Email traffic 6 Dave Whyte A legal path to compensation

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

%d bloggers like this: