Dennis Heyden, On the Suppress of Truth and Denial of Justice, Past, Present and Future

Dennis wrote this as a warning to the world and in the cause of justice.

Everyone person in every land who has proceeded with the attempt to gain justice for victims of nuclear fallout in whatever circumstance will relate to the following email document. The turning point dates from the time, in my opinion, the US AEC funded Union Carbide to attack the Tamplin/Gofman position on internal emitter energy deposition. In short, the energy deposition was taken and divided by the number of cells present in the whole organ, whereas the energy is deposited into adjacent cells only. Also, the epidemiological studies fail to study the individual. No doctor diagnoses on the basis of chance. And the fact of chronic non-cancer disease, especially metabolic and endocrine system disease, is well recognized and suffered by fallout victims around the world and is most well expressed by the US Downwinders. Ask Carole Gallagher. For instance. And so on.

Dennis writes:

Hi Paul ,

Thank you for your continued in- depth interest in the nuc vets legal case and support and analysis by your Nuclear History blog . I’m sure an understanding of what is happening in UK will be useful to all persons engaged in future legal action against governments in respect to exposure to radiation .

Since around 2004 the CVFI passed a mass of information to the lawyers . Ken McGinley, former chairman of the BNTVA from 1983 to 2001, sent the lawyers copies of box loads of archive documents accrued during his chairmanship . Roy Sefton , Chairman of the NZNTVA, gave detailed information about the Rowland cytogenetic blood test study and much else besides . Alan Batchelor, of the ANVA, submitted a long witness statement regarding Maralinga . Dave Whyte has found out much from Freedom of Information questions in the last five years . Continued emphasis has been made to the lawyers that exposure to radiation does not just cause cancer but a whole wide range of premature chronic illness causally linked to genetic damage .

During this early stage of sending information to the lawyers we had to overcome their objections not to include still birth , miscarriages and other genetic damage being mentioned in claims . We had to inform them, for example, that premature heart disease should not be excluded as this is also attributable to the ingestion of the radioisotope , caesium –137, from fall out .Everything we sent to them was backed by supportive scientific papers. We had to caution them, from time to time, for taking advice from scientists who we knew were clearly pro- nuclear and fully signed up to the establishment’s politically and military expedient obsolete view of radiation risk to human health .

We continually emphasised the point that radiation readings of only gamma radiation was being used as a red-herring to deflect attention from focus on inhaled and ingested alpha and beta particles from fall out . We continually insisted from 2004 onwards they get help from the UK’s leading expert on radiation risk from low level, low dose inhaled and ingested radiation fall out , Dr Busby , author , scientist who also happens to be the Scientific Secretary to the European Committee on Radiation Risk which since 2003 has produced many critical papers about the significantly inadequate ICRP risk model . Also we said the lawyers needed to take advice from Ian Anderson , International Advocate and Attorney at law , based in New York , who had dealt with radiation related case cases at the United Nations and at the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg . After all of this we naturally assumed the lawyers fully understood the science of causation , the politics of denial and complexity of the case.

The Atomic Veterans Group Litigation ( AVGL ) led by Rosenblatt solicitors first obstacle in court was faced in 2009 .

The 2009 Limitation Trial .

This was the MoD’s attempt to block full court hearing of all 1000 plus individual claims by use of the legal delaying tactic of the Limitation Act to say the claims were statute time barred because the veterans and widows claims should have been made within 3 years of having “ knowledge” their ill health /premature deaths was due to exposure to radiation . The fact a veteran or widow “believed” or “suspected” radiation was the cause is not the same in law as having “knowledge” . The catch 22 here is that attempts to gain the knowledge have been continually blocked by the Official Secrets Act , Crown Proceedings Act and obtusely , in many instances by use of so called “ national or security interests” . The legal consensus of opinion appears to have emerged that knowledge of radiation damage was not known until the peer review of the NZ Rowland Study of 2006 showing veterans have three time more chromosomal , genetic damage , to their DNA than men of similar age and habit who had not attended a test location . This trial was very, very expensive . The High Court verdict in June 2009 by Mr Justice Foskett ruled that all 10 test cases should proceed to full high court trial because the Judge wrote “ the main causal link in the veterans ill health is from fall out ” and the Rowland study in NZ is “crucial and pivotal” to this decision .

The MoD appealed against this ruling .

Following from this the AVGL led by Rosenblatts went through a series of appeals and counter appeals leading to a Supreme Court hearing firstly by 3 Law Lords of the Supreme Court culminating in the final 7 Law Lord verdict by 4 to 3 last year which stated the veterans have no hope of proving causation , without giving any chance for this issue to be examined fully in court . Until such time as causation is allowed hearing in court for each individual veteran and widow then the case has not been proved in law one way or other and the veterans have been denied justice only by use of the limitation legal technicality of delay .

I attach an email, also with attachments , which covers some points of the legal process from 2010 . For example the blatant use of statements of an epidemiologist as evidence in court that the radiation dose recorded by an aircrew cloud sampling veteran , using obsolete ICRP safety thresholds , without blood tests or account of ingested alpha and beta , was regarded as sufficient evidence to discount this veterans cancer as being due to exposure to radiation . This, and other ridiculous assumptions of science by epidemiology , was not contested with any assertiveness appropriate to the knowledge made available to the veterans’ lawyers since 2004 . This lack of assertive challenge continued right up to the last day of the supreme court hearing when MoD counsel insisted the veterans had no proof of a causal link to ill health because in the repetitive summing up by MoD counsel they insisted “ all the veterans’ lawyers are talking about is low dose , low level fall out radiation”.

Clearly, the two key points recognised by Mr Justice Foskett in the High Court in 2009 have been denied opportunity for examination in detail in court with expert witness and cross examination by veterans barristers . The scientific case of causation from fall out and the genetic effects found in the Rowland Study have also been swept under the carpet . They clearly do not want the subject of genetic effects cross examined in court and that also applies to the enhanced effect off internal emitters acting at a cellular level in tissue , organs or bone to trigger latent , long term damage to health .

I enclose an attachment giving more details of many concerns to the lawyers raised by the CVFI from the Court of Appeal Decision in 2010 up to the Supreme Court verdict last year . The attached email , like many others sent to the veterans’ lawyers remained unanswered . We had evolved by this time a standing observation that we , the nuclear veterans and widows , were regarded by the lawyers as an inconvenient ‘mushroom brigade ‘ who were to be kept in the dark and just fed horse manure . The alternative observation around this time being that we were mere passengers in a runaway legal train, without brakes, only able to indulge in one way contact with the engine drivers on a downhill mountain track . Neither options gave any cause for confidence .

We anticipate that with a blank cheque of tax payers’ money, politically and expediently sanctioned for legal use , the pension appeal verdicts in May/June , if favourable to the veterans and widows , will also be appealed against by the MoD lawyers . There is no doubt a war of attrition is being waged by them against the veterans and widows and also against the veterans’ legal team with intent to deplete them of funds to enable them to continue litigation . This is the MoD’s tactic as far as as can be seen . This is why , despite attempts to not have the genetic effects of radiation or the prime causal link of ingested /inhaled fall out put under close scrutiny in court, the action of Dr Busby to release all the evidence he holds on- line is to be commended for the future .

The current impasse in the case is not one of the veterans’ making , it is a result of failure by the lawyers to build upon the judgment in 2009 of Mr Justice Foskett and to fully back the truth of the science of radiation damage to health from inhaled and ingested fall out and to defend the crucial and pivotal evidence of genetic damage shown by the Rowland study . Dr Busby’s video has brought the legal failings since the Limitation Trial into sharp focus and I hope this email shows the concerns are also shared by veterans .

You deserve an extra ‘snag’ on the barbie and ‘tinny’ in the eskie if you use any of this for the benefit of all who participated in the UK nuclear test experiments and anyone else past , present or future who is a radiation victim, politically excluded from justice .

With thanks again ,

all the best ,

Dennis Hayden

From: Paul Langley
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:54 AM
To: dennishayden44@tiscali.co.uk
Subject: Refused evidence.

Hi Dennis, is there any chance you could make a dot point list of the types of evidence
the UK courts have refused to admit in the matter of the class action?

I could write up a piece on the refusal to admit the genetics effects and the refusal to
admit the reality of the enhanced hazard of internal emitters, but so I dont miss anything
out, a list or a piece from you would be better I think, for the blog.

Best regards

Paul Langley.

—————————————————————————————————
Text inserted by Panda GP 2012:

This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam!
—————————————————————————————————
Neil ,

CAUSATION OF ILL HEALTH BY INHALED, INGESTED FALL – OUT .

LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE
IS UNDERMINING ANY HOPE OF SUCCESS

Following our recent conversation and the recent PRESS STATEMENT by the CVFI on the Supreme Court decision of the 14th, and subsequent examination of :

1) The Full Supreme Court Judgement of 14 March 2012 page 13 . para 25 and page 14. para 27 ( see attached) and

2) The fwwd email sent to the legal team on the 28th December 2010 – Court of Appeal Decision – 22 November 2010 ….an Appraisal by the CVFI

It is clear the current impasse of misinformation that “ the Veterans accept there is no credible evidence on causation and the fact is the Veterans’ claims have no prospect of success” have been arrived at by a combination of a foreseeable defence by the Ministry of Defence which should have been avoided .

Please read the following email at 2 ) above with particular reference para 124 of the Court of Appeal Decision and the following comment as written on 28th December 2010 :

“The CVFI believe all Counsel working for the litigants , must have a clear understanding of the science and mechanism of causation from ingested and inhaled fallout BEFORE the case proceeds to the Tribunal Appeal Hearings and the Supreme Court in 2011.”

With regard to 1) above, from the Supreme Court Full Judgement of 14 March it is clear that appropriate understanding of the science and mechanism of causation from so called ‘low dose’ fall out radiation has not been clearly understood and assimilated by Counsel :

page 13 para 25 states :

“ Mr Dingemans concedes that even today the appellants lack evidence with which to establish a credible case that the injuries were caused by the tests..”

page 14 para 27 states :

“ But , in line with the realistic concession made by Mr Dingemans in this court , the fact is that , for the reasons set out by Lord Phillips ……their claims have no real prospect of success.”

The question the CVFI ask on the strength of the above is :

What prospect did we have of a positive outcome on the last day , 17th November 2011 ?

The MoD’s QCs summed up our case with a long – winded assertion on the subject of “ knowledge” and repeated the misnomer that fall out radiation is only “ Low Dose”radiation . By this time our answer that we had proof of causation was a contradiction of what had already transpired .

URGENT ACTION NEEDED

Despite all of the legal teams hard work strategic errors have been made .

To retrieve the current situation, in which we should never have found ourselves in , the CVFI believes that the Appeal Tribunal Hearings MUST be heard in the presence of a QC who fully understands the science and the mechanism of causation from ingested and inhaled fall out .

For this reason the legal team should urgently take up the proposition of Dr Chris Busby and use of Hugo Charlton QC for the Tribunal Hearings , who you can be sure will be fully briefed on the science – see attached email .

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm what action you are taking on this matter to ensure future success ?

Regards ,

Dennis
on behalf of the
Action Exceutive
CVFI

From: Dennis Hayden
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:06 PM
To: Neil Sampson
Cc: Stephen Evans
Subject: Court of Appeal Decision – 22 November 2010 .

Dear Neil ,

COURT OF APPEAL ( CoA ) DECISION – 22 NOVEMBER 2010
an Appraisal by the Combined Veterans’ Forum International.

This is an appraisal of the appeal verdict which we hope will be of use before the Appeals Tribunal and Supreme Court hearings . We all know , having read the full 49 pages of the CoA document , the decision by the Appeal Judges is wrongly weighted in favour of the defendant , the Ministry of Defence .

In the opinion of the CVFI the Appeal Judges clearly do not seem to understand the science of causation . Through laziness , or purposefully, they have accepted the establishment view of the science on causation . That is , they have endorsed the establishment’s long held politically motivated and expedient view on causation of health damage from exposure to ionising radiation .

The CoA decision document contains much upon which to make comment. My focus in this email letter is on the key issue of causation and therefore I apologise in advance for any other omissions or oversights . The key points I believe are :

1) The Appeal Judges only considered and accepted ( for radiation for health protection purposes )” assessment of dose” for prompt / gamma radiation exposure .

2) Film badges were worn primarily by Air Crew who took part in radioactive cloud sampling and servicemen who entered ground zero’s of detonations shortly after to retrieve scientific equipment . These only recorded gamma radiation and in a few cases beta . In many instances the film badges have been lost , made unavailable or destroyed .

3) Unlike Judge Foskett , in his Limitation Trial verdict of June 2009 , the Appeal Judges have totally ignored the genetic impact on health from ingested and inhaled radioactive fall out particles which are not recorded on film badges of the nuclear test veterans .

The following comments are offered In support of the above points 1) to 3) :

Para .157 – Conclusions in respect of Judge Foskett’s Limitation Trial approach to Section 33 issues

The Appeal Judges believe Judge Foskett ” has significantly and wrongly underestimated the claimant’s difficulties on causation and is therefore unlikely to have given appropriate weight to that when applying the broad merits test .”

Judge Foskett did not underestimate the ” difficulties on causation” . It is the Appeal Judges’ lack of scientific understanding that is the difficulty .The scales of justice are supposed to be evenly balanced to consider all sides of any evidence .

Throughout their decision making the Court of Appeal Judges have accepted only the establishment view of the science whilst totally ignoring the long term legacy health issues caused by inhalation and ingestion of residual ( fall out ) radiation , that is fall out particles containing alpha and beta radioisotopes that are harmless outside of the body but , once inhaled , or ingested, inside the body become high risk internal emitters .

These short range internal emitters cause very severe long term damage inside the body . When lodged in body tissue the dose emitted is confined to a limited number of adjacent cells ( estimated as a sphere measuring approximately 30 microns in radius ) .This is highly significant because a highly concentrated dose is delivered inside the body at a cellular level in tissue for the life time of the ionised particle ( radioactive isotope ) releasing energy , which is for many years , in some cases in excess of 24,000 years .

Professor Chris Busby explains this more simply in his book ” Wings of Deatth “. In a lay persons terms , imagine being sat by a coal fire at a distance where you can comfortably endure the radiated whole body heat ( an anology for prompt or gamma radiation ) . This is fine . However , no one would be foolish enough to reach into the fire and take any red hot particles ( an anology for residual / fall out alpha and beta particles ) and then swallow them .

This is as good a simple analogy as can be had to explain the intake of tiny radioactive particles ( fall- out ) being a more severe hazard to health than whole body dose radiation ( prompt / gamma radiation ) released at the time of a nuclear weapon explosion .

Judge Foskett understood this science of causation . In his Limitation Trial verdict of June 2009 he wrote ” the prime causal link to ill health in nuclear veterans is from fall out radiation ” . The Appeal Court Judges seem to have not understood this . If they did understand this then it makes their CoA decision all the more deplorable and lamentable .

SOME FURTHER POINTS FROM THE CoA DECISION

Para 9 – The Appeal Judges noted : ” So these cases are now concerned only with the effects of radioactive fall out ” .

That was an astute early observation . But from that point onwards the Appeal Judges relentlessly ignore the causal links to ill health from fall out .Certainly , this was never more so than when ignoring the Rowland Study which was a study carried out on NZ naval crew who had sailed through the fallout and shown to have significant ( 3 x ) genetic damage compared to men of similar age and background who had not attended a nuclear weapons fall out location . This is a point ‘flagged ‘ and noted by Judge Foskett as ” crucial and pivotal ” to his verdict in the High Court of June 2009 but ignored throughout by the Appeal Judges .

Para 19 – In an early reference to the Pearce case of 1985 the Appeal Judges state there was ; ” ..potential difficulty of demonstrating a causal link between the exposure and the condition complained of ” .

This selective use of a 25 year old case , as a precedent for difficulty in establishing causation, ignores Judge Foskett’s reference to ecent advances in the understanding of the science from ingested fall out and ” crucial and pivotal ” advanced cytogenetic testing results of the Rowland Study . In the CoA’s section on Causation paragraphs 122 to 156 this bias to the establishment’s view of the science is continued relentlessly and seized upon time and time again .

CAUSATION. Paras 122 to 156 of the CoA decision –

Para 123 ” The burden of proof of causation relies upon assessment of dose ”

The Appeal Judges state : “In the present case the claimants have produced no evidence which begins to satisfy the usual requirements and Mr Kent QC has accepted that they cannot do so . He did not qualify that admission with any claim that they might reasonably hope to do so , given time .” .

This is a grave and unfortunate expression of lack of understanding of the truth of the science of causation by our Counsel , Mr Kent QC. His lack of robustness reinforces our belief that all Counsel acting on behalf of litigants must have , as a matter of urgency , a full understanding of the science of causation from all types of radiation. That is , from prompt / gamma and from residual fall out ingested and inhaled radioactive particles in order that they have the necessary confidence to defend the truth of the science on causation. Two points arise from Para 123 of the CoA : .

Point 1) * Assessment of dose” referred to by the Appeal Judges as the burden of proof on causation is scientifically irrelevant in relation to ingested internal emitters from fall out . It is the ‘red herring’ used by the establishment view of causation of legacy ill health in persons exposed to ionising radiation since the dawn of the atomic age. It is a red herring to deflect attention away from the severe hazard, at a cellular level in body tissue , bones and organs of ingested and inhaled fall out .

At a Pension Appeal Tribunal in late 2002 , expert scientific witness Professor Chris Busby , demolished the “assessment of dose” defence and secured a widow’s pension for the claimant , Eva Adshead . The MoD’s case was that her late husband , who like many thousands of nuclear test veterans was not wearing a film badge , could not have received any dose of radiation sufficient to be the causation of his brain tumour from which he had died .

Quite simply , the expert witness stated to the tribunal panel that ” dose is irrelevant ” because the deceased had died as a result of ingested and inhaled fall out , a type of radiation that does not register on film badges . The MoD did not contest this decision and the CVFI therefore regards this 2002 precedent better , on establishing causation , than the 25 year old Pearce case of 1985 referred to by the Appeal Judges .

To support his view in 2002 Professor Busby showed the Tribunal Panel a copy of the then, soon to be due to be published , European Committee on Radiation Risk of 2003 – Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Puposes ( Regulators’ Edition : Brussels ) with focus on page 12 , Fig . 3.1. . This document clearly shows high dose , External , acute prompt / gamma radiation ( old threshold risk model ) , released at the time of a nuclear weapons detonation is a lower risk model compared to biphasic cell-response , Internal , chronic , radioisotopic , ingested or inhaled fall out particles from nuclear weapons tests .

Forcing the MoD to prove otherwise ( that is to force them to deny the scientific truth of health damage by ingested and inhaled alpha and beta particles acting as internal emitters inside the body ) is the way to proceed on causation . It would place the MoD’s so-called radiation experts in an impossibly weak position scientifically . This has been shown time and time again at tribunals when the MoD have not contested the issue on causation by ingested fall out , as was the case in the tribunal win by Adshead v the MoD in late 2002 and in many other tribunal cases attended since by Professor Busby .

Point 2) Having understanding of the ‘red herring ‘ of the irrelevance of assessment of dose, the Rowland Study of New Zealand veterans , without significant assessment of dose readings from film badges showing prompt / gamma radiation , has shown the veterans incurred significant , elevated genetic damage . This was not a result of prompt or gamma radiation at the time of nuclear weapons detonation but a result of sailing under the fall out over several months ‘on station ‘ in close proximity to Christmas Island .

By use of fall out pattern models ( recently completed by Busby/ Williams ) it can clearly be established that those working , breathing and ingesting food in this area for several months were similarly exposed to the hazard of genetic damage by internal emitters from fall out gaining access to inside of the body . Again , the MoD need to forced to scientifically deny the truth that ingested fall out radiation is not harmful . We believe they will not be able to find a scientific witness to stand in an open court and dispute this scientific truth with any credibility against an expert witness . .

Para 124 – The Court of Appeal Judges state : ” The claimants have not produced evidence of how they will estimate their radiation doses .”

As mentioned above , film badge readings are totally irrelevant as far as ingested and inhaled fall out particulates are concerned . For alpha and beta particles recorded dose has been ignored by the MoD . Alpha particles can only be measured on highly specialised and sophisticated equipment .

As an example , the alpha particle plutonium -239 present in all nuclear weapons fall out has been totally ignored . This internal emitter has a half life of 24,400 years . Also ignored are the man – made fall out particles caesium -137( half life 30 years) , strontium -90 ( half life 28 years) , Tritium – 3 ( half life 12 years ) . The use of depleted uranium , packed around the core of nuclear weapons at British nuclear test locations , to boost their yield whilst producing increased ionised uranium fall out particles , has also been totally ignored . Also ignored , amonst many other radioisotopes , is the use the alpha particle , polonium – 210 as part of the trigger mechanism in nuclear weapons detonations. ( See special focus on the case of Litvinenko below ) .

All of these deadly internal seeds of death have been ignored by the MoD . All are prime causary links to ill – health and premature deaths in nuclear veterans , an understading of the science of causation clearly seen by Judge Foskett .

In para. 124 the Appeal Judges also state ” Low dosage has not been defined for us in terms of millisieverts ” .

Of course , ingested alpha and beta particles , acting as internal emitters, work at a cellular level when inside the body in tissue , organs and bone . One single particle will deliver a concentrated dose over many years to local body cells in tissue , organs or bone and no dose to the rest of the body . As previously stated dosage ” in terms of milliesieverts ” is totally irrelevant when discussing the science of internal emitters. The CVFI believes all Counsel working for litigants , MUST have a clear understanding of the science and mechanism of causation from ingested and inhaled fallout BEFORE the case proceeds to the Tribunal Appeals Hearings and to the Supreme Court in 2011.

Para . 125 The Appeal Judges noted : ” the claimant’s primary case was that proof of dose was not necessary but that , if necessary , inferences as to dose could be drawn from the Rowland Study “.

This is the truth of the science , ignored because the science of causation from fall out is not fully understood or has been unable to be confidently articulated by our Counsel in court . We are therefore left in the position where the Appeal Judges have accepted the established view of causation , that is linked to whole body external gamma radiation dose , as the sole arbiter of radiation damage to health .

External prompt /gamma radiation dose is acnkowledged , internal ingested radioactive fall out acting at a cellular level is totally ignored .

In internal irradiation by ingested or inhaled particles of fall out the biological impact works differently . The very short distance emitting ionisation radiation destroys cells immediately adjacent and damages those within their tiny sphere of ionisation . This is sufficient to cause legacy health damage ranging from immune system damage , chronic ill health to mutagenic cancers developing into premature deaths , even 40 years after inhalation or ingestion ..

The Case of Alexander Litvinenko ( see1 Para .124 above )

Relatively small , invisable to the eye , doses of radioactive isotopes in fall out are the serious hazard ignored and denied by established science as applicable to causation of ill health in nuclear veterans . Yet the potential to cause serious harm and premature death was graphically shown and admitted in 2006 by the assassination of Russian dissident , Alexander Litvinenko in London .

A miniscule quantity of this fall out radioisotope, invisable to the eye , was placed into a teapot from which Litivinenko drank a cup of tea . The radioisotope used , polonium -210 is an alpha particle present in nuclear bomb fall out . Polonium -210 has the same biological impact as other alpha and beta particles when inside the body , acting as as internal emitters and irradiating tissue at a cellular level . That is , a fall out particulate harmless outside of the body but deadly once inside and able to act at a cellular level when lodged in lung or other body organ tissue as an internal emitter . Litvinenko died within a few days of admission to hospital .

This case caused panic in the general public in London who were ironically reassured by Health Protection Agency ( formally the NRPB ) scientists Pat Troop and Professor Dudley Goodhead ( see attached email 26.11.2006 – The Genie is Out of the Bottle ) that this type of radiation is harmless unless ingested , inhaled or entering the blood by a cut or abrasion in the skin. We say ironic because this causal link to ill health has been denied and ignored by the NRPB , now Health Protection Agency , for over 50 years as being applicable to nuclear test veterans who for months lived , worked , breathed and ingested food and drink at Australian and Pacific nuclear test fall out locations between 1952 and 67 .

Whilst the Litivinenko case is viewed in some quarters as not relevent to our case as evidentiary proof , veterans believe it is nonetheless worth mentioning because it illustrates the contradictory advice given by government scientists on the truth of the science of causation from fall out. Contradictory advice which is given according to the circumstances of political expediency rather than as an explanation of the truth .

In the case of the nuclear veterans , the politically expedient establishment view is denial of the effects of ingested fall out particles and in the case of Litvinenko the poitically expedient views became another contradiction that is , an admission of the truth of causal link to ill health in order to placate the grave concerns of a worried general public .

Other points of contention

In the Court of Appeal Judges assessment of the individual test cases of the LimitationTrial a repetitive and recurring dismissal of the litigants right to proceed to full trial has been opined by scientific witness by the MoD and accepted by the Judges . This is shown by the following :

Para. 207 John Allen Brothers , deceased .

The Appeal Judges write : ” Professor Kaldor ( for the MoD ) opined that in order to show that the risk of of developing oesophageal cancer had been doubled by exposure to radiation , it would be necessary to demonstrate exposure in the order of 1000 mSv . ”

Para.208 ” Accordingly we conclude that the general merits of the claim are extremely weak.”

Important Note : In the view of the CVFI this is the most shocking decision , in a catalogue of shocking decisions of the CoA Judges on causation .

In the MoD Summary Defence document ( for the Limitation Trial ) the MoD defendants (page 9 .para 35 ) had admitted that 159 nuclear test participants had exceeded relatively rare doses ” above the approved medically and and scientifically thresholds of in excess of 30 mSV ( the lower integrated dose )” only two of whom are widow litigants , that is acting for Mr John Brothers and Eric Denson , both sampling aircrew .

1000 mSv is 33 x greater than the ” approved medically and scientifically thresholds ” opined by the Epidemiologist Professor Kaldor ., for the MoD . This dose is without taking any account of ingested fall out .

Para 221 Michael Richard Clark , deceased.

” Mr Clark had not been exposed to any radiation above background levels .”

Para 225

“Professor Kaldor ( for the MoD ) expressed the opinion that in order to double the risk of lung cancer the radiation exposure would have had to have been in excess of 1000 mSV.”

Para. 239 Andrew Dickson , deceased .

” The Judge had noticed that Professor Mothersill ( for the claimants ) had not been able to support the claim in respect of ischaemic heart disease .”

This is a sad ommission . The causal link here is from fall out . In this case the radioisotope in question is caesium – 137 a beta particle common in nuclear weapons fall out

(Yuri. Bandashevsky – Medical and Biological Effects of Radiocaesium Incorporated into the Human Organism , 2000, [ full document held by Professor Busby ] ) , indentified radioisotope caesium -137 fall out as the pathogenic link to heart lesions in children post – Chernobyl nuclear (1986 ) accident leading to cardiac arrest in children as young as 10 years old .)

Para. 257

” Professor Kaldor opines that it would be necessary to demonstrate exposure to about 1000 mSv in order to prove causation on the balance of probabilities .”

Para. 283 Eric Ogden , deceased

” Professor Kaldor opines that a radiation dose of 1000 mSv would be required before it could be shown that the risk had doubled .( in respect of his meningioma ) .

All the above establishment view of the science of causation expressed by the defendants ( the MoD ) ignore the inhalation and ingestion of internal emitters from fall out .

The opinion of the epidemiolgist witness for the MoD , Professor Kaldor , on the ‘double dose ‘ rule is based by him on the 50 year old findings by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission ( ABCC ) and the Radiation Effects Research Foundation ( RERF) following research into the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb victims .

In the peer reviewed paper ( 2006 ) by Professor Shoji Sawada a theoretical particle physicist and Emeritus professor at Nagaya Univeristy , Japan entitled : ” Cover – up of the Effects of Internal Exposure by Residual Raditaion from the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ” it was found that :

” The ABCC studied only the effects of the primary radiation ( i.e. prompt / gamma radiation ) from the atomic bombing on the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ignored the damage from residual radiation .( i.e. fall out , internal emitters ) .

Analysis of acute radiation disease , the rate of chromosomal aberrations , and the relative risk of chronic illness among the survivors , shows that the effects of residual radiation from fall out exceeds that of primary radiation in the area more than 1.5 to 1.7 km distant from the hypocentre of the Hiroshima bombing .

The effects of internal exposure due to the intake of tiny radioactive particles are more severe than those of external exposure , explaining the difference between the official criteria and the actual state of the survivors . ”

Our belief is the above demolishes the credentials Professor Kaldor as a expert witness for the MoD and there is more to support that view :

Professor John Kaldor , Epidemiologist

It is disturbing that the views of an epidemiologist on dose levels was allowed to influence the Appeal Judges on the issue of causation . It is suprising because his opinion was allowed to carry more weight than that of expert radiation biologists and other expert witness’ .

A close examination of Professor Kaldor’s cv leads to even more alarm due to his close link to the Australian Government with scientific responsibility to the Australian Minister for Veterans .

Epidemiologist University of New South Wales .
Past President of the Australian Epidemiological Association 1996 -2000 .

Member of the Repatriation Medical Authority ( RMA ) –

This is listed as an ‘independent statutory authority’ set up by the Australian Government responsible to the Minister for Veterans charged with preparation of legislation about disease causation dealing with claims for disability pensions received from Australian Veterans and their families .

The CVFI’s comment is that this is an illustration of the 1993 Treaty Series between Australia and the United Kingdom in action . That is , the mutual agreement between governments to exchange information and assist each other on claims for compensation made by nuclear test veterans . No doubt Kaldor has returned in triumph to his Australian patrons with a clear message that the truth of the science on the causation of damage to health from igested fall out is still safely being buried by the establishment view of obsolete science still upheld by the red herring of irrelevant film badge dose readings .

Canberra and London must be laughing their socks off . But , hopefully not for too long !

Conclusions

This case will only be won when our Counsel have a full understanding of and can robustly stand up in support of expert witness for the truth of the science of causation .

This is not rocket science , anyone can read scientific papers and see the truth of causation for themselves , as Judge Foskett was able to do in the Limitation Trial verdict .

The bottom line is that causation will be fiercely contested outside of court by the MOD because the establishment’s view of the science , ignoring ingested and inhaled fall out , is crucial and pivotal to underpinning their politically motivated cover up that has lasted over half a century .

The good news is that when the MoD are challenged inside of court to prove that ingested fall out is not harmful and is not the prime causal link to legacy ill health in persons exposed to ionising radiation , they will not able to do so against expert independent scientific witness .This was initially demonstrated by Professor Chris Busby in the Appeal Tribunal ruling in the case of nuclear widow , Eva Adshead , in late 2002 .

This is a fight for the truth of science of causation . It is.an ethical and moral victory that cannot afford to be lost .

We thank all in the legal team for your hard work and dogged determination to go to the Supreme Court and fight our case to the bitter end . We also look forward to the Appeal Court Hearings and hope this appraisal will be of some use in both ..

With hopes of significant legal progress in 2011 .

Happy New Year to all at Rosenblatts .

Regards ,

Dennis
for the CVFI .

Dai
I find it hard to see why we need any solicitors. I have done a whole bunch of cases without any solicitors or barristers, usually only with the veteran himself or his wife (if he is dead), on occasion with some guy from BNTVA or with Andrew Ades who is a layman but quite up to speed. We do them in Birmingham where I can get on the train, have Columbo’ed our way through with the assistance of the Tribunal judges and won every case, and in the present instance now we have a great deal more evidence that shows their case is full of holes at least for Christmas Island. We have evidence that their assertion that the background dose at Christmas Island was lower than UK because there was no radon (there was) is wrong and also the new stuff about Grapple Y kissing the sea and the doses I calculated from the alpha emitters based on their redacted secret reports. I told them we could use my mate the barrister Hugo Charlton and he would charge about 2- 4K for the whole case that would do the trick in my opinion. I mean, why should the vets have to have a solicitor: there is no provision for one and no institutional funding for one in the normal tribunals and the vets are all skint. It seems to me that this whole thing has gone out of control. It has been delayed long enough: I find further delay to be in the favor of the MoD. I mean what is to stop these new people pulling out at the last minute, then are some new solicitors going to step in and want another 9 months? And so forth forever.
Banzai.
C

On 08/03/2012 15:06, Dennis Hayden wrote:
> Dai ,
>
> Thank you . Yes I understand it is only two cases that Rosenblatts are funding ( Sinfield and Smith ? ) . It seems the RBL contacting new solicitors is a step backwards with a further delay of 9 months .
>
> For this reason I have copied Stephen and Neil in this reply to ask whether the legal team would consider the CVFI email the RBL to point out the advantage of paying Rosenblatts to deal with all cases is preferable on two counts :
>
> 1) Rosenblatts have the knowledge for a speedy settling of all these cases .
>
> 2) New solicitors appointed by the RBL would need at least 9 months to acquire the knowledge necessary .
>
> We believe it would in fact be a lot less expensive for the RBL to stick with Rosenblatts because a new firm of solicitors would rack up many extra expenses just to get to the point of knowledge Rosenblatts have already achieved . Time wise we could easily lose some members of this claimants group before 9 months is up.
>
> Just a thought .
>
> regards ,
>
> Dennis
>
> From: Dai Williams
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 2:06 PM
> To: Dennis Hayden
> Cc: Chris Busby
> Subject: Re: Veterans Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
>
> Thank you Dennis
> I fully agree with your comments, pending looking at the Green Paper itself
> when I have time.
>
> I hear from Chris that Rosenblatts have reduced the number of cases they are
> supporting to 2, that new solicitors have become involved for RBL funding and
> that these have requested the April hearings be postponed by 9 months. Please
> correct me if I have mis-understood any of these points Chris.
>
> I have had other concerns over the last couple of weeks. Have you heard of
> these developments Dennis? Just checking informally before asking Stephen.
>
> yours
> Dai
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: Dennis Hayden
> To: DAI WILLIAMS
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:11 AM
> Subject: Fw: Veterans Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
>
> Good morning Dai ,
>
> Forgot to send you copy of this . it is time we heard Dave’s FOIA tribunal verdict and the Supreme Court verdict, but meantime need to keep busy !
>
> All the best ,
>
> Dennis
>
> From: Dennis Hayden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:50 AM
> To: JAMES CHAPMAN
> Cc: Marie-Louise Sharp ; Corinna Ferguson
> Subject: Veterans Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
>
> THE COMBINED VETERANS’ FORUM INTERNATIONAL ( CVFI )
>
> To : James Chapman
> Political Editor
> Daily Mail
>
> Copy ; Marie – Louise Sharp , Royal British Legion
> Corinna Ferguson , Liberty
>
> Front Page and Page 6 Report – Daily Mail 6th March
> “ Ken Clarke : I’ll listen to critics on Secret Courts.”
> —————————————————————————————-
>
> Dear Mr Chapman ,
>
> Further to our previous email to you with comment on the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke’s proposal for secret courts in cases of national interest .
>
> ARMED FORCES VETERANS MUST NOT BE TREATED THE SAME AS TERRORISTS
>
> Apart from “ friendly – fire” incidents here is a distinct absence of any reference to military cases in Justice Secretary , Kenneth Clarke’s Daily Mail response: “ We hear your fears over open justice loud and clear” to criticism of his Green Paper on Justice and Security . So- called national security cases will almost certainly be abused by Ministry of Defence officials against the interests of armed forces veterans .
>
> The friendly – fire reference by the Justice Secretary is , however , significant because the Class action by the Atomic Veterans Claimants Group ( AVCG ) progressing through the Courts since 2006 concerns friendly- fire incidents of massive proportions , that is , the deliberate exposure of thousands of UK and loyal Commonwealth servicemen to gamma radiation and the fall –out radiation of the UK’s nuclear weapons test experiments in the 1950’s and 60’s .
>
> The AVCG is a similar case to the Porton Down veterans’ Class action of mid –2000 concerning loyal servicemen deliberately used as guinea pigs in the 1950’s and 60’s for experimentation with biological and chemical weapons . Injury and deaths from Porton Down were subsequently ruled “ unlawful”.
>
> Mr Clarke says his proposals are intended to :
>
> “ ensure the government can properly be held to account when individuals make serious allegations”and the secret courts would apply “only where the most sensitive intelligence material is involved.”
>
> Officials at the Ministry of Defence are not trusted by armed forces veterans, with very good reason and from years of experience . MoD officials will persuade Ministers to continue to falsely invoke national security interests and withhold radiation dose levels , records of removed and analysed tissue , bone and organs from those who served at nuclear test locations and any blood counts or tissue taken after exposure .They will continue to refuse cytogenetic blood testing of UK nuclear test veterans and their offspring for genetic damage . This will enable the Ministry of Defence to avoid accountability and responsibility for genetic damage to loyal servicemen past , present and future injured , disabled or killed by non-conventional weapons .
>
> If the Green Paper proposals are to be looked at again by the Justice Secretary then the secret court proposals should apply only to terrorist cases and not to the cases of loyal servicemen exposed to ionising radiation, chemical and biological weapons past , present or future in the course of their military duties .
>
> Mr Clarke’s amended Green Paper proposals will therefore be fiercely contested by loyal servicemen if veteran’s Pension Appeal Tribunals, Freedom of Information Tribunals and Class actions against the Ministry of Defence end up in trial by secret courts as is only intended for terrorists ..
>
> With kind regards ,
>
> yours sincerely ,
>
> Shirley Denson , Dennis Hayden , Ken McGinley ( UK ) – Roy Sefton QSM ( NZ )
> The Action Executive , Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI )
>
> “ there is no pressing national security reason for retaining information relating to radiation levels .” UK government assertion in McGinley and Egan . ( Strasbourg ECHR Trial late 1990’s ) .
>
>
>
>
> From: THE CVFI
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:25 PM
> To: JAMES CHAPMAN
> Cc: Marie-Louise Sharp ; Corinna Ferguson
> Subject: Secret Justice- MoD will be prime beneficiary
>
> To : James Chapman
> Political Editor
> Daily Mail
>
> YOUR DAILY MAIL REPORTS ON SECRET JUSTICE
>
> copy : Marie – Louise Sharp , Royal British Legion
> Corinna Ferguson , Liberty
>
> Dear Mr Chapman
>
> Thank you and the Editor of the Daily Mail for drawing attention to the Justice and Security Green Paper since January of this year . The Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI ) , in support of the Atomic Veterans Claimants Group led by Rosenblatt Solicitors of London, make the following comment :
>
> The Ministry of Defence will be the Prime Beneficiary
> of Proposed Secret Court Hearings
>
> The Green Paper on Justice and Security proposed to give the Home Secretary powers to decree any civil case in which she deems evidence to be ‘sensitive’ to be held in secret will result in the Ministry of Defence( MoD ) being the prime beneficiary . Veterans have every reason to suspect officials at the MoD are the leading force supporting this proposal .
>
> Because a Military Covenant has not been enshrined into law the MoD has to be sued to provide a duty of care for loyal servicemen and their widows .
>
> Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clark’s Green Paper will enable cases where Ministers deem there is a chance of ‘damage to the public interest’ to be euphemistically handled under ‘closed material procedures’. This will , without doubt , be applied to Class actions , such as the one where servicemen were forced with no other obligation other that to sue the MoD , following human experimentation at the biological and chemical weapons research establishment at Porton Down .
>
> The current Class action by over 1000 nuclear test veterans and widows progressing through the High Courts since 2006 to the Supreme Court in 2011 is one such case where the horse has already bolted the stable . The MoD has tried every legal trick to hold up this legislation at vast expense to the tax – payer . However , where this Green Paper’s proposal will hit hardest is that it will continue to allow the MoD to withhold evidence appropriate and necessary for use by veterans and widows at Pension Appeal and Freedom of Information Tribunals etc . Tribunal Hearings are already in the grip of non- disclosure of evidence and the Green Paper’s proposals will close access to evidence completely .
>
> Radiation levels and dose received by nuclear test veterans was stated , over a decade ago at the European Court of Human Rights , in Strasbourg , as not a national security issue when the UK Government ( in McGinley and Egan pp 1363-64 paras 100 & 101 ) “ ….asserted that there was no pressing national security reason for retaining information relating to radiation levels….where a Government engages in hazardous activities , such as those present in this case, which might have adverse consequences on the health of those involved in such activities , respect for private and family life under Article 8 [ of the ECHR ] requires that an effective and accessible procedure be established which enables such persons to seek all relevant and appropriate information .”
>
> In addition to withholding information on the above , today the Ministry of Defence is still ‘losing’ blood counts of veterans taken after nuclear tests , still retaining and not admitting results of tissue , bone and organs removed from nuclear test veterans whilst alive or at post-mortems , still not fully disclosing all hospital records and still not allowing surviving nuclear test veterans and their children to get cytogenetic chromosomal analysis of their blood analysed to detect genetic damage induced by exposure to ionising radiation .
>
> The withholding of evidence is endemic by the MoD. The MoD and their contractual partner the Atomic Weapons Establishment( AWE ) continue to withhold evidence against the interests of the Atomic Veterans’ Claimants Group led by Rosenblatt Solicitors of London who are currently progressing the Class action through the Courts. If passed into law the Green Paper will ensure the MoD will be a prime beneficiary from the secret hearings behind closed doors at Pension Appeal Tribunals , FOIA First Tier Tribunals etc .
>
> It is a chilling threat to liberty and justice that ‘sensitive’ issues likely to embarrass and inconvenience the Government will continue to be swept under the carpet . This Green paper is a threat to all citizens .
>
> The Prime Minister broke his promise to enshrine the Military Covenant into law .The deputy Prime Minister has reneged upon his previous support of the nuclear test veterans case . Instead we now have a proposal backed by the leadership of the Coalition Government to break all the civilised norms of a democracy by secret courts and therefore to assist the MoD to continue to avoid accountability and responsibility for this Ministry’s long running betrayal of loyal servicemen .
>
> Yours sincerely ,
>
> Shirley Denson – Dennis Hayden – Ken McGinley ( UK ) – Roy Sefton QSM ( NZ )
> The Action Executive ,
> Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI )
> tel : 01594 845118
> ————————————————————————————————————
> THE CVFI IN SUPPORT OF ALL WHO PARTICIPATED AT THE UK NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST EXPERIMENTS 1952 – 67 . LEGAL ADVISOR , IAN ANDERSON ADVOCATE AND ATTORNEY AT LAW ( NEW YORK ) AN OPEN EMAIL FOR INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION 1st MARCH 2012 .
>
>
>
>
>
> —————————————————————————————————
> Text inserted by Panda GP 2012:
>
> This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam!
> —————————————————————————————————


Dr Chris Busby
Green Audit
Castle Cottage
Sea View Place
Aberystwyth
SY231DZ UK
tel +44-1970-630215

and at

Prof. Dr C.Busby
Visiting Professor
School of Biomedical Sciences
Faculty of Life and Health Sciences
University of Ulster
Cromore Rd
Coleraine
County Londonderry
BT52 1SA
Northern Ireland
c.busby@ulster.ac.uk

and

Guest Researcher
The Federal Institute for Crop and Soil Reseach
Julius Kuehn Institute
Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants
Bundesallee 50
D38116 Braunschweig
Germany
christopher.busby@jki.de

From: “Dennis Hayden”
To:
Cc: ,
,
“Dr Chris Busby” ,

Bcc: “ADVOCATE”
Subject: Fw: Court of Appeal Decision – 22 November 2010 .
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:42:38 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary=”—-=_NextPart_000_0003_01CD09DD.200C1EA0″
X-Priority: 1
X-MSMail-Priority: High
Importance: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

——=_NextPart_000_0003_01CD09DD.200C1EA0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”—-=_NextPart_001_0004_01CD09DD.200C1EA0″

——=_NextPart_001_0004_01CD09DD.200C1EA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=”Windows-1252″
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Neil ,

CAUSATION OF ILL HEALTH BY INHALED, INGESTED FALL =96 OUT .

LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE=20
IS UNDERMINING ANY HOPE OF SUCCESS

Following our recent conversation and the recent PRESS STATEMENT by the =
CVFI on the Supreme Court decision of the 14th, and subsequent =
examination of :

1) The Full Supreme Court Judgement of 14 March 2012 page 13 . para =
25 and page 14. para 27 ( see attached) and =20

2) The fwwd email sent to the legal team on the 28th December 2010 =96 =
Court of Appeal Decision =96 22 November 2010 ….an Appraisal by the =
CVFI

It is clear the current impasse of misinformation that =93 the =
Veterans accept there is no credible evidence on causation and the fact =
is the Veterans=92 claims have no prospect of success=94 have been =
arrived at by a combination of a foreseeable defence by the Ministry of =
Defence which should have been avoided .

Please read the following email at 2 ) above with particular reference =
para 124 of the Court of Appeal Decision and the following comment as =
written on 28th December 2010 :

=93The CVFI believe all Counsel working for the litigants , must have a =
clear understanding of the science and mechanism of causation from =
ingested and inhaled fallout BEFORE the case proceeds to the Tribunal =
Appeal Hearings and the Supreme Court in 2011.=94=20

With regard to 1) above, from the Supreme Court Full Judgement of 14 =
March it is clear that appropriate understanding of the science and =
mechanism of causation from so called =91low dose=92 fall out radiation =
has not been clearly understood and assimilated by Counsel :

page 13 para 25 states :

=93 Mr Dingemans concedes that even today the appellants lack evidence =
with which to establish a credible case that the injuries were caused by =
the tests..=94

page 14 para 27 states :

=93 But , in line with the realistic concession made by Mr Dingemans in =
this court , the fact is that , for the reasons set out by Lord Phillips =
……their claims have no real prospect of success.=94

The question the CVFI ask on the strength of the above is :

What prospect did we have of a positive outcome on the last day , 17th =
November 2011 ?=20

The MoD=92s QCs summed up our case with a long =96 winded assertion on =
the subject of =93 knowledge=94 and repeated the misnomer that fall out =
radiation is only =93 Low Dose=94radiation . By this time our answer =
that we had proof of causation was a contradiction of what had already =
transpired .=20

URGENT ACTION NEEDED=20

Despite all of the legal teams hard work strategic errors have been made =
.

To retrieve the current situation, in which we should never have found =
ourselves in , the CVFI believes that the Appeal Tribunal Hearings MUST =
be heard in the presence of a QC who fully understands the science and =
the mechanism of causation from ingested and inhaled fall out .=20

For this reason the legal team should urgently take up the proposition =
of Dr Chris Busby and use of Hugo Charlton QC for the Tribunal Hearings =
, who you can be sure will be fully briefed on the science – see =
attached email .=20

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm what action you are =
taking on this matter to ensure future success ?

Regards ,

Dennis=20
on behalf of the=20
Action Exceutive
CVFI

From: Dennis Hayden=20
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:06 PM
To: Neil Sampson=20
Cc: Stephen Evans=20
Subject: Court of Appeal Decision – 22 November 2010 .

Dear Neil ,=20

COURT OF APPEAL ( CoA ) DECISION – 22 NOVEMBER 2010=20
an Appraisal by the Combined Veterans’ Forum =
International.=20

This is an appraisal of the appeal verdict which we hope will be of use =
before the Appeals Tribunal and Supreme Court hearings . We all know , =
having read the full 49 pages of the CoA document , the decision by the =
Appeal Judges is wrongly weighted in favour of the defendant , the =
Ministry of Defence .

In the opinion of the CVFI the Appeal Judges clearly do not seem to =
understand the science of causation . Through laziness , or =
purposefully, they have accepted the establishment view of the science =
on causation . That is , they have endorsed the establishment’s long =
held politically motivated and expedient view on causation of health =
damage from exposure to ionising radiation .

The CoA decision document contains much upon which to make comment. My =
focus in this email letter is on the key issue of causation and =
therefore I apologise in advance for any other omissions or oversights . =
The key points I believe are :=20

1) The Appeal Judges only considered and accepted ( for radiation for =
health protection purposes )” assessment of dose” for prompt / gamma =
radiation exposure .=20

2) Film badges were worn primarily by Air Crew who took part in =
radioactive cloud sampling and servicemen who entered ground zero’s of =
detonations shortly after to retrieve scientific equipment . These only =
recorded gamma radiation and in a few cases beta . In many instances the =
film badges have been lost , made unavailable or destroyed .=20

3) Unlike Judge Foskett , in his Limitation Trial verdict of June 2009 , =
the Appeal Judges have totally ignored the genetic impact on health =
from ingested and inhaled radioactive fall out particles which are not =
recorded on film badges of the nuclear test veterans .=20

The following comments are offered In support of the above points 1) to =
3) :=20

Para .157 – Conclusions in respect of Judge Foskett’s Limitation Trial =
approach to Section 33 issues=20

The Appeal Judges believe Judge Foskett ” has significantly and wrongly =
underestimated the claimant’s difficulties on causation and is therefore =
unlikely to have given appropriate weight to that when applying the =
broad merits test .”

Judge Foskett did not underestimate the ” difficulties on causation” . =
It is the Appeal Judges’ lack of scientific understanding that is the =
difficulty .The scales of justice are supposed to be evenly balanced to =
consider all sides of any evidence .=20

Throughout their decision making the Court of Appeal Judges have =
accepted only the establishment view of the science whilst totally =
ignoring the long term legacy health issues caused by inhalation and =
ingestion of residual ( fall out ) radiation , that is fall out =
particles containing alpha and beta radioisotopes that are harmless =
outside of the body but , once inhaled , or ingested, inside the body =
become high risk internal emitters .=20

These short range internal emitters cause very severe long term damage =
inside the body . When lodged in body tissue the dose emitted is =
confined to a limited number of adjacent cells ( estimated as a sphere =
measuring approximately 30 microns in radius ) .This is highly =
significant because a highly concentrated dose is delivered inside the =
body at a cellular level in tissue for the life time of the ionised =
particle ( radioactive isotope ) releasing energy , which is for many =
years , in some cases in excess of 24,000 years .

Professor Chris Busby explains this more simply in his book ” Wings of =
Deatth “. In a lay persons terms , imagine being sat by a coal fire at =
a distance where you can comfortably endure the radiated whole body heat =
( an anology for prompt or gamma radiation ) . This is fine . However , =
no one would be foolish enough to reach into the fire and take any red =
hot particles ( an anology for residual / fall out alpha and beta =
particles ) and then swallow them .=20

This is as good a simple analogy as can be had to explain the intake of =
tiny radioactive particles ( fall- out ) being a more severe hazard to =
health than whole body dose radiation ( prompt / gamma radiation ) =
released at the time of a nuclear weapon explosion .=20

Judge Foskett understood this science of causation . In his Limitation =
Trial verdict of June 2009 he wrote ” the prime causal link to ill =
health in nuclear veterans is from fall out radiation ” . The Appeal =
Court Judges seem to have not understood this . If they did understand =
this then it makes their CoA decision all the more deplorable and =
lamentable .=20

SOME FURTHER POINTS FROM THE CoA DECISION=20

Para 9 – The Appeal Judges noted : ” So these cases are now concerned =
only with the effects of radioactive fall out ” .=20

That was an astute early observation . But from that point onwards the =
Appeal Judges relentlessly ignore the causal links to ill health from =
fall out .Certainly , this was never more so than when ignoring the =
Rowland Study which was a study carried out on NZ naval crew who had =
sailed through the fallout and shown to have significant ( 3 x ) =
genetic damage compared to men of similar age and background who had not =
attended a nuclear weapons fall out location . This is a point ‘flagged =
‘ and noted by Judge Foskett as ” crucial and pivotal ” to his verdict =
in the High Court of June 2009 but ignored throughout by the Appeal =
Judges . =20

Para 19 – In an early reference to the Pearce case of 1985 the Appeal =
Judges state there was ; ” ..potential difficulty of demonstrating a =
causal link between the exposure and the condition complained of ” .=20

This selective use of a 25 year old case , as a precedent for difficulty =
in establishing causation, ignores Judge Foskett’s reference to ecent =
advances in the understanding of the science from ingested fall out and =
” crucial and pivotal ” advanced cytogenetic testing results of the =
Rowland Study . In the CoA’s section on Causation paragraphs 122 to 156 =
this bias to the establishment’s view of the science is continued =
relentlessly and seized upon time and time again .

CAUSATION. Paras 122 to 156 of the CoA decision -=20

Para 123 ” The burden of proof of causation relies upon assessment of =
dose ”

The Appeal Judges state : “In the present case the claimants have =
produced no evidence which begins to satisfy the usual requirements and =
Mr Kent QC has accepted that they cannot do so . He did not qualify that =
admission with any claim that they might reasonably hope to do so , =
given time .” .

This is a grave and unfortunate expression of lack of understanding of =
the truth of the science of causation by our Counsel , Mr Kent QC. His =
lack of robustness reinforces our belief that all Counsel acting on =
behalf of litigants must have , as a matter of urgency , a full =
understanding of the science of causation from all types of radiation. =
That is , from prompt / gamma and from residual fall out ingested and =
inhaled radioactive particles in order that they have the necessary =
confidence to defend the truth of the science on causation. Two points =
arise from Para 123 of the CoA : . =20

Point 1) * Assessment of dose” referred to by the Appeal Judges as the =
burden of proof on causation is scientifically irrelevant in relation to =
ingested internal emitters from fall out . It is the ‘red herring’ used =
by the establishment view of causation of legacy ill health in persons =
exposed to ionising radiation since the dawn of the atomic age. It is a =
red herring to deflect attention away from the severe hazard, at a =
cellular level in body tissue , bones and organs of ingested and inhaled =
fall out .=20

At a Pension Appeal Tribunal in late 2002 , expert scientific witness =
Professor Chris Busby , demolished the “assessment of dose” defence and =
secured a widow’s pension for the claimant , Eva Adshead . The MoD’s =
case was that her late husband , who like many thousands of nuclear test =
veterans was not wearing a film badge , could not have received any =
dose of radiation sufficient to be the causation of his brain tumour =
from which he had died .=20

Quite simply , the expert witness stated to the tribunal panel that ” =
dose is irrelevant ” because the deceased had died as a result of =
ingested and inhaled fall out , a type of radiation that does not =
register on film badges . The MoD did not contest this decision and the =
CVFI therefore regards this 2002 precedent better , on establishing =
causation , than the 25 year old Pearce case of 1985 referred to by the =
Appeal Judges .=20

To support his view in 2002 Professor Busby showed the Tribunal Panel a =
copy of the then, soon to be due to be published , European Committee =
on Radiation Risk of 2003 – Health Effects of Ionising Radiation =
Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Puposes ( Regulators’ =
Edition : Brussels ) with focus on page 12 , Fig . 3.1. . This document =
clearly shows high dose , External , acute prompt / gamma radiation ( =
old threshold risk model ) , released at the time of a nuclear weapons =
detonation is a lower risk model compared to biphasic cell-response , =
Internal , chronic , radioisotopic , ingested or inhaled fall out =
particles from nuclear weapons tests .

Forcing the MoD to prove otherwise ( that is to force them to deny the =
scientific truth of health damage by ingested and inhaled alpha and beta =
particles acting as internal emitters inside the body ) is the way to =
proceed on causation . It would place the MoD’s so-called radiation =
experts in an impossibly weak position scientifically . This has been =
shown time and time again at tribunals when the MoD have not contested =
the issue on causation by ingested fall out , as was the case in the =
tribunal win by Adshead v the MoD in late 2002 and in many other =
tribunal cases attended since by Professor Busby .=20

Point 2) Having understanding of the ‘red herring ‘ of the irrelevance =
of assessment of dose, the Rowland Study of New Zealand veterans , =
without significant assessment of dose readings from film badges showing =
prompt / gamma radiation , has shown the veterans incurred significant =
, elevated genetic damage . This was not a result of prompt or gamma =
radiation at the time of nuclear weapons detonation but a result of =
sailing under the fall out over several months ‘on station ‘ in close =
proximity to Christmas Island .=20

By use of fall out pattern models ( recently completed by Busby/ =
Williams ) it can clearly be established that those working , breathing =
and ingesting food in this area for several months were similarly =
exposed to the hazard of genetic damage by internal emitters from fall =
out gaining access to inside of the body . Again , the MoD need to =
forced to scientifically deny the truth that ingested fall out radiation =
is not harmful . We believe they will not be able to find a scientific =
witness to stand in an open court and dispute this scientific truth with =
any credibility against an expert witness . .

Para 124 – The Court of Appeal Judges state : ” The claimants have not =
produced evidence of how they will estimate their radiation doses .”=20

As mentioned above , film badge readings are totally irrelevant as far =
as ingested and inhaled fall out particulates are concerned . For alpha =
and beta particles recorded dose has been ignored by the MoD . Alpha =
particles can only be measured on highly specialised and sophisticated =
equipment .=20

As an example , the alpha particle plutonium -239 present in all nuclear =
weapons fall out has been totally ignored . This internal emitter has a =
half life of 24,400 years . Also ignored are the man – made fall out =
particles caesium -137( half life 30 years) , strontium -90 ( half life =
28 years) , Tritium – 3 ( half life 12 years ) . The use of depleted =
uranium , packed around the core of nuclear weapons at British nuclear =
test locations , to boost their yield whilst producing increased ionised =
uranium fall out particles , has also been totally ignored . Also =
ignored , amonst many other radioisotopes , is the use the alpha =
particle , polonium – 210 as part of the trigger mechanism in nuclear =
weapons detonations. ( See special focus on the case of Litvinenko =
below ) .=20

All of these deadly internal seeds of death have been ignored by the MoD =
. All are prime causary links to ill – health and premature deaths in =
nuclear veterans , an understading of the science of causation clearly =
seen by Judge Foskett .=20

In para. 124 the Appeal Judges also state ” Low dosage has not been =
defined for us in terms of millisieverts ” .

Of course , ingested alpha and beta particles , acting as internal =
emitters, work at a cellular level when inside the body in tissue , =
organs and bone . One single particle will deliver a concentrated dose =
over many years to local body cells in tissue , organs or bone and no =
dose to the rest of the body . As previously stated dosage ” in terms of =
milliesieverts ” is totally irrelevant when discussing the science of =
internal emitters. The CVFI believes all Counsel working for litigants , =
MUST have a clear understanding of the science and mechanism of =
causation from ingested and inhaled fallout BEFORE the case proceeds to =
the Tribunal Appeals Hearings and to the Supreme Court in 2011. =20

Para . 125 The Appeal Judges noted : ” the claimant’s primary case was =
that proof of dose was not necessary but that , if necessary , =
inferences as to dose could be drawn from the Rowland Study “.=20

This is the truth of the science , ignored because the science of =
causation from fall out is not fully understood or has been unable to be =
confidently articulated by our Counsel in court . We are therefore left =
in the position where the Appeal Judges have accepted the established =
view of causation , that is linked to whole body external gamma =
radiation dose , as the sole arbiter of radiation damage to health .=20

External prompt /gamma radiation dose is acnkowledged , internal =
ingested radioactive fall out acting at a cellular level is totally =
ignored .=20

In internal irradiation by ingested or inhaled particles of fall out the =
biological impact works differently . The very short distance emitting =
ionisation radiation destroys cells immediately adjacent and damages =
those within their tiny sphere of ionisation . This is sufficient to =
cause legacy health damage ranging from immune system damage , chronic =
ill health to mutagenic cancers developing into premature deaths , even =
40 years after inhalation or ingestion ..

The Case of Alexander Litvinenko ( see1 Para .124 above )=20

Relatively small , invisable to the eye , doses of radioactive isotopes =
in fall out are the serious hazard ignored and denied by established =
science as applicable to causation of ill health in nuclear veterans . =
Yet the potential to cause serious harm and premature death was =
graphically shown and admitted in 2006 by the assassination of Russian =
dissident , Alexander Litvinenko in London .

A miniscule quantity of this fall out radioisotope, invisable to the eye =
, was placed into a teapot from which Litivinenko drank a cup of tea . =
The radioisotope used , polonium -210 is an alpha particle present in =
nuclear bomb fall out . Polonium -210 has the same biological impact as =
other alpha and beta particles when inside the body , acting as as =
internal emitters and irradiating tissue at a cellular level . That is , =
a fall out particulate harmless outside of the body but deadly once =
inside and able to act at a cellular level when lodged in lung or other =
body organ tissue as an internal emitter . Litvinenko died within a few =
days of admission to hospital .=20

This case caused panic in the general public in London who were =
ironically reassured by Health Protection Agency ( formally the NRPB ) =
scientists Pat Troop and Professor Dudley Goodhead ( see attached email =
26.11.2006 – The Genie is Out of the Bottle ) that this type of =
radiation is harmless unless ingested , inhaled or entering the blood by =
a cut or abrasion in the skin. We say ironic because this causal link =
to ill health has been denied and ignored by the NRPB , now Health =
Protection Agency , for over 50 years as being applicable to nuclear =
test veterans who for months lived , worked , breathed and ingested food =
and drink at Australian and Pacific nuclear test fall out locations =
between 1952 and 67 .=20

Whilst the Litivinenko case is viewed in some quarters as not relevent =
to our case as evidentiary proof , veterans believe it is nonetheless =
worth mentioning because it illustrates the contradictory advice given =
by government scientists on the truth of the science of causation from =
fall out. Contradictory advice which is given according to the =
circumstances of political expediency rather than as an explanation of =
the truth . =20

In the case of the nuclear veterans , the politically expedient =
establishment view is denial of the effects of ingested fall out =
particles and in the case of Litvinenko the poitically expedient views =
became another contradiction that is , an admission of the truth of =
causal link to ill health in order to placate the grave concerns of a =
worried general public .=20

Other points of contention=20

In the Court of Appeal Judges assessment of the individual test cases of =
the LimitationTrial a repetitive and recurring dismissal of the =
litigants right to proceed to full trial has been opined by scientific =
witness by the MoD and accepted by the Judges . This is shown by the =
following :

Para. 207 John Allen Brothers , deceased .

The Appeal Judges write : ” Professor Kaldor ( for the MoD ) opined that =
in order to show that the risk of of developing oesophageal cancer had =
been doubled by exposure to radiation , it would be necessary to =
demonstrate exposure in the order of 1000 mSv . “=20

Para.208 ” Accordingly we conclude that the general merits of the claim =
are extremely weak.”=20

Important Note : In the view of the CVFI this is the most shocking =
decision , in a catalogue of shocking decisions of the CoA Judges on =
causation .=20

In the MoD Summary Defence document ( for the Limitation Trial ) the MoD =
defendants (page 9 .para 35 ) had admitted that 159 nuclear test =
participants had exceeded relatively rare doses ” above the approved =
medically and and scientifically thresholds of in excess of 30 mSV ( the =
lower integrated dose )” only two of whom are widow litigants , that is =
acting for Mr John Brothers and Eric Denson , both sampling aircrew .=20

1000 mSv is 33 x greater than the ” approved medically and =
scientifically thresholds ” opined by the Epidemiologist Professor =
Kaldor ., for the MoD . This dose is without taking any account of =
ingested fall out . =20

Para 221 Michael Richard Clark , deceased.

” Mr Clark had not been exposed to any radiation above background levels =
.”

Para 225=20

“Professor Kaldor ( for the MoD ) expressed the opinion that in order =
to double the risk of lung cancer the radiation exposure would have had =
to have been in excess of 1000 mSV.”=20

Para. 239 Andrew Dickson , deceased .

” The Judge had noticed that Professor Mothersill ( for the claimants ) =
had not been able to support the claim in respect of ischaemic heart =
disease .”=20

This is a sad ommission . The causal link here is from fall out . In =
this case the radioisotope in question is caesium – 137 a beta particle =
common in nuclear weapons fall out=20

(Yuri. Bandashevsky – Medical and Biological Effects of Radiocaesium =
Incorporated into the Human Organism , 2000, [ full document held by =
Professor Busby ] ) , indentified radioisotope caesium -137 fall out as =
the pathogenic link to heart lesions in children post – Chernobyl =
nuclear (1986 ) accident leading to cardiac arrest in children as young =
as 10 years old .)=20

Para. 257=20

” Professor Kaldor opines that it would be necessary to demonstrate =
exposure to about 1000 mSv in order to prove causation on the balance of =
probabilities .”=20

Para. 283 Eric Ogden , deceased

” Professor Kaldor opines that a radiation dose of 1000 mSv would be =
required before it could be shown that the risk had doubled .( in =
respect of his meningioma ) .

All the above establishment view of the science of causation expressed =
by the defendants ( the MoD ) ignore the inhalation and ingestion of =
internal emitters from fall out .=20

The opinion of the epidemiolgist witness for the MoD , Professor Kaldor =
, on the ‘double dose ‘ rule is based by him on the 50 year old findings =
by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission ( ABCC ) and the Radiation =
Effects Research Foundation ( RERF) following research into the =
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb victims .=20

In the peer reviewed paper ( 2006 ) by Professor Shoji Sawada a =
theoretical particle physicist and Emeritus professor at Nagaya =
Univeristy , Japan entitled : ” Cover – up of the Effects of Internal =
Exposure by Residual Raditaion from the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and =
Nagasaki ” it was found that :

” The ABCC studied only the effects of the primary radiation ( i.e. =
prompt / gamma radiation ) from the atomic bombing on the survivors of =
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ignored the damage from residual radiation =
.( i.e. fall out , internal emitters ) .

Analysis of acute radiation disease , the rate of chromosomal =
aberrations , and the relative risk of chronic illness among the =
survivors , shows that the effects of residual radiation from fall out =
exceeds that of primary radiation in the area more than 1.5 to 1.7 km =
distant from the hypocentre of the Hiroshima bombing .=20

The effects of internal exposure due to the intake of tiny radioactive =
particles are more severe than those of external exposure , explaining =
the difference between the official criteria and the actual state of the =
survivors . “=20

Our belief is the above demolishes the credentials Professor Kaldor as a =
expert witness for the MoD and there is more to support that view : =20

Professor John Kaldor , Epidemiologist=20

It is disturbing that the views of an epidemiologist on dose levels was =
allowed to influence the Appeal Judges on the issue of causation . It is =
suprising because his opinion was allowed to carry more weight than that =
of expert radiation biologists and other expert witness’ .

A close examination of Professor Kaldor’s cv leads to even more alarm =
due to his close link to the Australian Government with scientific =
responsibility to the Australian Minister for Veterans .=20

Epidemiologist University of New South Wales .
Past President of the Australian Epidemiological Association 1996 -2000 =
.

Member of the Repatriation Medical Authority ( RMA ) – =20

This is listed as an ‘independent statutory authority’ set up by the =
Australian Government responsible to the Minister for Veterans charged =
with preparation of legislation about disease causation dealing with =
claims for disability pensions received from Australian Veterans and =
their families .

The CVFI’s comment is that this is an illustration of the 1993 Treaty =
Series between Australia and the United Kingdom in action . That is , =
the mutual agreement between governments to exchange information and =
assist each other on claims for compensation made by nuclear test =
veterans . No doubt Kaldor has returned in triumph to his Australian =
patrons with a clear message that the truth of the science on the =
causation of damage to health from igested fall out is still safely =
being buried by the establishment view of obsolete science still upheld =
by the red herring of irrelevant film badge dose readings .=20

Canberra and London must be laughing their socks off . But , hopefully =
not for too long !=20

Conclusions

This case will only be won when our Counsel have a full understanding =
of and can robustly stand up in support of expert witness for the truth =
of the science of causation .

This is not rocket science , anyone can read scientific papers and see =
the truth of causation for themselves , as Judge Foskett was able to do =
in the Limitation Trial verdict . =20

The bottom line is that causation will be fiercely contested outside of =
court by the MOD because the establishment’s view of the science , =
ignoring ingested and inhaled fall out , is crucial and pivotal to =
underpinning their politically motivated cover up that has lasted over =
half a century .=20

The good news is that when the MoD are challenged inside of court to =
prove that ingested fall out is not harmful and is not the prime causal =
link to legacy ill health in persons exposed to ionising radiation , =
they will not able to do so against expert independent scientific =
witness .This was initially demonstrated by Professor Chris Busby in =
the Appeal Tribunal ruling in the case of nuclear widow , Eva Adshead , =
in late 2002 . =20

This is a fight for the truth of science of causation . It is.an ethical =
and moral victory that cannot afford to be lost . =20

We thank all in the legal team for your hard work and dogged =
determination to go to the Supreme Court and fight our case to the =
bitter end . We also look forward to the Appeal Court Hearings and hope =
this appraisal will be of some use in both ..=20

With hopes of significant legal progress in 2011 .=20

Happy New Year to all at Rosenblatts .=20

Regards ,=20

Dennis=20
for the CVFI .=20

——=_NextPart_001_0004_01CD09DD.200C1EA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=”Windows-1252”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









Neil ,

 

        CAUSATION OF ILL HEALTH =
BY =20
INHALED, INGESTED  FALL =96 OUT .

 

        LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF =
THE=20
SCIENCE

        IS UNDERMINING ANY HOPE =
OF=20
SUCCESS

 

Following our recent conversation and the recent PRESS STATEMENT by =
the=20
CVFI on the Supreme Court decision of the 14th,  and subsequent =
examination=20
of :

 

1)  The Full Supreme Court  Judgement of 14 March =
2012  page=20
13 . para 25 and page 14. para 27 ( see attached)  and 

 

2) The fwwd email sent to the legal team on the 28th December 2010 =
=96=20
Court of Appeal Decision =96 22 November 2010  ….an Appraisal =
by the=20
CVFI

 

It is clear the current impasse of misinformation  that  =
=93 the=20
Veterans accept there is no credible evidence on causation and the fact =
is the=20
Veterans=92 claims have no prospect of success=94 have been arrived at =
by a=20
combination of a  foreseeable defence by the Ministry of =
Defence =20
which should have been avoided .

 

Please read the following email at  2 ) above with particular=20
reference para 124 of the Court of Appeal Decision and the following =
comment as=20
written on 28th December 2010  :

 

=93The CVFI believe all Counsel working for the litigants , =
must have=20
a clear understanding of the science and mechanism of causation from =
ingested=20
and inhaled fallout BEFORE the case proceeds to the Tribunal Appeal =
Hearings and=20
the Supreme Court in 2011.=94
 

 

With regard to 1) above,  from the Supreme Court Full =
Judgement of 14=20
March it is clear that appropriate understanding of the science and =
mechanism of=20
causation from so called =91low dose=92 fall out radiation has not been =
clearly=20
understood and assimilated by Counsel :

 

page 13 para 25 states :

 

=93 Mr Dingemans concedes that even today the appellants lack =
evidence with=20
which to establish a credible case that the injuries were caused by the=20
tests..=94

 

page 14 para 27 states :

 

=93 But , in line with the realistic concession made by Mr =
Dingemans in this=20
court , the fact is that , for the reasons set out by Lord Phillips =
……their=20
claims have no real prospect of success.=94

 

The question the CVFI ask on the strength of the above is :

 

What prospect did we have of a positive outcome on the last day , =
17th=20
November 2011 ?

 

The MoD=92s QCs summed up our case with a long =96 winded assertion =
on the=20
subject of =93 knowledge=94 and repeated the misnomer that fall out =
radiation is=20
only =93 Low Dose=94radiation . By this time our answer that we  =
had proof of=20
causation was a contradiction of what had already transpired .

 

URGENT ACTION NEEDED

 

Despite all of the legal teams hard work strategic errors have been =
made=20
.

 

To retrieve the current  situation, in which we should never =
have=20
found ourselves in ,  the CVFI believes that the Appeal Tribunal =
Hearings=20
MUST be heard in the presence of a QC who fully understands the science =
and the=20
mechanism of causation from ingested and inhaled  fall out .

 

For this reason the legal team should urgently take up the =
proposition of=20
Dr Chris Busby and use of Hugo Charlton QC for the Tribunal Hearings =
,  who=20
you can be sure will be fully briefed on the science –  see =
attached email=20
.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm what action =
you are=20
taking on this matter to ensure future success ?

 

Regards ,

 

Dennis

on behalf of the

Action Exceutive

CVFI

 

 



 



Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 3:06 PM



Subject: Court of Appeal Decision – 22 November 2010=20
.

 


Dear Neil ,

 

          =
   =20
COURT OF APPEAL  ( CoA ) DECISION – 22 NOVEMBER 2010 =

          =
     =20
an Appraisal by the Combined Veterans’ Forum International. =

 

 

This is an appraisal of the appeal verdict which =
we hope=20
will be of use before the Appeals Tribunal and Supreme Court hearings . =
We all=20
know , having read the full 49 pages of the  CoA document , the =
decision by=20
the Appeal Judges is wrongly weighted in favour of the defendant , the =
Ministry=20
of Defence .

 

In the opinion of the CVFI  the Appeal =
Judges clearly=20
do not seem to understand the science of causation . Through laziness , =
or=20
purposefully,  they have accepted the establishment view of the =
science on=20
causation  . That is , they have endorsed  the establishment’s =
long=20
held politically motivated  and expedient  view on causation =
of health=20
damage from exposure to ionising radiation .

 

The CoA decision document contains much upon =
which to make=20
comment. My focus in this email letter is on  the key issue of =
causation=20
and therefore I apologise in advance for any other omissions or =
oversights . The=20
key points I believe are  :

 

1)  The Appeal Judges only considered and =
accepted (=20
for radiation for health protection purposes )” assessment of dose” for =
prompt /=20
gamma radiation exposure .

 

2) Film badges were worn primarily by Air Crew =
who took=20
part in radioactive cloud sampling and servicemen who entered ground =
zero’s of=20
detonations shortly after to retrieve scientific equipment . These only =
recorded=20
gamma radiation and in a few cases beta . In many instances the film =
badges have=20
been lost , made unavailable or destroyed .

 

3) Unlike Judge Foskett , in his Limitation =
Trial verdict=20
of June 2009 ,  the Appeal Judges have totally ignored the genetic =
impact=20
on health from ingested and inhaled radioactive fall out particles which =
are not=20
recorded on film badges of the nuclear test veterans .

 

The following comments are offered In support of =
the above=20
points 1) to  3)  :

 

Para .157 – Conclusions in respect of =
Judge=20
Foskett’s Limitation Trial approach to Section 33 issues =

 

The Appeal Judges believe Judge Foskett ” =
has=20
significantly and wrongly underestimated the claimant’s difficulties on=20
causation and is therefore unlikely to have given appropriate weight to =
that=20
when applying the broad merits test .”

 

Judge Foskett did not underestimate the ” =
difficulties=20
on causation” .
It is the Appeal Judges’  lack of scientific=20
understanding that is the difficulty  .The scales of justice are =
supposed=20
to be evenly balanced to consider all sides of any evidence . =

 

Throughout their decision making the Court of =
Appeal=20
Judges  have accepted only the establishment view of the science =
whilst=20
totally ignoring the long term legacy health issues caused by inhalation =
and=20
ingestion of residual ( fall out ) radiation , that is fall out =
particles=20
containing alpha and beta radioisotopes that are harmless outside of the =
body=20
but , once inhaled , or ingested, inside the body  become high risk =

internal emitters .


 

These short range internal emitters cause very =
severe long=20
term damage inside the body . When lodged in body tissue the dose =
emitted=20
 is confined to a limited number of =
adjacent cells=20
( estimated as a sphere measuring approximately 30 microns in radius =
)=20
.
This is highly significant because a highly concentrated  =
dose is=20
delivered inside the body at a cellular level in tissue for the life =
time of the=20
ionised particle ( radioactive isotope ) releasing energy , which is for =
many=20
years , in some cases in excess of 24,000 years .

 

Professor Chris Busby explains this  more =
simply in=20
his book ” Wings of Deatth “. In a lay persons terms , imagine being sat =
by=20
a  coal fire at a distance where you can comfortably endure the =
radiated=20
whole body heat ( an anology for  prompt or gamma radiation ) . =
This is=20
fine . However , no one would be foolish enough to reach into the fire =
and take=20
any red hot particles ( an anology for residual / fall out alpha and =
beta=20
particles ) and then swallow them .

 

This is as good a simple analogy as can be had =
to explain=20
the intake of tiny radioactive particles (  fall- out ) being =
a  more=20
severe hazard to health than whole body dose radiation ( prompt / gamma=20
radiation ) released at the time of a nuclear weapon explosion  .=20

 

Judge Foskett understood this  =
science of=20
causation . In his Limitation Trial verdict of June 2009 he wrote ” the =
prime=20
causal link to ill health in nuclear veterans is from fall out radiation =
” . The=20
Appeal Court Judges seem to have not understood this . If they did =
understand=20
this then it makes their CoA decision all the more deplorable and =
lamentable .=20

 

SOME FURTHER POINTS FROM THE CoA DECISION=20

 

Para 9 – The Appeal Judges noted : ” =
So these=20
cases are now concerned only with the effects of radioactive fall out ” =
.=20

 

That was an astute early observation . But from =
that point=20
onwards the Appeal Judges relentlessly ignore the causal links to ill =
health=20
from fall  out  .Certainly , this was never more so than when =
ignoring=20
the Rowland Study which was a study carried out on NZ naval crew who had =
sailed=20
through the fallout and shown to have significant ( 3 x )  genetic =
damage=20
compared to men of similar age and background who had not attended a =
nuclear=20
weapons fall out location . This is a point  ‘flagged ‘ and noted =
by Judge=20
Foskett as ” crucial and pivotal ” to his verdict in the High Court of =
June 2009=20
but ignored throughout by the Appeal Judges . 

 

Para 19 – In an early reference to the =
Pearce case=20
of 1985 the Appeal Judges state there was ; ”  ..potential =
difficulty=20
of demonstrating a causal link between the exposure and the condition =
complained=20
of ” .

 

This selective use of a 25 year old case , as a =
precedent=20
for difficulty in establishing causation,  ignores Judge Foskett’s=20
reference to ecent advances in the understanding of the science from =
ingested=20
fall out and ” crucial and pivotal ” advanced cytogenetic testing =
results of the=20
Rowland Study . In the CoA’s section on Causation paragraphs 122 to 156 =
this=20
bias to the establishment’s view of the science is continued =
relentlessly and=20
seized upon time and time again .

 

CAUSATION.  Paras 122 to 156 of the CoA =
decision=20

 

Para 123 ” The burden of proof  =
of=20
causation relies upon assessment of dose “

 

The Appeal Judges state : “In the present =
case the=20
claimants have produced no evidence which begins to satisfy the usual=20
requirements and Mr Kent QC has accepted that they cannot do so . He did =
not=20
qualify that admission with any claim that they might reasonably hope to =
do so ,=20
given time .” .

 

This is a grave and unfortunate expression of =
lack of=20
understanding of the truth of the science of causation by our Counsel , =
Mr Kent=20
QC.  His lack of robustness
reinforces =
our belief=20
that all Counsel acting on behalf of litigants must have , as a matter =
of=20
urgency , a full understanding of the science of causation from all =
types of=20
radiation. That is , from prompt /  gamma and from residual fall =
out=20
ingested and inhaled radioactive particles in order that they  have =
the=20
necessary confidence to defend the truth of the science on causation. =
Two points=20
arise from Para 123 of the CoA  :  . 

 

Point 1)  * =
Assessment of=20
dose” 
referred to by the Appeal Judges as the burden of proof =
on=20
causation is scientifically irrelevant in relation to ingested internal =
emitters=20
from fall out . It is the ‘red herring’ used by the establishment view =
of=20
causation of legacy ill health in persons exposed to ionising radiation =
since=20
the dawn of the atomic age. It is a red herring  to deflect =
attention away=20
from the severe hazard,  at a cellular level in body tissue , bones =
and=20
organs of ingested and inhaled fall out  .

 

At a Pension Appeal Tribunal in late 2002 , =
expert=20
scientific witness Professor Chris  Busby , demolished the =
“assessment of=20
dose” defence and secured a widow’s pension for the claimant , Eva =
Adshead . The=20
MoD’s case was that her late husband , who like many thousands of =
nuclear test=20
veterans  was not wearing a film badge , could not have received =
any dose=20
of radiation sufficient to be the causation of his brain tumour from =
which he=20
had died .

 

Quite simply , the expert witness stated to the =
tribunal=20
panel that ” dose is irrelevant ” because the deceased had died as a =
result of=20
ingested and inhaled fall out , a type of radiation that does not =
register on=20
film badges . The MoD did not contest this decision and the CVFI =
therefore=20
regards this 2002 precedent better , on establishing causation , than =
the 25=20
year old Pearce case of 1985 referred to by the Appeal Judges . =

 

To support his view in 2002 Professor Busby =
showed the=20
Tribunal Panel a copy of the  then, soon to be due to be published =
,=20
European Committee  on Radiation Risk  of  2003  – =
Health=20
Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation =
Protection=20
Puposes ( Regulators’ Edition : Brussels ) with focus on page 12  , =
Fig .=20
3.1. . This document  clearly shows high dose , External , acute =
prompt /=20
gamma radiation ( old threshold risk model ) ,  released at the =
time of a=20
nuclear weapons detonation is a lower risk model compared to biphasic=20
cell-response , Internal , chronic , radioisotopic , ingested or inhaled =
fall=20
out particles from nuclear weapons tests  .

 

Forcing the MoD to prove otherwise (  that =
is to=20
force them to deny the scientific truth of health damage by ingested and =
inhaled=20
alpha and beta particles acting as internal emitters inside the body ) =
is the=20
way to proceed on causation . It would place the MoD’s so-called =
radiation=20
experts in an impossibly weak position scientifically . This has been =
shown time=20
and time again at tribunals when the MoD have not contested the issue on =

causation by ingested fall out , as was the case in the tribunal win by =
Adshead=20
v the MoD in late 2002 and in many other tribunal cases attended since =
by=20
Professor Busby .


 

Point 2) Having understanding of the ‘red =
herring ‘ of the=20
irrelevance of assessment of dose, the Rowland Study of New Zealand =
veterans ,=20
without significant assessment of dose readings from film badges showing =
prompt=20
/ gamma radiation , has shown the veterans  incurred significant , =
elevated=20
genetic damage . This was not a result of prompt or gamma radiation at =
the time=20
of nuclear weapons detonation but a result of sailing under the fall out =
over=20
several months ‘on station ‘ in close proximity to Christmas Island .=20

 

By use of fall out pattern models ( recently =
completed by=20
Busby/ Williams ) it can clearly be established that those working , =
breathing=20
and ingesting food in this area for several months were similarly =
exposed to the=20
hazard of genetic damage by internal emitters from fall out gaining =
access to=20
inside of the body . Again , the MoD need to forced to scientifically =
deny the=20
truth that ingested fall out radiation is not harmful . We believe they =
will not=20
be able to find a scientific witness to stand in an open court and =
dispute this=20
scientific truth with any credibility against an expert witness . =20
.

 

Para 124 – The Court of Appeal Judges =
state : “=20
The claimants have not produced evidence of how they will estimate their =

radiation doses .”


 

As mentioned above , film badge readings are =
totally=20
irrelevant as far as ingested and inhaled fall out particulates are =
concerned .=20
For alpha and beta particles recorded dose has been ignored by the MoD . =
Alpha=20
particles can only be measured on highly specialised and sophisticated =
equipment=20
.

 

As an example , the alpha particle plutonium =
-239 present=20
in all nuclear weapons fall out has been totally ignored . This internal =
emitter=20
has a half life of 24,400 years . Also ignored are the man – made fall =
out=20
particles caesium -137( half life 30 years) , strontium -90 ( half life =
28=20
years) ,  Tritium – 3 ( half life 12 years ) . The use of depleted =
uranium=20
, packed around the core of nuclear weapons at British nuclear test =
locations ,=20
to boost their yield whilst producing increased ionised uranium fall out =

particles , has also been totally ignored . Also ignored , amonst many =
other=20
radioisotopes , is the use the alpha particle , polonium – 210  as =
part of=20
the trigger mechanism in  nuclear weapons detonations.  ( See =
special=20
focus on the case  of Litvinenko below ) .


 

All of these deadly internal seeds of death have =
been=20
ignored by the MoD . All are prime causary links to ill – health and =
premature=20
deaths in nuclear veterans , an understading of the science of =
causation =20
clearly seen by Judge Foskett .

 

In para. 124  the Appeal Judges also state =
” Low=20
dosage has not been defined for us in terms of millisieverts “=20
.

 

Of course , ingested alpha and beta particles , =
acting as=20
internal emitters, work at a cellular level when inside the body in =
tissue ,=20
organs and bone . One single particle will deliver a concentrated dose =
over many=20
years to local body cells in tissue , organs or bone and no dose to the =
rest of=20
the body . As previously stated dosage ” in terms of milliesieverts =
“=20
is totally irrelevant when discussing the science of internal =
emitters. The=20
CVFI believes all Counsel working for litigants , MUST have a =
clear=20
understanding of the science and mechanism  of causation from =
ingested and=20
inhaled fallout BEFORE the case proceeds to the Tribunal Appeals =
Hearings and to=20
the Supreme Court in 2011. 
 

 

Para . 125 The Appeal Judges noted : =
” the=20
claimant’s primary case was that proof of dose was not necessary but =
that =20
, if necessary  , inferences as to dose could be drawn from the =
Rowland=20
Study “.

 

This is the truth of the science , ignored =
because the=20
science of causation from fall out is not fully understood or has been =
unable to=20
be confidently articulated by our Counsel in court . We are therefore =
left in=20
the position where the Appeal Judges have accepted  the established =
view of=20
causation , that is linked to whole body external gamma radiation dose , =
as the=20
sole arbiter of radiation damage to health .

 

External prompt /gamma radiation dose is =
acnkowledged ,=20
internal ingested radioactive fall out acting at a cellular level is =
totally=20
ignored .

 

In internal irradiation by ingested or inhaled =
particles=20
of fall out the biological impact works differently . The very short =
distance=20
emitting ionisation radiation destroys cells immediately adjacent and =
damages=20
those within their tiny sphere of ionisation . This is sufficient to =
cause=20
legacy health damage ranging from immune system damage , chronic ill =
health to=20
mutagenic cancers developing into premature deaths , even 40 years after =

inhalation or ingestion ..


 

The Case of Alexander Litvinenko ( see1 =
Para .124=20
above )

 

Relatively small , invisable to the eye , doses =
of=20
radioactive isotopes in fall out are the serious hazard ignored and =
denied by=20
established science as applicable to causation of ill health in nuclear =
veterans=20
. Yet the potential to cause serious harm and premature death  was=20
graphically shown and admitted in 2006 by the assassination of Russian =
dissident=20
, Alexander Litvinenko in London .

 

A miniscule quantity of this fall out =
radioisotope,=20
invisable to the eye ,  was placed into a teapot from which =
Litivinenko=20
drank a cup of tea . The radioisotope used , =
polonium=20
-210 is an alpha particle present in nuclear bomb fall out . Polonium =
-210 =20
has the same biological impact as other alpha and beta particles when =
inside the=20
body , acting as as internal emitters and irradiating tissue at a =
cellular level=20
. That is , a fall out particulate harmless outside of the body but =
deadly once=20
inside and able to act at a cellular level when lodged in lung or other =
body=20
organ tissue as an internal emitter . Litvinenko died within a few days =
of=20
admission to hospital .

 

This case caused panic in the general public in =
London who=20
were ironically reassured by  Health Protection Agency ( formally =
the NRPB=20
) scientists Pat Troop and Professor Dudley Goodhead ( see attached =
email=20
26.11.2006 – The Genie is Out of the Bottle ) that this type of =

radiation is harmless unless ingested , inhaled or entering the blood by =
a cut=20
or abrasion in the skin. We  say ironic because this causal link to =
ill=20
health has been denied and ignored by  the NRPB , now Health =
Protection=20
Agency , for over 50 years as being applicable to nuclear test veterans =
who for=20
months lived , worked , breathed and ingested food and drink at =
Australian and=20
Pacific nuclear test fall out locations between 1952 and 67 . =


 

Whilst the Litivinenko  case is viewed in =
some=20
quarters as not relevent to our case as evidentiary proof , veterans =
believe it=20
is nonetheless worth mentioning because it illustrates the contradictory =
advice=20
given by government scientists on the truth of the science of causation =
from=20
fall out. Contradictory advice  which is given according to the=20
circumstances of political expediency rather than as an explanation of =
the truth=20

 

In the case of the nuclear veterans , the =
politically=20
expedient establishment view is denial of the effects of ingested fall =
out=20
particles and in the case of Litvinenko the poitically expedient views =
became=20
another contradiction that is ,  an admission of the truth of =
causal link=20
to ill health in order to placate the grave concerns of a worried =
general public=20
.

 

Other points of contention

 

In the Court of Appeal Judges assessment of the =
individual=20
test cases of the LimitationTrial a repetitive and recurring dismissal =
of the=20
litigants right to proceed to full trial  has been opined by =
scientific=20
witness by the  MoD and accepted by the Judges . This is shown by =
the=20
following :

 

Para. 207=20
        John Allen Brothers , =

deceased .


 

The Appeal Judges write : ” Professor Kaldor =
( for the=20
MoD ) opined that in order to show that the risk of of developing =
oesophageal=20
cancer had been doubled by exposure to radiation , it would be necessary =
to=20
demonstrate exposure in the order of 1000 mSv . ”

 

Para.208  ” Accordingly we =
conclude that=20
the general merits of the claim are extremely weak.”

 

Important Note :  In the =
view of the=20
CVFI this is the most shocking decision , in a catalogue of shocking =
decisions=20
of the CoA Judges on causation .

 

In the MoD Summary Defence document ( for the =
Limitation=20
Trial ) the MoD defendants (page 9 .para 35 ) had admitted that 159 =
nuclear test=20
participants  had exceeded relatively rare doses ” above the =
approved=20
medically and and scientifically thresholds of in excess of 30=20
mSV
( the lower integrated dose )”  only two of whom are =
widow=20
litigants , that is acting for Mr John Brothers and Eric Denson , both =
sampling=20
aircrew .

 

1000 mSv is 33 x=20
greater
than the ” approved medically and scientifically =
thresholds “=20
opined by the Epidemiologist Professor Kaldor ., for the MoD .  =
This dose=20
is without taking any account of ingested fall out . 

 

Para=20
221
         Michael =
Richard=20
Clark , deceased.

 

” Mr Clark had not been exposed to any =
radiation above=20
background levels .”

 

Para 225

 

“Professor Kaldor  ( for the MoD ) =
expressed the=20
opinion that in order to double the risk of lung cancer the radiation =
exposure=20
would have had to have been in excess of 1000 mSV.”

 

Para.=20
239
           =
Andrew=20
Dickson , deceased .

 

” The Judge had noticed that Professor =
Mothersill (=20
for the claimants ) had not been able to support the claim in respect of =

ischaemic heart disease .”


 

This is a sad ommission . The causal link here =
is from=20
fall out . In this case the radioisotope in question is caesium – 137 a =
beta=20
particle common in nuclear weapons fall out

 

(Yuri. Bandashevsky – Medical and Biological =
Effects=20
of Radiocaesium Incorporated into the Human Organism ,
2000, [ full =

document held by Professor Busby ] ) ,  indentified radioisotope =
caesium=20
-137 fall out as the pathogenic link to heart lesions in children post – =

Chernobyl nuclear (1986 ) accident leading to cardiac arrest in children =
as=20
young as 10 years old .)


 

Para. 257

 

” Professor Kaldor opines that it would be =
necessary=20
to demonstrate exposure to about 1000 mSv in order to prove causation on =
the=20
balance of probabilities .”

 

Para.=20
283
          &n=
bsp;  =20
Eric Ogden , deceased

 

” Professor Kaldor opines that a radiation =
dose of=20
1000  mSv would be required before it could be shown that the risk =
had=20
doubled .( in respect of his meningioma ) .

 

All the above establishment view of the science =
of=20
causation expressed by the defendants ( the MoD ) ignore the inhalation =
and=20
ingestion of internal emitters from fall out .

 

The opinion of the epidemiolgist witness for the =
MoD ,=20
Professor Kaldor , on the ‘double dose ‘ rule is based by him on the 50 =
year old=20
findings by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission ( ABCC ) and the =
Radiation=20
Effects Research Foundation ( RERF)  following research into the =
Hiroshima=20
and Nagasaki bomb victims .

 

In the peer reviewed paper ( 2006 ) by Professor =
Shoji=20
Sawada a theoretical particle physicist and Emeritus professor at Nagaya =

Univeristy , Japan entitled : ” Cover – up of the Effects of =
Internal=20
Exposure by Residual Raditaion from the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and =
Nagasaki=20
it was found that :


 

” The ABCC studied only the effects of the =
primary=20
radiation
( i.e. prompt / gamma radiation ) from the atomic =
bombing on=20
the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki  and ignored the damage =
from=20
residual radiation .
( i.e. fall out , internal emitters ) =
.

 

 Analysis of acute radiation disease , =
the rate=20
of chromosomal aberrations , and the relative risk of chronic illness =
among the=20
survivors , shows that the effects of residual radiation from fall out =
exceeds=20
that of primary radiation in the area more than 1.5 to 1.7 km distant =
from the=20
hypocentre of the Hiroshima bombing .

 

The effects of internal exposure due to the =
intake of=20
tiny radioactive particles are more severe than those of external =
exposure ,=20
explaining the difference between the official criteria and the actual =
state of=20
the survivors . ”

 

Our belief is the above demolishes the =
credentials=20
Professor Kaldor as a expert witness for the MoD and there is more to =
support=20
that view : 

 

Professor John Kaldor  , Epidemiologist=20

 

It is disturbing that the views of an =
epidemiologist on=20
dose levels was allowed to influence the Appeal Judges on the issue of =
causation=20
. It is suprising because his opinion was allowed to carry more weight =
than that=20
of expert radiation biologists and other expert witness’ .

 

A close examination of Professor Kaldor’s cv =
leads to even=20
more alarm due to his close link to the Australian Government with =
scientific=20
responsibility to the Australian Minister for Veterans .

 

Epidemiologist University of New South Wales=20
.

Past President of the Australian Epidemiological =

Association 1996 -2000 .


 

Member of the Repatriation Medical Authority ( =
RMA )=20
– 

 

This is listed as an ‘independent statutory=20
authority’  set up by the Australian Government responsible to the =
Minister=20
for Veterans charged with preparation of legislation about disease =
causation=20
dealing with claims for disability pensions received from Australian =
Veterans=20
and their families .

 

The CVFI’s comment is that this is an =
illustration of the=20
1993 Treaty Series between Australia and the United Kingdom in action . =
That=20
is  , the mutual agreement between governments to exchange =
information and=20
assist each other on claims for compensation made by nuclear test =
veterans . No=20
doubt Kaldor has returned in triumph to his Australian patrons with a =
clear=20
message that the truth of the science on the causation of damage to =
health from=20
igested fall out is still safely being buried by the establishment view =
of=20
obsolete science still upheld by the red herring of irrelevant film =
badge dose=20
readings .

 

Canberra and London must be laughing their socks =
off . But=20
, hopefully not for too long !

 

Conclusions

 

This case will only be won when our =
Counsel  have a=20
full understanding of and can robustly stand up in support of expert =
witness for=20
the truth of the science of causation .

 

This is not rocket science , anyone can read =
scientific=20
papers and see the truth of causation for  themselves , as Judge =
Foskett=20
was able to do in the Limitation Trial verdict .   =

 

The bottom line is that causation will be =
fiercely=20
contested outside of court by the MOD because the establishment’s view =
of the=20
science , ignoring ingested and inhaled fall out , is crucial and =
pivotal to=20
underpinning their politically motivated cover up that has lasted over =
half a=20
century .

 

The good news is that when the MoD are =
challenged inside=20
of court to prove that ingested fall out is not harmful and is not the =
prime=20
causal link to legacy ill health in persons exposed to ionising =
radiation=20
,  they will not able to do so against expert independent =
scientific=20
witness .This was initially demonstrated by  Professor Chris Busby =
in the=20
Appeal Tribunal ruling in the case of nuclear widow , Eva Adshead , in =
late 2002=20
.  

 

This is a fight for the truth of science of =
causation . It=20
is.an ethical and moral victory that cannot afford to be lost . =20

 

We thank all in the legal team for your hard =
work and=20
dogged determination to go to the Supreme Court and fight our case to =
the bitter=20
end . We also look forward to the Appeal Court Hearings and hope this =
appraisal=20
will be of some use in both ..

 

With hopes of significant legal progress in 2011 =
.=20

 

Happy New Year to all at Rosenblatts . =

 

Regards ,

 

Dennis

for the CVFI .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

——=_NextPart_001_0004_01CD09DD.200C1EA0–

——=_NextPart_000_0003_01CD09DD.200C1EA0
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name=”Dr Busby and Hugo Charlton QC.eml”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=”Dr Busby and Hugo Charlton QC.eml”

Return-Path:
Received: from public.mx9gb1.int.opaltelecom.net (62.24.139.126) by mail.svcgb1.int.opaltelecom.net (8.5.124.04)
id 4F2FCA3801C8E4A5 for dennishayden44@tiscali.co.uk; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:25:09 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i=”4.73,552,1325462400″;
d=”scan’208,217″;a=”997537276″
Received: from mail83.extendcp.co.uk ([79.170.40.83])
by public.mx9gb1.int.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2012 15:25:08 +0000
Received: from drwoland.demon.co.uk ([80.177.11.53] helo=[192.168.0.3])
by mail83.extendcp.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.77)
id 1S5fDB-0001Dg-OM; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:25:07 +0000
Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:24:52 +0000
From: Dr Chris Busby
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dennis Hayden
CC: Dai Williams , StephenE@rosenblatt-law.co.uk,
neils@rosenblatt-law.co.uk, CMiskelly@britishlegion.org.uk
Subject: Re: Veterans Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=”————000700040803050504060509″
X-Authenticated-As: christo@greenaudit.org

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
————–000700040803050504060509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dai
I find it hard to see why we need _any_ solicitors. I have done a whole
bunch of cases without any solicitors or barristers, usually only with
the veteran himself or his wife (if he is dead), on occasion with some
guy from BNTVA or with Andrew Ades who is a layman but quite up to
speed. We do them in Birmingham where I can get on the train, have
Columbo’ed our way through with the assistance of the Tribunal judges
and won every case, and in the present instance now we have a great deal
more evidence that shows their case is full of holes at least for
Christmas Island. We have evidence that their assertion that the
background dose at Christmas Island was lower than UK because there was
no radon (there was) is wrong and also the new stuff about Grapple Y
kissing the sea and the doses I calculated from the alpha emitters based
on their redacted secret reports. I told them we could use my mate the
barrister Hugo Charlton and he would charge about 2- 4K for the whole
case that would do the trick in my opinion. I mean, why should the vets
have to have a solicitor: there is no provision for one and no
institutional funding for one in the normal tribunals and the vets are
all skint. It seems to me that this whole thing has gone out of control.
It has been delayed long enough: I find further delay to be in the favor
of the MoD. I mean what is to stop these new people pulling out at the
last minute, then are some new solicitors going to step in and want
another 9 months? And so forth forever.
Banzai.
C

On 08/03/2012 15:06, Dennis Hayden wrote:
> Dai ,
> Thank you . Yes I understand it is only two cases that Rosenblatts are
> funding ( Sinfield and Smith ? ) . It seems the RBL contacting new
> solicitors is a step backwards with a further delay of 9 months .
> For this reason I have copied Stephen and Neil in this reply to ask
> whether the legal team would consider the CVFI email the RBL to point
> out the advantage of paying Rosenblatts to deal with all cases is
> preferable on two counts :
> 1) Rosenblatts have the knowledge for a speedy settling of all these
> cases .
> 2) New solicitors appointed by the RBL would need at /least/ 9 months
> to acquire the knowledge necessary .
> We believe it would in fact be a lot less expensive for the RBL to
> stick with Rosenblatts because a new firm of solicitors would rack up
> many extra expenses just to get to the point of knowledge Rosenblatts
> have already achieved . Time wise we could easily lose some members of
> this claimants group before 9 months is up.
> Just a thought .
> regards ,
> Dennis
> *From:* Dai Williams
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 08, 2012 2:06 PM
> *To:* Dennis Hayden
> *Cc:* Chris Busby
> *Subject:* Re: Veterans Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
> Thank you Dennis
> I fully agree with your comments, pending looking at the Green Paper
> itself
> when I have time.
> I hear from Chris that Rosenblatts have reduced the number of cases
> they are
> supporting to 2, that new solicitors have become involved for RBL
> funding and
> that these have requested the April hearings be postponed by 9
> months. Please
> correct me if I have mis-understood any of these points Chris.
> I have had other concerns over the last couple of weeks. Have you
> heard of
> these developments Dennis? Just checking informally before asking Stephen.
> yours
> Dai
>
> —– Original Message —–
> *From:* Dennis Hayden
> *To:* DAI WILLIAMS
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 08, 2012 11:11 AM
> *Subject:* Fw: Veterans Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
> Good morning Dai ,
> Forgot to send you copy of this . it is time we heard Dave’s FOIA
> tribunal verdict and the Supreme Court verdict, but meantime need
> to keep busy !
> All the best ,
> Dennis
> *From:* Dennis Hayden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:50 AM
> *To:* JAMES CHAPMAN
> *Cc:* Marie-Louise Sharp ;
> Corinna Ferguson
> *Subject:* Veterans Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
> * THE COMBINED VETERANS’ FORUM INTERNATIONAL ( CVFI ) *
> To : James Chapman
> Political Editor
> Daily Mail
> Copy ; Marie – Louise Sharp , Royal British Legion
> Corinna Ferguson , Liberty
> Front Page and Page 6 Report – Daily
> Mail 6th March
> “ Ken Clarke : I’ll listen to critics on
> Secret Courts.”
> —————————————————————————————-
> Dear Mr Chapman ,
> Further to our previous email to you with comment on the Justice
> Secretary Kenneth Clarke’s proposal for secret courts in cases of
> national interest .
> ARMED FORCES VETERANS MUST NOT BE TREATED THE SAME AS TERRORISTS
> Apart from “ friendly – fire” incidents here is a distinct
> absence of any reference to military cases in Justice Secretary ,
> Kenneth Clarke’s Daily Mail response: “ We hear your fears over
> open justice loud and clear” to criticism of his Green Paper on
> Justice and Security . So- called national security cases will
> almost certainly be abused by Ministry of Defence officials
> against the interests of armed forces veterans .
> The friendly – fire reference by the Justice Secretary is ,
> however , significant because the Class action by the Atomic
> Veterans Claimants Group ( AVCG ) progressing through the Courts
> since 2006 concerns friendly- fire incidents of massive
> proportions , that is , the deliberate exposure of thousands of UK
> and loyal Commonwealth servicemen to gamma radiation and the fall
> –out radiation of the UK’s nuclear weapons test experiments in the
> 1950’s and 60’s .
> The AVCG is a similar case to the Porton Down veterans’ Class
> action of mid –2000 concerning loyal servicemen deliberately used
> as guinea pigs in the 1950’s and 60’s for experimentation with
> biological and chemical weapons . Injury and deaths from Porton
> Down were subsequently ruled “ unlawful”.
> Mr Clarke says his proposals are intended to :
> “ ensure the government can properly be held to account when
> individuals make serious allegations”and the secret courts would
> apply “only where the most sensitive intelligence material is
> involved.”
> Officials at the Ministry of Defence are not trusted by armed
> forces veterans, with very good reason and from years of
> experience . MoD officials will persuade Ministers to continue to
> falsely invoke national security interests and withhold radiation
> dose levels , records of removed and analysed tissue , bone and
> organs from those who served at nuclear test locations and any
> blood counts or tissue taken after exposure .They will continue to
> refuse cytogenetic blood testing of UK nuclear test veterans and
> their offspring for genetic damage . This will enable the
> Ministry of Defence to avoid accountability and responsibility for
> genetic damage to loyal servicemen past , present and future
> injured , disabled or killed by non-conventional weapons .
> If the Green Paper proposals are to be looked at again by the
> Justice Secretary then the secret court proposals should apply
> only to terrorist cases and not to the cases of loyal servicemen
> exposed to ionising radiation, chemical and biological weapons
> past , present or future in the course of their military duties .
> Mr Clarke’s amended Green Paper proposals will therefore be
> fiercely contested by loyal servicemen if veteran’s Pension Appeal
> Tribunals, Freedom of Information Tribunals and Class actions
> against the Ministry of Defence end up in trial by secret courts
> as is only intended for terrorists ..
> With kind regards ,
> yours sincerely ,
> Shirley Denson , Dennis Hayden , Ken McGinley ( UK ) – Roy Sefton
> QSM ( NZ )
> The Action Executive , Combined Veterans’ Forum International (
> CVFI )
> /“ there is no pressing national security reason for retaining
> information relating to radiation levels/ /.” /UK government
> assertion in /McGinley and Egan . ( Strasbourg ECHR Trial late
> 1990’s ) . /
> *From:* THE CVFI
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:25 PM
> *To:* JAMES CHAPMAN
> *Cc:* Marie-Louise Sharp ;
> Corinna Ferguson
> *Subject:* Secret Justice- MoD will be prime beneficiary
> To : James Chapman
> Political Editor
> Daily Mail
> YOUR DAILY MAIL REPORTS ON SECRET JUSTICE
> copy : Marie – Louise Sharp , Royal British Legion
> Corinna Ferguson , Liberty
> Dear Mr Chapman
> Thank you and the Editor of the Daily Mail for drawing attention
> to the Justice and Security Green Paper since January of this year
> . The Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI ) , in
> support of the Atomic Veterans Claimants Group led by Rosenblatt
> Solicitors of London, make the following comment :
> *_The Ministry of Defence will be the Prime Beneficiary_*
> *_of Proposed Secret Court Hearings_*
> The Green Paper on Justice and Security proposed to give the Home
> Secretary powers to decree any civil case in which she deems
> evidence to be ‘sensitive’ to be held in secret will result in the
> Ministry of Defence( MoD ) being the prime beneficiary . Veterans
> have every reason to suspect officials at the MoD are the leading
> force supporting this proposal .
> Because a Military Covenant has not been enshrined into law the
> MoD has to be sued to provide a duty of care for loyal servicemen
> and their widows .
> Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clark’s Green Paper will enable cases
> where Ministers deem there is a chance of ‘damage to the public
> interest’ to be euphemistically handled under ‘closed material
> procedures’. This will , without doubt , be applied to Class
> actions , such as the one where servicemen were forced with no
> other obligation other that to sue the MoD , following human
> experimentation at the biological and chemical weapons research
> establishment at Porton Down .
> The current Class action by over 1000 nuclear test veterans and
> widows progressing through the High Courts since 2006 to the
> Supreme Court in 2011 is one such case where the horse has already
> bolted the stable . The MoD has tried every legal trick to hold up
> this legislation at vast expense to the tax – payer . However ,
> where this Green Paper’s proposal will hit hardest is that it will
> continue to allow the MoD to withhold evidence appropriate and
> necessary for use by veterans and widows at Pension Appeal and
> Freedom of Information Tribunals etc . Tribunal Hearings are
> already in the grip of non- disclosure of evidence and the Green
> Paper’s proposals will close access to evidence completely .
> Radiation levels and dose received by nuclear test veterans was
> stated , over a decade ago at the European Court of Human Rights
> , in Strasbourg , as not a national security issue when the UK
> Government ( in /McGinley and Egan pp 1363-64 paras 100 & 101 ) “
> ….asserted that there was no pressing national security reason
> for retaining information relating to radiation levels….where a
> Government engages in hazardous activities , such as those present
> in this case, which might have adverse consequences on the health
> of those involved in such activities , respect for private and
> family life under Article 8 [ of the ECHR ] requires that an
> effective and accessible procedure be established which enables
> such persons to seek all relevant and appropriate information .” /
> //
> In addition to withholding information on the above , today the
> Ministry of Defence is still ‘losing’ blood counts of veterans
> taken after nuclear tests , still retaining and not admitting
> results of tissue , bone and organs removed from nuclear test
> veterans whilst alive or at post-mortems , still not fully
> disclosing all hospital records and still not allowing surviving
> nuclear test veterans and their children to get cytogenetic
> chromosomal analysis of their blood analysed to detect genetic
> damage induced by exposure to ionising radiation .
> The withholding of evidence is endemic by the MoD. The MoD and
> their contractual partner the Atomic Weapons Establishment( AWE )
> continue to withhold evidence against the interests of the Atomic
> Veterans’ Claimants Group led by Rosenblatt Solicitors of London
> who are currently progressing the Class action through the
> Courts. If passed into law the Green Paper will ensure the MoD
> will be a prime beneficiary from the secret hearings behind closed
> doors at Pension Appeal Tribunals , FOIA First Tier Tribunals etc .
> It is a chilling threat to liberty and justice that ‘sensitive’
> issues likely to embarrass and inconvenience the Government will
> continue to be swept under the carpet . This Green paper is a
> threat to all citizens .
> The Prime Minister broke his promise to enshrine the Military
> Covenant into law .The deputy Prime Minister has reneged upon his
> previous support of the nuclear test veterans case . Instead we
> now have a proposal backed by the leadership of the Coalition
> Government to break all the civilised norms of a democracy by
> secret courts and therefore to assist the MoD to continue to avoid
> accountability and responsibility for this Ministry’s long running
> betrayal of loyal servicemen .
> Yours sincerely ,
> Shirley Denson – Dennis Hayden – Ken McGinley ( UK ) – Roy Sefton
> QSM ( NZ )
> The Action Executive ,
> Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( CVFI )
> tel : 01594 845118
> ————————————————————————————————————
> *THE CVFI IN SUPPORT OF ALL WHO PARTICIPATED AT THE UK NUCLEAR
> WEAPONS TEST EXPERIMENTS 1952 – 67 . LEGAL ADVISOR , IAN ANDERSON
> ADVOCATE AND ATTORNEY AT LAW ( NEW YORK ) AN OPEN EMAIL FOR
> INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION 1st**MARCH 2012 . *
>
>
> —————————————————————————————————
> *Text inserted by Panda GP 2012:*
>
> This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited
> mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: It is spam!
>
> —————————————————————————————————


Dr Chris Busby
Green Audit
Castle Cottage
Sea View Place
Aberystwyth
SY231DZ UK
tel +44-1970-630215

and at

Prof. Dr C.Busby
Visiting Professor
School of Biomedical Sciences
Faculty of Life and Health Sciences
University of Ulster
Cromore Rd
Coleraine
County Londonderry
BT52 1SA
Northern Ireland
c.busby@ulster.ac.uk

and

Guest Researcher
The Federal Institute for Crop and Soil Reseach
Julius Kuehn Institute
Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants
Bundesallee 50
D38116 Braunschweig
Germany
christopher.busby@jki.de

& check out my songs at:
http://www.myspace.com/christobusby

—————————————————————————————————
Text inserted by Panda GP 2012:

This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to reclassify it: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1126&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202012\AntiSpam
—————————————————————————————————

————–000700040803050504060509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Dai
I find it hard to see why we need any solicitors. I have
done a whole bunch of cases without any solicitors or barristers,
usually only with the veteran himself or his wife (if he is dead),
on occasion with some guy from BNTVA or with Andrew Ades who is a
layman but quite up to speed. We do them in Birmingham where I can
get on the train, have Columbo’ed our way through with the
assistance of the Tribunal judges and won every case, and in the
present instance now we have a great deal more evidence that shows
their case is full of holes at least for Christmas Island. We have
evidence that their assertion that the background dose at Christmas
Island was lower than UK because there was no radon (there was) is
wrong and also the new stuff about Grapple Y kissing the sea and the
doses I calculated from the alpha emitters based on their redacted
secret reports. I told them we could use my mate the barrister Hugo
Charlton and he would charge about 2- 4K for the whole case that
would do the trick in my opinion. I mean, why should the vets have
to have a solicitor: there is no provision for one and no
institutional funding for one in the normal tribunals and the vets
are all skint. It seems to me that this whole thing has gone out of
control. It has been delayed long enough: I find further delay to be
in the favor of the MoD. I mean what is to stop these new people
pulling out at the last minute, then are some new solicitors going
to step in and want another 9 months? And so forth forever.
Banzai.
C

On 08/03/2012 15:06, Dennis Hayden wrote:

Dai ,
 
Thank you . Yes I understand it is only two cases that
Rosenblatts are funding ( Sinfield and Smith ? ) . It seems
the RBL contacting new solicitors is a step backwards with a
further delay of 9 months .
 
For this reason I have copied Stephen and Neil in this
reply to ask whether the legal team would consider the CVFI
email the RBL to point out the advantage of paying
Rosenblatts to deal with all cases is preferable on two
counts :
 
1) Rosenblatts have the knowledge  for a speedy settling
of all  these cases .
 
2)  New solicitors appointed by the RBL would need at least
9 months to acquire the knowledge necessary .
 
We believe it would in fact  be a lot less expensive for
the RBL to stick with Rosenblatts  because a new firm of
solicitors would rack up many extra  expenses just to get to
the point of knowledge Rosenblatts have already achieved .
Time wise we could easily lose some members of this
claimants group before 9 months is up. 
 
Just a thought .
 
regards ,
 
Dennis
 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Veterans Must Not be Treated
the Same as Terrorists .

 

Thank you Dennis
I fully agree with your comments,
pending looking at the Green Paper itself
when I have time.
 
I hear from Chris that Rosenblatts
have reduced the number of cases they are
supporting to 2, that new solicitors have become
involved for RBL funding and
that these have requested the April hearings be
postponed by 9 months.  Please
correct me if I have
mis-understood any of these points Chris.
 
I have had other concerns over the last couple of weeks.
Have you heard of
these developments Dennis? Just checking informally
before asking Stephen.
 
yours
Dai
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Thursday, March
08, 2012 11:11 AM
Subject: Fw: Veterans
Must Not be Treated the Same as Terrorists .
 
Good morning Dai ,
 
Forgot to send you copy of this . it is time we
heard Dave’s FOIA tribunal verdict and the Supreme
Court verdict,  but meantime need to keep busy !
 
All the best ,
 
Dennis
 
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:50
AM
Subject: Veterans Must Not be
Treated the Same as Terrorists .

 

            THE
COMBINED VETERANS’ FORUM
INTERNATIONAL ( CVFI )
 
To : James Chapman
        Political Editor
        Daily Mail
 
Copy ; Marie – Louise Sharp ,
Royal British Legion
             Corinna Ferguson
,  Liberty
 
                         Front
Page and Page 6  Report – Daily
Mail 6th March
                         “ Ken
Clarke : I’ll listen to critics on
Secret Courts.” 
—————————————————————————————-
 
Dear Mr Chapman ,
 
Further to our previous email
to you with comment on the Justice
Secretary Kenneth Clarke’s
proposal for secret courts in
cases of national interest .
 
  ARMED FORCES VETERANS MUST
NOT BE TREATED THE SAME AS
TERRORISTS
 
Apart from “ friendly – fire”
incidents  here is a distinct
absence of any reference to
military cases in  Justice
Secretary , Kenneth Clarke’s Daily
Mail  response: “ We hear your
fears over open justice loud and
clear” to criticism of his Green
Paper on Justice and Security .
So- called national security cases
will almost certainly be abused
by  Ministry of Defence officials
against the interests of armed
forces veterans . 
 
The friendly – fire reference
by the Justice Secretary is ,
however ,  significant because the
Class action by the Atomic
Veterans Claimants Group ( AVCG )
progressing through the Courts
since 2006 concerns friendly- fire
incidents of massive proportions ,
that is , the deliberate exposure
of thousands of UK and loyal
Commonwealth servicemen to gamma
radiation and the  fall –out
radiation of the UK’s nuclear
weapons test experiments in the
1950’s and 60’s .
 
The AVCG is a similar case to
the Porton Down veterans’ Class
action of mid –2000 concerning
loyal servicemen deliberately used
as guinea pigs in the 1950’s and
60’s for experimentation with
biological and chemical weapons .
Injury and deaths from Porton Down
were subsequently ruled “
unlawful”.
 
Mr Clarke says his proposals
are intended to :
 
“ ensure the government can
properly be held to account when
individuals make serious
allegations”and the secret courts
would apply “only where the most
sensitive intelligence material is
involved.”
 
Officials at the Ministry of
Defence are not trusted by armed
forces  veterans, with very good
reason and from years of 
experience . MoD officials will
persuade Ministers to continue to 
falsely invoke national security
interests and withhold radiation
dose levels , records of removed
and analysed tissue , bone and
organs from those who served at
nuclear test locations and any
blood counts or tissue taken after
exposure .They will continue to
refuse cytogenetic blood testing
of UK nuclear test veterans and
their offspring for genetic damage
.  This will enable the Ministry
of Defence to avoid accountability
and responsibility for genetic
damage to loyal servicemen past ,
present and future injured ,
disabled or killed by
non-conventional weapons .
 
If the Green Paper proposals
are to be looked at again by the
Justice Secretary then the secret
court proposals should apply only
to terrorist cases and not to the
cases of loyal servicemen exposed
to ionising radiation, chemical
and biological weapons past ,
present or future in the course of
their military duties .
 
Mr Clarke’s amended Green Paper
proposals will therefore be
fiercely contested by loyal
servicemen if veteran’s Pension
Appeal Tribunals, Freedom of
Information Tribunals and Class
actions against the Ministry of
Defence end up in trial by secret
courts as is only intended for
terrorists .. 
 
With kind regards ,
 
yours sincerely ,
 
Shirley Denson , Dennis Hayden
, Ken McGinley ( UK  ) – Roy
Sefton QSM ( NZ )
The Action Executive , Combined
Veterans’ Forum International (
CVFI )
 
“ there is no pressing
national security reason for
retaining information relating
to radiation levels
 .”
UK government assertion in McGinley
and Egan . ( Strasbourg ECHR 
Trial late 1990’s ) .
 
 
  
 
From:
THE CVFI
Sent: Thursday,
March 01, 2012 5:25 PM
Subject: Secret
Justice- MoD will be prime
beneficiary

 

To :
James Chapman
       
Political
Editor
       
Daily Mail
 
       
YOUR DAILY
MAIL REPORTS
ON SECRET
JUSTICE
 
copy :
Marie – Louise
Sharp , Royal
British Legion
            
Corinna
Ferguson ,
Liberty
 
Dear Mr
Chapman
 
Thank you
and the Editor
of the Daily
Mail for
drawing
attention to
the Justice
and Security
Green Paper
since January
of this year .
The Combined
Veterans’
Forum
International
( CVFI  ) , in
support of the
Atomic
Veterans
Claimants
Group led by
Rosenblatt
Solicitors of
London, make
the following
comment :
 
     The
Ministry of
Defence will
be the Prime
Beneficiary
              
of
Proposed
Secret Court
Hearings
 
The Green
Paper on
Justice and
Security
proposed to
give the Home
Secretary
powers to
decree any
civil case in
which she
deems evidence
to be
‘sensitive’ to
be held in
secret will
result in the
Ministry of
Defence( MoD
)  being the
prime
beneficiary .
Veterans have
every reason
to suspect
officials at
the  MoD are
the leading
force
supporting
this proposal
 
Because a
Military
Covenant has
not been
enshrined into
law the MoD
has to be sued
to provide a
duty of care
for loyal
servicemen and
their widows .
 
Justice
Secretary,
Kenneth
Clark’s Green
Paper will
enable cases
where
Ministers deem
there is a
chance of
‘damage to the
public
interest’  to
be
euphemistically
handled under
‘closed
material
procedures’.
This will ,
without doubt
, be applied
to Class
actions , such
as the one
where
servicemen
were forced
with no other
obligation
other that to
sue the MoD , 
following
human 
experimentation
at the
biological and
chemical
weapons
research
establishment
at Porton Down
.
 
The
current Class
action by over
1000 nuclear
test veterans
and widows
progressing
through the
High Courts
since 2006 to
the Supreme
Court in 2011
is one such
case where the
horse has
already bolted
the stable .
The MoD has
tried every
legal trick to
hold up this
legislation at
vast expense
to the tax –
payer .
However ,
where this
Green Paper’s
proposal will
hit hardest is
that it will
continue to
allow the MoD
to withhold
evidence
appropriate
and necessary
for use by
veterans and
widows at
Pension Appeal
and Freedom of
Information
Tribunals etc
. Tribunal
Hearings are
already in the
grip of non-
disclosure of
evidence and
the Green
Paper’s
proposals will
close access
to evidence
completely .
 
Radiation
levels and
dose received
by nuclear
test veterans
was stated ,
over a decade
ago  at the
European Court
of Human
Rights , in
Strasbourg ,
as not a
national
security
issue  when
the UK
Government (
in McGinley
and Egan pp
1363-64 paras
100 & 101 
) “
….asserted
that there was
no pressing
national
security
reason for
retaining
information
relating to
radiation
levels….where
a Government
engages in
hazardous
activities ,
such as those
present in
this case,
which might
have adverse
consequences
on the health
of those
involved in
such
activities ,
respect for
private and
family life
under Article
8 [ of the
ECHR ]
requires that
an effective
and accessible
procedure be
established
which enables
such persons
to seek all
relevant and
appropriate
information
.” 
 
In
addition to
withholding
information on
the above , 
today the
Ministry of
Defence is
still ‘losing’
blood counts
of veterans
taken after
nuclear tests
, still
retaining and
not admitting
results of
tissue  , bone
and organs
removed from
nuclear test
veterans
whilst alive
or at
post-mortems 
, still not
fully
disclosing all
hospital
records and
still not
allowing
surviving
nuclear test
veterans and
their children
to get
cytogenetic
chromosomal
analysis of
their blood
analysed to
detect
genetic 
damage induced
by exposure to
ionising
radiation .
 
The
withholding of
evidence is
endemic by the
MoD. The MoD
and their
contractual
partner the
Atomic Weapons
Establishment(
AWE ) continue
to withhold
evidence
against the
interests of
the Atomic
Veterans’
Claimants
Group led by
Rosenblatt
Solicitors of
London who are
currently
progressing
the Class
action through
the Courts. 
If passed into
law the Green
Paper will
ensure the MoD
will be a
prime
beneficiary
from the
secret
hearings
behind closed
doors at
Pension Appeal
Tribunals ,
FOIA First
Tier Tribunals
etc .
 
It is a
chilling
threat to
liberty and
justice  that
‘sensitive’
issues likely
to embarrass
and
inconvenience
the Government
will continue
to be swept
under the
carpet . This
Green paper is
a threat to
all citizens .
 
The Prime
Minister broke
his promise to
enshrine the
Military
Covenant  into
law .The
deputy Prime
Minister has
reneged upon
his previous
support of the
nuclear test
veterans case
.  Instead we
now have a
proposal
backed by the
leadership of
the Coalition
Government to
break all the
civilised
norms of a
democracy by
secret courts
and therefore
to assist the
MoD to
continue to
avoid
accountability
and
responsibility
for this
Ministry’s
long running
betrayal of
loyal
servicemen .
 
Yours
sincerely ,
 
Shirley
Denson –
Dennis Hayden
– Ken McGinley
( UK ) – Roy
Sefton QSM (
NZ )
The
Action
Executive ,
Combined
Veterans’
Forum
International
( CVFI ) 
tel :
01594 845118
————————————————————————————————————
THE
CVFI IN
SUPPORT OF ALL
WHO
PARTICIPATED
AT THE UK
NUCLEAR
WEAPONS TEST
EXPERIMENTS
1952 – 67 . 
LEGAL ADVISOR
, IAN ANDERSON
ADVOCATE AND
ATTORNEY AT
LAW ( NEW YORK
) AN OPEN
EMAIL FOR
INTERNATIONAL
DISTRIBUTION
1st

MARCH 2012 .
 
 
 

<!–

—————————————————————————————————
Text inserted by Panda GP 2012:

This message has NOT been classified as spam. If it is
unsolicited mail (spam), click on the following link to
reclassify it: It
is spam!

—————————————————————————————————

One Response to “Dennis Heyden, On the Suppress of Truth and Denial of Justice, Past, Present and Future”

  1. CaptD Says:

    GREAT Listing SALUTE TO EVERYONE INVOLVED!

Comments are closed.