contributions and sacrifices made by the people of the Marshall Islands in regard to the Nuclear Testing Program and accepted the responsibility for compensation owing to citizens of the Marshall Islands for loss or damage to property and person resulting from that testing…..The Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal was established in 1988. In 1991, the Tribunal first implemented a compensation program for personal injuries deemed to have resulted from the nuclear testing program. By the end of 2003, the Tribunal had awarded more than $83 million in compensation for such injuries with additional compensable claims being filed on a regular basis. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded over $1 billion in property damage awards in the class actions of the people of Enewetak Atoll and the people of Bikini Atoll. The pending property claims from the peoples of Rongelap and Utrik Atolls near completion, while the people of Ailuk Atoll have recently filed a class action claim for compensation.

With only $45.75 million made available for actual payment of awards made by the Tribunal during the first fifteen years of the Compact and less than $6 million of the initial $150 million now remaining in the Nuclear Claims Fund, it has become clear that the original terms of the settlement agreement are manifestly inadequate.” end quote.
http://nuclearclaimstribunal.com/

The proof of the link between the illnesses and deaths suffered and the exposure to radiation exposure from nuclear fallout was gathered by the United States in 1954.

This proof consisted of skin biopsy, urine and blood samples and diagnosis not in the context of general medical practice current at the time, but from a health physics basis in the context that the skin, blood and urine tests all confirmed radiological insult.

In contrast, though it is demanding proof from victims, the United Kingdom singularly failed to undertake any gathering of individual proofs of radiological insult of individuals within vulnerable populations.

The Onus of Proof is on the British authorities. They had and have the foresight to know precisely what they are doing in order to deny justice.

Skin lesions suffered by Australian Aboriginal people which first occurred in the period following exposure to nuclear fallout is well known among the affected people.
http://betaburns.wordpress.com/

When diagnosis was sought at the time, it was refused. (Lennon).
When diagnosis did occur, it was 30 years later and general hospital medical staff diagnosed from a non health physics perspective. The event which caused the condition was not considered.

Cultural Warning for Aboriginal Australians. The photograph below is of a deceased person.


Photographed by Michele Madigan during the 1990s at Coober Pedy, South
Australia.

K. lived at Coober Pedy. She told her story to Michele Madigan. In 1953, as a
young girl, she went to sleep well and with no sign of ill health. The next
morning she awoke to find part of her chest and arm had been turned white.

K with sound reason believed that the ground upon
which she and her people had camped had been contaminated by fallout from
the fallout of atomic bomb tests.

The photographs show severe depigmentation of K’s skin. K suffered this
disfigurement for over fifty years with no aid or acknowledgement from the
governments that inflicted the suffering upon her.

I believe the suffering of K was caused by beta radiation burns. The photos
accord with those taken of people who suffered similar injuries in the Pacific
as a result of US nuclear weapons tests. The US has acknowledged this.
Britain and Australia still fail to admit to what they have done.
K was not the only Australian to suffer in this manner. Many people have, and
do so still.

Images of Beta Burns suffered by Marshall Islander people are seen here:

http://glasstone.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/proof-that-fallout-was-clearly-visible.html

The onus is on the British authorities to show cause as to why they failed to obtain the proofs of harm at the time, and to explain why they are now demanding that proof from the victims.

Callous bastards.

One Response to “In Contradiction to the British Position that Proof of Radiological Harm Does Not Exist.”

  1. CaptD Says:

    Typical Gov’t. double speak, we are here to help (the question is who is is actually going to get helped and at what cost)!

    One has only too see fruit flies being deformed after get irradiated to understand that radiation is harmful in the wrong quantities…

    Sunburn ==> skin cancer is yet another illustration that cannot be denied!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: