Dave Whyte’s hearing date approaches.

Hello Paul,

Many thanks for your e-mail. A case conference is being held on the 8th July and will be dealing with 14 cases in total, three of whom are Widows living in Australia. I don’t know when the hearings will commence, perhaps we will get a better idea at the case conference.

The basis of my argument will be that the Authorities knew what they were doing and the genetic damage that would be caused, but they went ahead with the tests and compounded their crime by ordering Servicemen into highly radioactive areas whilst denying them access to protective clothing and respirators. Now they are denying Servicemen access to radiation records and cytogenetic blood tests.

I am a bit apprehensive and hope that I will be able to put my argument across. I am not as young, and quick witted as I once was. If the Judge has read my bundle of evidence I feel sure he will know what transpired during the nuclear tests.

I will keep you informed on what happens.

All the best
Dave.

It certainly is the case that they knew what they were doing. For example, Peter Alexander wrote a book called “Atomic Radiation and Life”. It was published by Pelican Books, London, 1957. It contains chapter entitled “The Sins of the Fathers”.

The book explains the variablity in sensivitiy to radiation based upon stage of mitsosis and upon cellular oxygen tension.

A great deal was known in the 1950s about the harms of radiation. After all it had been 30 years since Muller had demonstrated chromosomal damage at any dose.

At the time an Englishman by the name of Sir Ernest Rock Carling was the Chair of the ICRP.

In 1955 Carling told the Atoms for Peace Conference, Geneva the following:

Quote:
Speaking at an atomic conference at Geneva, Sir Ernest Rock Carling, a Home Office pathologist, declared: “It is also to be hoped that, in a limited proportion of cases, these mutations (from nuclear radiation from atomic bomb test fallout) will have a favourable effect and produce a child of genius. At the risk of shocking this distinguished company, I affirm that the mutation that will give us an Aristotle, a Leonardo da Vinci, a Newton, a Pasteur, or an Einstein will largely compensate for the ninety nine others, which will have much less fortunate effects.” (cited by Pauwels and Bergier, “The Morning of the Magicians”, 1960)

The statement caused a stormy debate in the British Parliament:

Quote:
(UK) OHMS HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1950s → 1955 → November 1955 → 15 November 1955 → Commons Sitting → MINISTRY OF WORKS
Atoms for Peace Conference, Geneva
HC Deb 15 November 1955 vol 546 cc173-4 173
§ 10. Mr. Mason
asked the Minister of Works how many papers were presented at the Geneva Atoms for Peace Conference by British scientists and Government advisers; their titles; who presented them; and which were approved by Her Majesty’s Government.
§ Mr. Birch
The total number of British papers presented to the Conference was 99. I am placing in the Library a list of titles and authors of those papers which were read at the Conference. British scientists attended the Conference as individual experts, and they were not required to submit papers to Her Majesty’s Government for approval of the views expressed.
§ Mr. Mason
Could the Minister give an assurance that in the papers presented, particularly by people who have some responsibility to Her Majesty’s Government—for instance, Sir Ernest Rock Carling—no more theories are advanced as fantastically ridiculous as the one which he proposed?
§ Mr. Birch
Sir Ernest Rock Carling is not, of course, a member of a Government Department, and I have no need to answer for his views.
Back to Atomic Energy Authority (Uranium Supplies)

The Formation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection
1.4.2. Development into maturity
(10) Before the Second World War, the Committee (or Commission, as it was called from 1934) was not active between the ICRs, and met for just 1 day at the ICRs in Paris in 1931, Zu¨ rich in 1934, and Chicago in 1937.
(11) Lindell (1996a) noted that at the 1934 meeting in Zurich, the Commission was faced with undue pressures; the hosts insisted on four Swiss participants (out of a total of 11), and the German authorities replaced the Jewish German member with another person. In response to these pressures, the Commission decided on new rules in order to establish full control over its future membership.
(12) After the Second World War, the first post-war ICR convened in London in 1950. Just two of the members of IXRPC had survived the war, namely Lauriston Taylor and Rolf Sievert. Taylor was invited to revive and revise the Commission,
which was now given its present name: the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Sievert remained an active member, Sir Ernest Rock Carling (UK) was appointed as Chairman, and Taylor was Acting Secretary; after the ICR, Walter Binks (UK) took over as Scientific Secretary because of Taylor’s concurrent involvement with the sister organisation, ICRU.
(13) At the 1950 meeting, a new set of rules was drafted, quite similar to the present rules, for the work of ICRP and the selection of its members (ICRP, 1951), and six sub-committees were established on:
permissible dose for external radiation;
permissible dose for internal radiation;
protection against X rays generated at potentials up to 2 million volts;
protection against X rays above 2 million volts, and beta rays and gamma rays;
protection against heavy particles, including neutrons and protons; and
disposal of radioactive wastes and handling of radioisotopes.
Source: ICRP Publication 109, The History of ICRP and the Evolution of its Policies R.H. Clarke and J.Valentin
Invited by the Commission in October 2008

End quotes.

Sir Ernest Rock Carling served as Chair of the ICRP from 1950 to 1956. Sufficient a period of time to coincide with the atomic bombing of Australia by Great Britain and Sir Robert Menzies.

Chillingly, Dr Edward Teller responded in the style of Rock Carling in the course of his famous debate with Dr Linus Pauling:
Quote:
“We know enough about the mechanism of heredity to be sure that changes will be made in the germ plasm, just as Dr. Pauling has said, and many, very many, probably the great majority of these changes will be damaging. Yet without some changes, evolution would be impossible.”
end quote.Source: “Pauling vs Teller”, The Pauling Blog, http://paulingblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/pauling-vs-teller/

In 1955 the British nuclear tests had been underway for 3 years. It can be seen that the awareness of genetic and other damage caused by these tests was dismissed thoroughly by the British Parliament. The tests continued unabated to the ever lasting shame of the governments involved. The dismissal of the genetic hazards being unleashed upon the world by the British Paliamnet was based upon the very admission of these hazards, couched in the immoral terms of eugenics, made by the then Chair of the international body overtly charged with the setting of “radiological protection standards”. Covertly, it is now plain that these “standards” were nothing more than a permission to spread nuclear pollution over land, sea, air and the genome. Without “standards” such an affliction would remain illegal.

Indeed both Rock Carling and Teller stated most clearly that they expected a genetic impact and they cast this expectation within the value system held by the adherents of eugenics.

After the mothers and fathers afflicted by the bomb tests have had their days and decades in court Dave, the children will tragically follow.

Industry and government continue to cook up any countering theory they can to counter the entry of truth as full evidence into the law courts. Knowing full well the time taken for many harms to be exhibited, they place a statute of limitations on that evidence.

Nuclear industry continues to push what from them are cheaper and cheaper “standards”. Using whatever theories it deems fit.

See also:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1955/may/04/medical-research-council-nuclear

MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NUCLEAR RADIATION COMMITTEE)
HC Deb 04 May 1955 vol 540 cc145-6W 146W

§ Mr. Elliot

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, the membership of the committee appointed by the Medical Research Council to prepare a report on the medical aspects of nuclear radiation.

§ Mr. Bevins

The Committee is as follows:

Sir Harold Himsworth, K.C.B., M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.S., Q.H.P., Secretary of the Medical Research Council (Chairman).

Sir Ernest Rock Carling, F.R.C.S., F.R.C.P., Consultant Adviser, Ministries of Health and Home Office (Civil Defence), and Member of the Health Policy Committee of the Atomic Energy Authority.

Sir John Cockcroft, K.C.B., C.B.E., F.R.S., Director, Atomic Energy Research Establishment.

Professor A. Haddow, M.D., D.Sc, Director, Chester Beatty Research Institute.

Dr. J. F. Loutit, D.M., Director, Medical Research Council Radiobiological Research Unit.

Professor K. Mather, D.Sc, F.R.S., Professor of Genetics, Birmingham University.

Professor W. V. Mayneord, D.Sc, Professor of Physics applied to Medicine, London University.

Professor P. B. Medawar, D.Sc, F.R.S., Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy, University College, London.

Professor J. S. Mitchell, C.B.E., M.B., F.R.S., Professor of Radiotherapeutics, Cambridge University.

Professor L. S. Penrose, M.D., F.R.S., Galton Professor of Eugenics, University College, London.

Sir Edward Salisbury, C.B.E., D.Sc, F.R.S., Director, Royal Botanic Gardens.

Dr. F. G. Spear, M.D., Deputy Director, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge.

Professor J. R. Squire, M.D., F.R.C.P., Professor of Experimental Pathology, Birmingham University.

Professor C. H. Waddington, Sc.D., F.R.S., Professor of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh University.

Professor Sir Lionel Whitby, C.V.O., M.D., F.R.C.P., Regius Professor of Physic, Cambridge University.

Professor B. W. Windeyer, F.R.C.S., Professor of Radiology (Therapeutic), London University

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

“Eugenics is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.[2][3]

It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.[4]…….Today it is still regarded by some as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[17] Some practices engaged in by people in the name of eugenics involving violations of privacy, violations of reproductive rights, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights.

The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[18]

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims “the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons….The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[20] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[21][22] He wrote down many of his observations and conclusions in a book, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.

The origins of the concept began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[23]” end quote.

One Response to “Dave Whyte’s hearing date approaches.”

  1. Lionel Penrose | Paul Langley's Nuclear History Blog Says:

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: