Archive for July, 2013

Nuke experts blast Fukushima operator over toxic leaks

July 28, 2013

Huh? 2 and bit years too late. The sting is the denial of the continuous leaks since March 2011.
Implicit in the blaming of TEPCO by international experts is the false claim they know too much to prevent the same failure chain in their countries. Moot at best. Seeing as the design flaws were acknowledged by the AEC in the late 60s and fully discussed by Lapp in the early 70s. Seems everyone who read the papers at the time remembers, except for the nuclear designers and operators who did not change a thing. The technical fix instituted by the NRC is the compulsory siting of diesel generators at each nuke plant. Very advanced.

Millions of people around the world who have been watching the TEPCO live cam have known for the entire time that the reality as seen is vastly different to the soothing platitudinous lies issued by nuclear industry world wide up to now.

So a few experts are attempting to close the gap between what ordinary people know and see and the promotions arm of the nukers. So what?

The promise of the sealed source is well and truly unbelievable and starts at the mine.

Nuke experts blast Fukushima operator over toxic leaks

(AFP) – 2 days ago

TOKYO — Foreign nuclear experts on Friday blasted the operator of Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, with one saying its lack of transparency over toxic water leaks showed “you don’t know what you’re doing”.

The blunt criticism comes after a litany of problems at the reactor site, which was swamped by a quake-sparked tsunami two years ago. The disaster sent reactors into meltdown and forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of residents in the worst atomic accident in a generation.

Earlier this week, Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) admitted for the first time that radioactive groundwater had leaked outside the plant, confirming long-held suspicions of ocean contamination from the shattered reactors.

“This action regarding the water contamination demonstrates a lack of conservative decision-making process,” Dale Klein, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), told a panel in Tokyo.

“It also appears that you are not keeping the people of Japan informed. These actions indicate that you don’t know what you are doing…you do not have a plan and that you are not doing all you can to protect the environment and the people.”

Klein was invited to attend the TEPCO-sponsored nuclear reform monitoring panel composed of two foreign experts and four Japanese including the company’s chairman.

The utility had previously reported rising levels of cancer-causing materials in groundwater samples from underneath the plant, but maintained it had contained toxic water from leaking beyond its borders.

But the embattled company has now conceded it delayed the release of test results confirming the leaks as Japan’s nuclear watchdog heaped doubt on its claims.

“We would like to express our frustrations in your recent activities regarding the water contamination,” Klein said.

“We believe that these events detract from the progress that you have made on your clean up and reform for the Fukushima (plant).”

Barbara Judge, chairman emeritus of Britain’s Atomic Energy Authority, said she was “disappointed and distressed” over the company’s lack of disclosure.

“I hope that there will be lessons learned from the mishandling of this issue and the next time an issue arises — which inevitably it will because decommissioning is a complicated and difficult process — that the public will be immediately informed about the situation and what TEPCO is planning to do in order to remedy it,” she said.

Decommissioning the site is expected to take decades and many area residents will likely never be able to return home, experts say.

Copyright © 2013 AFP. All rights reserve

Fukushima radiation levels as high as 2011

July 27, 2013

For all the stick the Lay person Fukushima watch internet network – via blogs and forums – have taken from the nuclear establishment over the last 2 and bit years, it seems these Fukushima watchers are closer to the truth than nuclear experts give them credit for. As the following piece shows. This piece is no surprise to anyone who has read Ray (of Canada) and others who contribute to Fukushima Watchdogs on Facebook. It is bleedingly obvious the Fuushima NPP is an open sore, a vast unsealed source. Any nuker who defends or minimizes the situation is not worth their pay imo,

Fukushima radiation levels as high as 2011
Published time: July 27, 2013 22:19

Water samples taken at an underground passage below the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant contain alarming levels of radiation which are comparable to those taken immediately after the catastrophe.

According to a Saturday statement by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the tested water contains 2.35 becquerels of cesium per liter, and the radioactive water is now seeping into the sea. The findings were also evident from samples taken within a 50-meter radius around the plant.

TEPCO’s specialists have hit a wall trying to solve the problem of the leaking groundwater, which has persisted since 2011. However, unlike then, they cannot tell what the source of the newfound radioactivity is. The current explanation is that the radioactive water that had been left in the underground trench some two years ago is now mixing with the groundwater, which is in turn contaminating the sea.

The current investigation started back in May, when specialists registered a 17-fold hike in radiation levels compared to December 2012. More tests immediately followed.

In July, scientists found high tritium levels – 20 per cent higher than just two months before. At the beginning of the month, cesium levels also went up by an astonishing 22 per cent from the previous day. The legal limit of 90 becquerels per liter was exceeded by around 22,000 becquerels.

On July 10, scientists warned about possible sea contamination, although they had no evidence at the time.

On Monday, however, TEPCO discovered that radiation levels were rising and falling together with the tide. This has led them to their latest theory – that the leftover trench water from 2011 is indeed mixing with the underground water that flows straight into the Pacific.

The only theoretical solution at this point is to build a wall of liquid glass between the nuclear reactors and the sea, siphoning off contaminated water from the underground trench.

Steam has also been seen emerging from one of the damaged reactors on three occasions, sparking further fears about the state of the wrecked plant.

Meanwhile, TEPCO has had to sustain bad publicity after it was revealed that it delayed publishing the summer study which sparked these newfound fears – which were realized just days after TEPCO reassured the public that the water was safely enclosed. The government has labeled the company’s behavior as “deplorable.”

end quote.

Fact is the NPP has been leaking its contents since March 2011.

“We are the goon squad and we are coming to town. Perfectly safe, Beep Beep.”
Bowie, “Fashion”

The sealed source seems to be the truth. But as the tension between the observed reality experienced by ordinary people and the statements of the paid advocates increases, something’s gotta give. And so some “experts” are beginning to break ranks with the Pary Line.

Nuclear experts slam Fukushima nuclear plant operators over toxic water admission

Updated Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:48pm AEST
Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant Photo: The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant meltdowns forced about 160,000 people to flee their homes. (AFP: Tomohiro Ohsumi)
Related Story: Fukushima operators admit radioactive water leaking into Pacific
Related Story: Boss of Fukushima nuclear plant dies of cancer
Related Story: Steam spotted near crippled nuclear power plant
Map: Japan

Foreign nuclear experts have blasted the operator of Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, with one saying its lack of transparency over toxic water leaks showed “you don’t know what you’re doing”.

end quote.

Hmm. 2 years too late. “This is normal”, “Best in the world” “No major radionuclide release or build up” “completely unforeseeable”.

Oh bullshit. The only unsealed source in all this is the truth.

Areas of Naturally High Background Radiation Levels in Northern Provinces of IRAN.

July 25, 2013

The following sketch map roughly shows the areas defined as having high levels of radionuclide present in soil. It is based on copyright information given in:

“Relationship of soil terrestrial radionuclide concentrations and the excess of lifetime cancer risk in western Mazandaran Province, Iran Radiat Prot Dosimetry”, 1. M. Abbaspour1, F. Moattar2, A. Okhovatian3 and

M. Kharrat Sadeghi2,Radiat Prot Dosimetry (2010) 142(2-4): 265-272 doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq187

iran high


1. M. Abbaspour1,
2. F. Moattar2,
3. A. Okhovatian3 and
4. M. Kharrat Sadeghi2,*


The main goal of this study is to lay out the map of the soil radionuclide activity concentrations and the terrestrial outdoor gamma dose rates in the western Mazandaran Province of Iran, and to present an evaluation scheme. Mazandaran Province was selected due to its special geographical characteristics, high population density and the long terrestrial and aquatic borders with the neighbouring countries possessing nuclear facilities. A total of 54 topsoil samples were collected, ranging from the Nour to Ramsar regions, and were based on geological conditions, vegetation coverage and the sampling standards outlined by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The excess lifetime cancer risks (ELCRs) were evaluated and the coordinates of sampling locations were determined by the global positioning system. The average terrestrial outdoor gamma dose rate was 612.38±3707.93 nGy h−1, at 1 m above the ground. The annual effective gamma dose at the western part of Mazandaran Province was 750 μSv, and the ELCR was 0.26×10−2. Soil samples were analysed by gamma spectrometry with a high-purity germanium detector. The average 226Ra, 232Th, 40K and 137Cs activities were 1188.50±7838.40, 64.92±162.26, 545.10±139.42 and 10.41±7.86 Bq kg−1, respectively. The average soil radionuclide concentrations at the western part of Mazandaran Province were higher than the worldwide range. The excess lifetime risks of cancer and the annual effective gamma doses were also higher than the global average.” end quote.

Various papers available online claim the high radiation background levels in Ramsar, Mazandrain Province, Iran, provide health benefits and radiation-protection to local residents. The radium/radon springs are visited by Iranians from all over the country.

For example:
“Ramsar, a northern coastal city in Iran, has areas with some of the highest levels of natural radiation measured to date. The effective dose equivalents in very high background radiation areas (VHBRAs) of Ramsar in particular in Talesh Mahalleh, are a few times higher than the ICRP-recommended radiation dose limits for radiation workers.” end quote.

Biology Division, Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto 612-8522, Japan

The claim is that the high background radiation related to radium and radon gives a “radiation-protective” effect -via adaptive response – to residents in the area and to people who visit the radon spas in the area.

It transpires that the area with a high natural background level of radiation is much larger than the town and surrounds of Rasmar studied by the author of the paper cited above.

The following is taken from two medical studies of cancer in Iran: (I have 2 more such studies, and the main piece is turning into a badly written sketch pad)

“The north and north east regions of Iran are

some of the known areas that have a high

incidence of esophageal cancer.

Golestan Province in northeastern Iran is

one of the higher risk areas of the world, followed

by Mazandaran and Khorasan Provinces.”

The cancers of concern in Iran at the present time include:

GI cancers, the incidence rates of which are high in Iran.

Breast cancer affects Iranian women about a decade

earlier than women in Western countries.

Colorectal cancers, having an increasing rate which is currently near that of the West and which is increasingly striking at younger ages.

Other common cancers in Iran are:

Stomach, esophagus,bladder and leukemia in males.

Esophagus, stomach, and cervix uteri in women.


“Five Common Cancers in Iran”

Shadi Kolahdoozan MD MPH*, Alireza Sadjadi MD MPH**, Amir Reza Radmard MD***,

Hooman Khademi MD MPH

(*Digestive Disease Research Center,

Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran,

**Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center

Groningen, Groningen, The Netherland, ***Department of

Radialogy, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical

Sciences, Tehran, Iran.)

Archives of Iranian Medicine, Volume 13, Number 2, 2010: 143 – 146.

Cancer Incidence in Five Provinces of Iran

Ardebil, Gilan, Mazandaran, Golestan and Kerman,
1996 – 2000 MAHDI FALLAH.

“Cancer is the most common non-injury cause of death after cardiovascular diseases in Iran. Estimation of the burden of cancer in terms of incidence, mortality, and prevalence is the first step to plan control measures in every country but for almost 40 years there were no population-based cancer statistics in Iran to reveal cancer burden. This study is designed to ascertain the incidence of cancers in Iran, and develop and test a new method to adjust for ascertainment bias in the evaluation of cancer registry data.” Source: Cancer Incidence in Five Provinces of Iran

Ardebil, Gilan, Mazandaran, Golestan and Kerman, 1996 – 2000

MAHDI FALLAH ACADEMIC DISSERTATION, University of Tampere, Tampere School of Public Health Finland, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Digestive Diseases Research Center Iran. Supervised by Professor Anssi Auvinen University of Tampere, Professor Risto Sankila University of Tampere, Reviewed by Professor emerita Aulikki Nissinen University of Kuopio, Professor Elisabete Weiderpass Vainio, Karolinska Institute, Sweden.

“Highest rate of lung cancer found among Mazandaranian men.”

The central national cancer registry was abandoned in 1979 by Iran. It remains intact and available.

In 1984 Iran re-established cancer registries. Each province maintains its own registry. Many of the relevant documents are held in operational departments within local hospitals.

Although Iran has a low cancer incidence compared to developed countries, Iran’s cancer incidence is comparable to other nations with similar levels of development.

“Esophageal cancer: Golestan Province in northeastern Iran is one of the higher risk areas of the world, followed by Mazandaran and Khorasan Provinces.”

Mazandran Province, in which the famous radium and radon spas are located, has the highest incidence of two types of cancer.

Research reveals genetic damage to nuclear test veterans

July 25, 2013

A significant level of genetic damage in the DNA of New Zealand nuclear test veterans has been found in a study by Massey molecular scientists led by Dr Al Rowland.

The Nuclear Test Veterans Association has released the results of the study, which confirm those found in preliminary results of a previous study released last year by the Department for Veteran Affairs. Dr Rowland led both studies, and says the results of the Government-funded study (still underway) are likely to be released in November.

The larger Government-funded research involves the comparison of genetic findings from a group of Navy veterans with those from a control group of other veterans who have not been exposed to elevated levels of radiation. At the completion of the study, the scientists will have carried out five analyses, to determine factors such as the amount of translocation in chromosomes, the efficiency of DNA repairs, and the level of DNA degradation.

Dr Rowland says preliminary results show a small but significant level of genetic damage to the chromosomes of veterans who were exposed to nuclear explosions almost half a century ago. During 1957 and 1958 at Operation Grapple, 551 New Zealand naval men witnessed nine nuclear detonations at Christmas Island and in the Malden Islands in Kiribati.

Dr Rowland says the factors of smoking, alcohol consumption and the use of medical x-rays were taken into account when comparing the DNA of the two groups. He says the suggestion by university peer reviewers that the heavy smoking of the test veterans was a factor in the results is incorrect. Although the Navy veterans had smoked at a greater frequency than the other group in the past, both groups had similar levels of cigarette consumption at the time of the test. He says this is an important consideration as the test looks at what is in the blood at the time of the test, which puts both groups on a level testing ground.

DNA damage to nuclear test vets prompts call for study of children

July 25, 2013
Photographs of the same and similar chromosomal defects to those shown at the above link were published in England by Peter Alexander, cancer researcher, in London in 1957 and earlier.

The Government is considering whether to fund studies into the health of nuclear test veterans’ children, after a Massey study confirmed that the veterans had suffered genetic damage as a result of radiation.

The New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans’ Association commissioned Dr Al Rowland of the Institute of Molecular BioSciences and his team to look at the cells of 50 veterans for damage. Dr Rowland says the findings are unequivocal: in a matched control group of men of the same age, his team found an expected frequency of 10 chromosome translocations per 1000 cells, but in the veterans’ group, the average number of translocations was considerably higher at 29 chromosome translocations per 1000 cells.

Workers who were close the Chernobyl nuclear accident or involved in the clean up after the accident had about 20 translocations.

The lawyer acting for the veterans is to travel to London, where a class action is being taken against the British Government on behalf of the British, Fijian and New Zealand Veterans.

Association chairman Roy Sefton says more than 400 of the 551 sailors who took part in Operation Grapple have died. He was 17 when he was sent to the operation, a series of detonations totalling nine-megatons.

“NZNTVA is now looking for financial support from Government, or elsewhere, to have a study done on a group of the veterans’ children to identify any genetic damage that may have resulted from their fathers’ exposure to service-related radiation.”

It was the incoming Labour Government of 1999 that granted the veterans $100,000 for the study, Mr Sefton says, with additional support of more than $100,000 from agencies including The Lion Foundation, the New Zealand and Auckland cancer societies, and the Royal Society which donated funding and laboratory equipment.

The seamen who took part in Operation Grapple were on the frigates HMNZS Pukaki and HMNZS Rotoiti, watching the tests from distances of between 52km and 278km.

The University team that produced the study included Mohammed Abdul Wahab and Elizabeth Nickless of the Institute of Molecular BioSciences, and Associate Professor John Podd of the University’s School of Psychology, as well as Claude Parmentier and Radhia M’Kacher of the Institut Gustave-Roussy in France.

The five-year project started with development of an extremely stringent procedure, with input from St Andrew’s University in Scotland, which devised the set of assays (tests). Analysis was made of 50 veterans and a control group for possible confounding factors, together with analysis of the literature in related studies.

The final report, released on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the first nuclear test on Malden Island on 15 May, 1957, states that the cause of the elevated translocation frequencies observed in veterans is most likely attributable to radiation exposure. Dr Rowland says that while he realises the subject is political, his interest is in the science.

The “missing” Maralinga Hospital nuke test treatment records – a lesson for us and for Fukushima.

July 25, 2013

The “missing” Maralinga Hospital nuke test treatment records – a lesson for us and for Fukushima.
December 28, 2011

1. John Keane cites the official historian of the more than 500 “minor trials” (the ones that spread fission fuel over the land), Lorna Arnold. Arnold, according to Keane used the Maralinga Hospital records, among other thngs, the come up with exposure doses for the personnel involved in the experiments. He states “Arnold’s report drew upon blood tests and Maralinga hospital records that have since been destroyed.” Well, Arnold’s report, going on Keane’s account of it, is a paradox. For during the clean up in the 1990s was a hazardous affair. Even today areas north of Taranaki are unfit for humans.

So, one account of the records being destroyed after the official account was written. Not a surprising finding, given what was officially written about exposure doses supposedly based, in part, on the Maralinga Hospital records.


A letter was recieved by the Department of Veterans Affairs on 3 Nov 2008. Written by John Hutton, spokesperson, Australian Ex-Service Atomic Survivors Association, he states: “In August 1957 a number of the troop became ill with persistent vomiting but were
reluctant to seek medical help for fear of being called ‘shirkers’. t was admitted to the
Maralinga Village Hospital. on 29 August 1957 and did not return to work until after
7th September. 1 was treated with Largactil, which 1 now know is used not only for
vomiting but psychosis and radiation sickness. I attach a copy of my in- patient
record, probably the only copy of a Maralinga hospital record available as all others
seem to have completely disappeared.
Over the years I have worked very hard to make sure that the grave injustice to these
Veterans didn’t continue. I even lobbied the schools to have the British Nuclear Tests
in Australia included in the curricutum. It is quite remarkable the number of people
who are not aware that this travesty of justice happened on our own soil. ft was
rewarding last year when the National Museum of Australia included this as one off
the subjects in their Touring History Agenda. 1 also appeared before the Royal
Commission, but recently I have had to curtail my activities due to ill health and
failing eye sight.” The Maralinga Hospital document Mr. Hutton attached to the letter gives the “Firm diagnosis” as “Functional Vomiting”. The record gives Mr Hutton’s age at the time as 20 years, and the date of admission is given as 29 August 1957, the date of discharge as 7 September 1957. The total stay in the hospital is given as ten days. One would think that a “Firm diagnosis” of functional vomitting – for ten days – is not a diagnosis but an observation of a sign of a symptom of an undisclosed cause. Apparently the Maralinga Hospital didn’t treat radiation sickness and its signs and symptoms. A lesson apparently learned well by Japanese authorities today. (Hospitals there have new signs which state “We do not treat radiation sickness”. Just “functional vomiting presumably. Just psorasis, not beta burn.)

The clinical notes written on John Hutton’s condition are as follows: “…history of persistent vomiting. No cause found on full examination. Not controlled by 50mg of Largactil tds. Three day intragastric milk drip successful.” The notes were written by a Captain in the RAMC.

(Pecher (1940) and Hamilton (1942) noted that the displacement of Sr** (all isotopes) was enabled by boosting calcium intake. It was one of the protective measures Hamilton communicated to Stone and Groves until the terms of the directive issued by Compton for protective measures to be identified.) Largactil is also known as chlorpromazine. A bried look at studies of the drug turns up the following:
“The vitamins of the B complex, particularly pyridoxine,
were the first group to show undoubted efficacy in the
treatment of radiation sickness (Maxfield et al., 1943;
Oppenheim and Bjorn, 1946; Van Haltern, 1946;
Shorvon, 1949) and are still widely used.
The anti- histamines, having been proved useful in motion sickness,
were advocated for radiation sickness (Lofstrom and
Nurnberger, 1946), but, although still used by some
radiotherapists, neither cyclizine hydrochloride
(” marzine “) nor diphenhydramine hydrochloride
(” benadryl “) is significantly better than inert tablets
(Ellis and Stoll, 1952; Stoll, 1957a). In 1954 the value
of chlorpromazine (“largactil”) in this condition was
reported (Marks, 1954). Since then the phenothiazine
series has expanded widely and has been tried extensively
in the treatment of radiation sickness, and new types
of central sedatives of the vomiting centre have been
developed….” the report records a radomised trial in which patients suffering the effects of radiation treatment
were given Largactil as an oral dose of 25mg. (Source: “Radiation Sickness. An analysis of over 1,000 controlled drug trials by
Basil A. Stoll, M.R.C.S., F.F.R., D.M.R.T.& D., Peter MacCallum Clinic, Melbourne, British Medical Journal, August 25, 1962, pp 507)

The fact that the drug was administered to Mr Hutton was obviously based upon its established (though unsatisfactory) treatment for exposure to radiation. The effetiveness of vitamin B injections is explained by Stoll quite clearly and was known to the Hiroshima doctors. who, Hersey (1945) reports as administering liver extract for radiation victims whenever they had it available. (Liver extract and Vitamin B is discussed in the paper THE VITAMIN B1 AND B2 G CONTENT OF LIVER EXTRACT AND BREWERS’ YEAST CONCENTRATE
D. K. Miller and C. P. Rhoads
From the Hospital of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research
Received November 26, 1933. J Exp Med. 1934 February 28; 59(3): 315–331.

For milk as a source of vitamin B, see THE FOLIO ACID AND VITAMIN B12 CONTENT OF
Department of Biochemistry, College of Agriculture,
University of Wisconsin, Madison

(Received for publication September 13, 1950) Journal of Nutrition.

All the cited papers are within the era in which the knowledge was being applied to Mr Hutton. It seems to me that the treatments applied were all appropriate ones a doctor who has actually diagnosed or suspected radiation exposure as a cause of the signs exhibited by Mr Hutton. Yet the diagnosis is merely a description of what was happening (vomitting for 10 days).

Hutton in his 2008 letter writes: “Shortly before each bomb was exploded, I and a team of 4 other engineers would
seal the entrance to one of the “Instrument bunkers” with about a thousand sand
bags, which we had previously filled. Then about half an hour after each explosion
we would return in my land rover and removed the sandbags. The bunkers were very
close to the GZ and the task took about an hour. We did not wear protective clothing
and the bulldust was so heavy that we wore handkerchiefs over our mouths. On
return, we were not checked for radiation and had to spend much time in the
showers. Attached is an extract from the list of personnel at the completion of the
countdown for Tadje. I am in charge of Sandbag Party B. It was impossible to work
wearing a respirator for either sandbagging or driving”

In the 1990s. Mr Hutton’s claim against the government was dismissed and in the course of the proceedings, learned gentlemen acting on behalf of our government made statements about their view of Mr Hutton as a drunkard. The sort of person the government would label “not fit and proper”. Crap. The treatment Mr Hutton recieved was the trigger which pulled my pin and started me on this mission to show the truth via the historical record.

Given the facts of the matter, and the uses of the treatments Mr Hutton recieved in the Maralinga Hospital, it is pretty clear that he was being treated for radiation sickness. And this treatment was documented in the records he was allowed to see and possess in such a way that no mention what so ever was made of the actual case of his illness. Any cretin can diagnose vomiting. Even if they do only know enough to label it “chucking up constantly for a phucking long time after inhaling radioactive dirt.”

No wonder the real records from the hospital, the ones sent to England, have gone missing.

So no Mr Keane, it looks like they are not destroyed. One document held by Hutton indicates at least further documents consisting of the secret reports of the condition the personnel, probably despatched monthly to Whitehall or Aldermaston.

As for Lorna Arnold, well…let’s see how her findings of miminal radiation exposure to personnel stack up…
see this:

She was, according to the findings of Dr. Roger Cross, the author of at least one proven “whitewash” in regard to radiation exposure. The documents released to Mr Hutton by the Maralinga Hospital are obviously inadequate. It is enough to make me puke….

(of course, the whitewash continues in the law courts, and is aided by people who contact me telling me to forget the past and focus on modern information….information formulated from the whitewash….)

3. The Independent ( reporter Kathy Marks.
June 15, 2001

Thousands of young, inexperienced troops observed nuclear tests in 1950s Australia. They were never informed of the risks. Survivors tell Kathy Marks of the sickness that has never been acknowledged.

“As Peter Webb clambered over dust-coated Centurion tanks at ground zero in his regulation boots, shorts and short-sleeved shirt, he saw other men walking around in full-length white “space-suits” with gloves, hoods, masks and rubber boots. They were the scientists, and they always wore protective clothing in the forward area. The young servicemen who worked there almost never wore any protective gear. Webb was admitted to Maralinga Hospital with nausea and headaches, as were many others; the precise figure is not clear, as the hospital records have disappeared.
The average life expectancy of the men who helped Britain to achieve its place in the nuclear sun is 55.5 years. There are just a few thousand surviving veterans in Britain and in Australia, and they believe that their governments are simply waiting for them to die.”


Australian Broadcasting Corporation



Broadcast: 21/05/2001
Secret documents detail plan to use servicemen in atomic tests

Reporter: Geoff Hutchison

“ANNE MUNSLOW-DAVIES: What I would really like to see in those documents is the records from the Maralinga hospital.

To date, they have never been found and no-one knows their whereabouts.

PETER WEBB: But every now and again, when something comes up like this, Peter Webb comes up and says, “Hey!

I’m still here, I’m still alive, I’m still breathing’. What are you going to do about it?”

I still get the same answer – “Nothing, bugger off and die,” and that’s the sad part.

KERRY O’BRIEN: We should point out that Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Scott has been out of the country and unavailable for interview.”


SECRET records detailing the fate of dozens of babies born in the shadow of Maralinga’s nuclear testing hold the key to a case that is building as South Australia’s largest class action.

More than 100 South Australians have joined a class action against the British Ministry of Defence over deaths and disabilities they believe were caused by nuclear testing at Maralinga more than 50 years ago.

Among them are families of the Woomera babies – more than 60 lives lost, many without explanation, during the decade of nuclear testing, up to 600km away.

Lawyers running the case say it is “just the tip of the iceberg”. They have heard only from people who are “very confident” they have a case for compensation, AdelaideNow reports.

Already, families of some of the stillborn children, hours-old babies and toddlers who account for more than half the plots in Woomera Cemetery for the 1950s and 1960s, have come forward.

Edith Hiskins, 79, of Willaston, gave birth to a stillborn daughter, Helene Michelle, in March 1963, and still is not satisfied with the reason given for her baby’s death.

Mrs Hiskins, and her husband John, a serviceman at Woomera, were told the baby girl was stillborn due to “mild toxemia” – a cause not given until years after her death and only after they pushed authorities for a death certificate.

The parents never saw their daughter , who was buried in the cemetery the next day, and they have never seen her medical records. “I would like some answers as to why that happened, because the answers given on her death certificate, I do not find sufficient,” Mrs Hiskins said.

“As far as I know, her records were sealed. It was years before we even got a death certificate.”

Mrs Hiskins said she, or her family, are likely to join the class action. “There are still questions to be answered and reasons to be given,” she said.

In all, the Woomera Cemetery contains 23 graves for stillborn babies born in the hospital between December 1953 and September 1968, and a further 46 graves for other children who died around that period. Autopsies were not always conducted and it is understood the medical records of those 23 stillborn babies remain sealed and held by the National Archives of Australia.

6. British surrender over Maralinga clean-up bill
(The British said the place was perfectly clean and safe. It was not.)

7. Major Alan Batchelor’s submission:
Submission to the Clarke Review…/batchelor.pdf
“Not considered, were the actions taken by Government to hide the total range of health and
genetic effects resulting from exposure to ionising radiation and other toxic materials associated
with nuclear weapon tests. Maralinga and other hospital records went missing and those with
dangerous exposures had their names and dosage records removed from the ofiicial listings.
“ltiere are a number of practical examples where nuclear veterans were exposed to dose rates
many thousands of times higher than the Cancer and Mortality Study’s “ail-purpose‘ dose rate”

and so on.

The google stats on my search for “maralinga hospital records” was 39,800 results (0.26 seconds).

Ms Arnold would be pretty busy these days. And instead we have the hormesis and adaptive response crew writing in telling me to
report on modern stuff instead.

The modern stuff is actually Lorna Arnold’s flock of parrots.

Apparently its ok though if you present with “motion sickness” and “psorasis”. Don’t dare tell the truth, radiation sickness and beta burn or they won’t apparently treat you. Even though the treatments can be the same or similar.

(see above, and Cronkite, AEC, Marshall Islands, 1954.)

The Measurement of Internal Dose

July 25, 2013

E.P. Cronkite of the AEC was a first responder to the Castle Bravo Disaster of 1954.

He provided detailed testimony on the nature of radiological harms suffered by the Marshall Islanders. He provided the results of measurements of internalized fallout products suffered to a 1957 US Congressional Sub Committee Hearing.

He stated that “Rare and alkaline earths accounted for about 70 percent of the urine radioactivity. Strontium 89 was about at the maximum permissible level……”

ITS EFFECTS ON MAN AUGUST 1957, Printed for the use of the JointCommittee on Atomic Energy UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 8.57190 WASHINGTON : 1957, P935 STATEMENT OF

It is all very well to estimate and guess. It is quite another to actually measure, as Cronkite measured.

Nuclear authorities in England, Australia and currently Japan provide examples of authorities who are extremely unwilling to actually measure.

Few or none British, Australian, New Zealand nuclear veterans had their urine checked for excretion of fallout products. The only attempted monitoring was a woefully conducted external measurement regime in which individual dose records were incomplete, lost or with held. The analysis of the dose reconstructions are based upon a theory pertaining to internal emitters which suites the official motive.

The ICRP was not in charge of the British Nuclear Tests. The British were. Instead of measurement, they used a theoretical basis of equivalence.

Reality is reality, not a reconstruction buffered by artithmetic.

In Japan, film records nuclear authorities running for the elevators after a curtailed public meeting. During this meeting parents had asked the officials to measure the cesium, Iodine, strontium and other reactor fallout products in the urine of their babies. The officials refused, uttering the assertion that their dose estimates were sufficient to assure safety. This was not enough for the parents. As the officials grew uneasy and high tailed it for the lifts, the parents, holding bottles of urine, desperately followed.

This scenario is an archetype for the events and experiences of all victims of the British nuclear tests, including the nuclear veterans.

Earlier in the hearing, the American public were given a far rosier picture of the state of affairs and the state of health of the victims of the Marshall Islands. History was to confirm the veracity of the actual measurements as a predictor of outcomes. The same history was to reveal the facile nature of the gauging harm merely on the inadequate appearance of things:

“The victims of the Castle Bravo fallout disaster of 1 March 1954 were studied intensely and official descriptions presented a minimised portrayal of their suffering: “The skin has been carefully observed at 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, and 3 years after exposure, and there is no
evidence at the present time of any breakdown in the early burns of the skin, there is no evidence of the development of cancer at this time. In time the depigmented scars are still evident.

The individuals have been seen on two occasions by a plastic surgeon, Dr. Bradford Cannon, of the Harvard Medical School, who feels that no plastic repair is necessary and that the prognosis in general is good.” [1]

Would Dr Cannon have felt the same had his wife or daughter been a victim?
The Marshall Islanders suffered major contamination by nuclear fallout. This was both external as a skin dose; it was also internalized. Hundreds of claims from victims of cancer were eventually accepted by the United States. The external harm, the Beta radiation burns, was an indicator of the
risk of internalization of the fission products. [2]

“In June 1983,…the U.S. recognized the contributions and sacrifices made by the people of the Marshall Islands in regard to the Nuclear Testing Program and accepted the responsibility for compensation
owing to citizens of the Marshall Islands for loss or damage to property and person resulting from that testing….” “of [the] 1,999 awardees, more than 1,000 have died receiving only partial payment awarded for their personal injuries. As of December 31, 2006, a total of $73,261,198
paid to those awardees or their heirs, leaving an unpaid balance of $18,140,802.” The 36 medical conditions for which the payments have been made are: 1. Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic
leukemia). 2. Cancer of the thyroid. 3. Cancer of the breast. 4. Cancer of the pharynx. 5. Cancer of the esophagus. 6. Cancer of the stomach. 7. Cancer of the small intestine. 8. Cancer of the pancreas. 9. Multiple myeloma.
10. Lymphomas (except Hodgkin’s disease). 11. Cancer of the bile
ducts. 12. Cancer of the gall bladder. 13. Cancer of the liver (except if cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated).
14. Cancer of the colon. 15. Cancer of the urinary tract. including the urinary bladder, renal pelves, and urethra. 16. Tumors of the salivary gland. 17. Non-malignant thyroid nodular disease
(unless limited to occult nodules). 18. Cancer of the ovary. 19. Unexplained hypothyroidism (unless thyroiditis indicated). 20. Severe growth retardation due to thyroid damage. 21. Unexplained bone marrow failure.
22. Meningioma. 23. Radiation sickness diagnosed between June 30, 1946 and
August 18,1958, inclusive. 24. Beta burns diagnosed between June 30, 1946 andAugust 18, 1958, inclusive. 25. Severe mental retardation (provided born between May and September 1954, inclusive, and mother was present on Rongelap or Utirik Atolls at any time in March 1954). 26. Unexplained
hyperparathyroidism. 27. Tumors of the parathyroid gland. 28. Bronchial cancer (including cancer of the lung and pulmonary system). 29. Tumors of the brain, including schwannomas, but not including other benign neural tumors. 30. Cancer of the central nervous system. 31. Cancer of the kidney. 32. Cancer of the rectum. 33. Cancer of the cecum. 34. Non-melanoma skin cancer in individuals who were diagnosed as having suffered beta burns under number 24 above. 35. Cancer of the bone. 36.
Autoimmune thyroiditis. [3]
The Marshall Islands
[2] ibid.
[3] Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal, June 11, 2007

Source: Medicine and the Bomb. Paul Langley 2009 -2012

The point is, if officials are unwilling to actually the excretion of the fallout products, their predictions of what was absorbed, and its effects, cannot be confirmed by any rational person. The mere fact that a forumla is held to be true by anyone of any authority is not a proof which over rides reality.

So, in relation to nuclear victims as caused by the Crown, why the reluctance to measure? Why, in the absence of measurement is there a religious fervour in a set of calculations which replace the reality?

Because the reality is denied.

Nuclear Test Veterans Appeal Pensions Decision: A conspiracy?

July 25, 2013

The whole thing, from the 50s until now, has been as bent as dog’s hind leg.

Green Audit – Dr Chris Busby and the Nuclear Veterans

Atomic Test Veterans
Add comments

News 15th June 2013.

Nuclear Test Veterans Appeal Pensions Decision: A conspiracy?

Those Atomic Test Veterans who have been involved in legal actions in the UK appear to have been betrayed in 2013 by their own agents, the Royal British Legion and their solicitors the US firm Hogan Lovells International LLC. The case was a combined hearing in London for Ionising Radiation Pensions Appeals for 16 veterans of the UK Atomic Tests in Australia and Christmas Island. It was a key event in the saga of the Atomic Test Veterans and their need to show that these tests affected them and their children and grandchildren. Dr Busby outlines the history of the betrayal in a presentation from Riga here:

In this Youtube outline of the situation, Dr Busby explained that he would be putting all the paperwork on the Green Audit website, and that of the Low Level Radiation Campaign

These appeals were questioning earlier decisions not to grant a pension for illnesses and conditions cause by exposure to radiation at the Test sites. The government case was that the vets received very low doses and no effects could be predicted. Busby’;s argument was that for internal radiation and Uranium the doses were unmeasurable and that “dose” itself is an unsafe concept for internal exposure.

Dr Busby was involved as an expert commissioned by Rosenblatts Solicitors in the substantive veterans case against the Ministry of Defence from 2008. But as far as the appeals cases were concerned, where the burden of proof is far smaller (raising reasonable doubt) by 2010, Dr Busby had already won a number of cases for the veterans (e.g. see decisions for Colin Duncan, John Cammish), and at that point had produced new reports for three cases which were due to be heard individually. These were for Dawn Pritchard, Derek Hatton and Mary Williams who all asked him to act as expert witness for them (by 2013, when the case was eventually heard, the first two had died). In 2010 all the outstanding cases were ordered to be heard together.

Because of his earlier successes, he was commissioned by the Test Vets then solicitors, Rosenblatts, to prepare composite reports for the 16 outstanding veterans appeals. This he did. By the end of 2012 he had provided more than 12 reports to the Tribunal for the composite case. Also by the end of 2012 Busby had obtained access through Freedom of Information requests to a number of reports which had been hidden by the Ministry of Defence. These included evidence from photographs taken at Christmas Island that the Grapple Y bomb had sucked up enormous amounts of sea water which rained out as black rain. The black rain was black because the bomb, according to a top secret document, was made of 4 tons Uranium. It was the Uranium particles that were the most likely cause of the cancer and other health problems in the veterans and the genetic damage and malformations in their children and grandchildren. This was exactly like the uranium effects in Iraq and in the Gulf War veterans and their children.

But this evidence had to be excluded by the UK government which is beginning to have to fight Depleted Uranium cancer cases also. Something had to be done, and it was. In December 2012 Rosenblatts in a sudden and very peculiar move pulled out of the case thought they retained two appellants. This meant a gap which was promptly filled by a Washington based firm, Hogan Lovells International, a firm which had a history of representing the establishment, and pharmaceutical industry in court (check on wikepedia). Indeed, the UK end of Hogan Lovells lists on the website as a past client, the UK Treasury Solicitor, the very person who is defending the appeals for the Ministry of Defence. Hogan Lovells said that they would do this work for nothing, pro bono, but they actually received £47500 in legal aid. A letter to Don Battersby, one appellant, who applied for the legal aid is available. Battersby was in fact the strongest case of all, but his case was lost by Hogan Lovells. The plan appears to have been that Hogan Lovells would cut out Busby at the last possible minute before the hearing and not tell any of the appellants they were doing this. If Busby complained to the veterans themselves, there would be no time for any appellant to remedy this, and if they did try to, they would be (and were ) bullied into compliance. Hogan Lovells were to enlist another physicist as expert witness, one Prof Paddy Regan, a man who has no experience of radiation and health and no publications in this area, but critically, for losing the case, a man whose evidence supported the current radiation risk model and which related nothing about Uranium effects. With Regan as expert, all the cases were automatically lost. That seemed to be the plan. But even if there was some astounding innocent explanation, that is what happened…..end quote. see link above for full text.

In the modern world the public of the world has been bombarded for years with the official line, issued by Britain, that nuclear will save the world. And the fact is, in my view, that the nuclear pollution unleashed upon the planet from 1945 throughout the nuclear test era was used, and was intended to be used, as an attempt to “normalise” nuclear pollution. That is, being universal, the inculcation was and is that things go on as before, regards.

The complication in this and the contradictions in this are manifold. The nuclear pollution did cause illness and death. This is clearly shown in the US experience of Down winders and the feeble compensation potentially available to US Down winders. It is shown in the testimony of the people of the US that the results of nuclear pollution are devastating.

Within the Anglo experience in UK and Australia and New Zealand and other places however the pre-eminent official view is that proposed and broadcast by Margaret Thatcher. Nuclear will, according to this view, save the planet.

Any view to the contrary is subject to the most vigorous opposition by the Thatcherites.

The claim has always been made by officials that the doses to which nuclear veterans and downwinders of the bombs was Low Dose.

Those who now attempt to force forward the Thatcher agenda in defence of nuclear pollution are glib in their claims that exposures were not low dose and that nuclear industry, according to them, only produces low dose.

It clearly does not. Around the world, regardless of the dose characterisation, profound human suffering has resulted from nuclear pollution.

And this continues and the deception also continues.

Over the decades nuclear industry has enjoyed the protection of government. Official secrecy enshrined in specific legislation allows nuclear industry a non disclosure clause. It’s stock holders benefit from an ignorance in the market. The events in Japan are a chink in this, and world media has for over two years attempted to paper over the truth of the true impacts. There may be some change as reality forces it’s way into the market.

Whatever. The lack of justice experienced by nuclear victims is due to a set of official imperatives. The obligation to honestly recompense nuclear victims is not on that the list. The imperative to under cut the case and cause for justice is.

Such a process has delayed justice, reduced trust in government, and extended the life of an increasingly ancient technology by suppressing and delaying the advance and implementation of alternatives both old and new. Both known and as yet to be fully explored. Some may seem incredible – as did the idea of nuclear power in 1934.

Nuclear is not the high point of science.

The granting of justice to nuclear veterans is a direct threat to the idea that nuclear industry in non polluting. From the mine to the reactor in which the bomb fuel is made, to the storage of the waste, nuclear is not pollution free.

The British bombs relied upon the mine, the reactor and storage of waste. While bombs are optional the other steps are not optional – they form the core of the nuclear deployment.

We are all Down winders. We are not all nuclear veterans.

The quest for justice by nuclear veterans produces a high stakes game in government.

If it did not, all the cases would have been settled by now and the truth would have been admitted years ago.

The specifics of each event over the years clearly reveals a climate of fear within government at the idea of justice for nuclear victims.

The nuclear veterans are a cohort, a band of service personnel, who were assured at the time their exposures were carefully measured and recorded. This was a lie.

In the context of the depth of this lie, what hope have civilians got in the case of their exposures, past and present?

This is clearly seen in the historic record of the pursuit of justice of the US Downwinders. In the case of the Japanese Black Rain survivors of 1945. It was only last year that the Japanese government overturned the determination of the Japanese courts that the area defined as Black Rain affected be extended.

There is no need for a prize to work why this denial took place, in what context and to salve which phobia of government, beholden as the Diet admitted, as overlorded by nuclear industry, as admitted by the Diet, as successive Japanese governments have been and remain.

The government of Great Britain reveals the failure of its Soveriegnty in its denial of its victims who seek justice and the protection and acknowledgement of what was termed at the time their activities On Her Majesty’s Service.

And in service of British Nuclear Fuels.

The fact is nuclear veterans are of course as anyone else in the diversity of their views, and my views are merely my own.

One has to ask why it is though that the denial of justice in this matter relies so heavily upon the suppression of information and the exclusion from court any consideration of the assumptions upon which the false claim of safety relies.

Evidence from the dawn of the nuclear era supports the veterans, not the governments. If Hamilton was so wrong, the bomb would not have worked.

Oliphan records, in his letter to Marston, his horror as a member of the Manhattan Project British contingent.

When the biological effects of the fallout products were first realised by him, he was horrified. As a member of the phyiscs section, rather than the biology section, he had no right to know.

The upshot of his attempted report to the British government representative in Washington was a full blown FBI investigation as how Oliphant had learnt of the horror of the metabolic data. The compartmental structure of the knowledge had been breached. (Olphant had been at the Lawrence lab, the seat of the EM enrichment method experiments and of the compilation of the fission product list (Seaborg et. al). As was, initially, the biology team under Hamilton via Stone and Compton.) The two compartments shared the same facility. And the shit hit fan when interchange occurred.

Throughout the British nuclear tests in Australia, biologists were barred from sitting on the safety committee.

In the view of the authorities today the crime of Busby appears to be the deployment of his skills as a chemist in relation to the radio-chemicals and the assessment of their biological impacts. The same crime as Oliphant. Breached compartments. Whereas, it is fine and dandy for physics alone to determine the radiological impacts of the internal emitters. What a charade.

The Nazis are no longer on a facing shore, the Reds have packed up and gone home.

Spill the beans Your Majesty and admit the justice of the cause.

The Conspiracy of Silence over UK use of Human Nuclear Guinea Pigs

July 25, 2013

Human guinea-pigs in the British N-tests in Australia

‘An act of indefensible callousness’

Human guinea-pigs in the British N-tests in Australia

Jim Green, May 2001

The British government has finally admitted that military personnel were used in radiation experiments during the nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950s.

Confirming statements made repeatedly by veterans over the years, the British Ministry of Defence acknowledged on May 11 that it had used military personnel from Britain, Australia and New Zealand in radiation experiments. A statement released by the British government said that military personnel were “transported to or walked in various uniforms to an area of low-level fallout”.

The admission followed publicity surrounding documents found in the Australian National Archive in February by Sue Rabbitt Roff, a senior research fellow from Scotland’s Dundee University.

An October 12, 1956, document on an “Australian Military Forces – Central Command” letterhead refers to the ‘Buffalo’ series of four atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at Maralinga in September and October, 1956. The document names 70 Australian military personnel and one civilian, plus five New Zealand officers, all listed as exposed to radiation on September 28 or 29.

“As far as can be determined the individual dose for round one was received over a period of two to three hours while the various indoctrinee groups were touring the target response area. … Certain people were exposed to radiation on dates other than 28 and 29 Sep, during clothing trials or for a limited number during a tour of the contaminated area after round two”, the document said. The September 27 weapons test was 15 kilotonnes, about the same magnitude as the Hiroshima weapon.

The Central Command document reveals that at least 26 of the 76 people named as being exposed to radiation from tests in 1956 received a dose greater than the “maximum permissible exposure” of 0.3 roentgens in a week; the highest exposure was 0.66 roentgens in a few hours.

Some men were chosen for ‘clothing trials’ from an “indoctrinee force” of British, Australian and New Zealand military personnel. The men walked, crawled and were driven through a fallout zone three days after a nuclear test at Maralinga. Roff says 24 men were involved in the ‘clothing trials’, whereas Ric Johnstone, national president of the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association (ANVA), said in the May 19 Melbourne Age, “There were a whole lot more than 24 used as guinea pigs, there were men sent into the hot area with and without protective clothing.”

Roff dismisses the British government’s claim that it was testing clothing, not humans, and says that thousands of Commonwealth military personnel not directly involved in the nuclear tests at Maralinga were required to be outdoors to observe the detonations.

“The issue is that they (the British government) have always denied doing these experiments and they have never conducted any medical support or follow-up for the men who were involved in these experiments”, Roff told the BBC.

Roff said the Central Command document contradicts claims by the British government in the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 that no humans were used in experiments in nuclear-weapons trials; a claim which enabled the British government to successfully defeat compensation claims.

“I was in the court in 1997 when the government denied using humans [in] studies of the effects of radiation”, Roff said. “In fact the government said it would be ‘an act of indefensible callousness to have done so'”…..see above link for full text.

This deception is springs out of the general culture of lies and suppression engineered by nuclear authorities at the time of the tests and since.

The following post takes the deception into the current time, as nuclear authorities and the government which succour them, continues to deny and with hold information in an act of monumental arse covering that has not ceased since the UK set out to nuke its own for reasons more complex and more deceptive than has ever been admitted.

Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Bill 2006

July 24, 2013

Australian personnel at the British nuclear tests in Australia

Both Australian and British personnel were involved in the tests and included military and civilian participants. Details of the numbers of Australian persons (civilian and military) recorded as present at the British nuclear tests were provided in a press release issued by the Hon. Mr Bruce Scott, MP on 29 June 2001. The Nominal Roll of test participants lists:

Navy 3 235
Army 1 658
RAAF 3 223
8 907 civilians – including 10 indigenous people.(10)

The total of 17 023 persons comprises 8 116 service personnel and 8 907 civilians.
UK personnel at the British nuclear tests in Australia

More than 20 000 British servicemen took part in the nuclear tests conducted in Australia and on Christmas and Malden islands in the 1950s. Of the 20 000 servicemen, most were on national service and in their early 20s. The group also contained 238 New Zealanders and 62 Fijians. All were involved in a wide range of duties from highly technical detonation preparations to catering and small other jobs.
Studies into the health impacts of the nuclear tests in Australia

Several inquiries and studies have been conducted by both the UK and Australian governments and by others over the years arising from concerns that participation in the nuclear tests in Australia has lead to illnesses and medical conditions. Summaries of some of the studies are to be found Appendix 1 to the recent mortality and cancer incidence study.(11) The Appendix 1 comments mainly refer to surveys of test participants that have been undertaken. However, not all studies, inquiries and reports into the health impacts on nuclear test participants are referred to in this Appendix. Some of those referred to and also some not referred to are discussed in more detail below.

Kerr Committee Report

In May 1984, the then Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh appointed a committee, under the chairmanship of Professor C B Kerr, to review the data on atmospheric fallout arising from British nuclear tests in Australia. The review only dealt in part with health-related issues, but recommended that there was enough evidence to warrant further investigation into health affects and that a repository of nuclear test data and files be established and maintained.(15) The Kerr Report was quite critical of the AIRAC No. 9 report of 1983.(16) The Kerr Report was fairly thin on substantive conclusions about the impacts of radiation as it didn t have much independent scientific evidence to refer to. Rather it noted there was much anecdotal evidence of disease and illness amongst participants who had made submissions to the report. In its own words it drew conclusions from evidence submitted .(17)

The Kerr Report was heavily criticised by the AIRAC as being too thin on professional analysis of the evidence and the AIRAC took the Kerr Report as an attack on their professional conduct and integrity in advising the government on the issues.(18)
McClelland Royal Commission

Arising from concerns about the impact of the tests in the Kerr Report and the conflict between the opinions by the AIRAC with the Kerr Report conclusions, the government in July 1984 appointed Mr Justice J R McClelland to conduct a Royal Commission. The report of the Royal Commission was presented in November 1985.(19) The McClelland commission report was quite critical of the AIRAC No. 9 Report and also of the Department of Health survey report. The McClelland commission report concluded that there was no point in conducting an epidemiological study of those involved in the tests, due to the deficiencies in the available data.(20) This appears to be, in part, based on examinations by the McClelland commission report of survey reports conducted by the South Australian government in the early 1980s into the cancer incidence in Aborigines exposed to test radiation and comments these reports made on the feasibility of post-test epidemiological studies.

The South Australian government reports questioned the reliability of post epidemiological studies, be they prospective studies, or cross-sectional studies or retrospective case-control studies, due to the very small population of Aboriginal people involved and the lack of any comparable population elsewhere in the community. The McClelland commission report seems to have concluded that these comments/analysis made in the South Australian reports would also apply to nuclear test participants as well, notwithstanding they are a much larger group with a comparable population in the broader community. The McClelland commission report was also critical of the management of the conduct of the tests by the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee (AWTSC) claiming:

The AWTSC failed to carry out many of its tasks in a proper manner. At times it was deceitful and allowed unsafe firing to occur. It deviated from its charter by assuming responsibilities which properly belonged to the Australian government.(21)
Public health impact from fallout from British nuclear weapons in Australia

A report was commissioned by the Australian Radiation Laboratory (ARL) into the public health impact from fallout from British nuclear tests in Australia.(22) This report was originally provided to the McClelland Royal Commission of 1985, but was not included in the report as it covered matter outside the Commissions terms of reference. The ARL report only examined and reported on the population not directly involved in the test activities, that is the civilian population (including Aboriginal people) away from the test sites. So the ARL report did not comment on nuclear test participants or the Aboriginal people exposed to radiation in the tests.
Overseas studies
1988 and 1993 government sponsored studies in the UK

In the UK, two studies were conducted by the UK National Radiological Protection Board on personnel who participated in the British nuclear tests in Australia. The first report was issued in 1988, with a follow-up report in 1993. The 1988 report identified a possible increased risk in test participants developing multiple myeloma and leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia). As a consequence of this report, the British Government extended their war pensions scheme to cover British participants in the nuclear weapons tests who had these conditions. Following the publication of the follow-up study in 1993, the British Government tightened its regulations, deciding to accept new claims only if leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) had developed in participants within the first 25 years after the nuclear weapons tests.
Studies by Sue Rabbit Roff in the UK

More recently, an Australian-born academic working at the University of Dundee, Sue Rabbitt Roff, conducted two studies (1997 and 1998) which focussed attention on the health of personnel who participated in the nuclear weapons tests in Australia.(23) The first Rabbit Roff report on mortality of 1997 showed a significantly higher mortality rate amongst nuclear test participants from neoplasms than for a like group in the general population. The second Rabbitt Roff study report of 1998 found an increased incidence of some cancers in the participant population than in the general community that warranted further comparison and examination.
Recent UK studies

The British Government has announced that a further inquiry is to be conducted by the National Radiological Protection Board. Also instigated by the Sue Rabbitt-Roff study reports in 2003, the UK government also commissioned a follow-up study on the mortality and incidence of cancer over the period 1952-98 in men from the UK who participated in the UK s atmospheric nuclear weapons tests and experimental programs.(24) Generally this study found no greater incidence of death or cancer in the nuclear test participant population than in a like population not involved in the tests. This is similar to the very recent Australian government mortality and cancer incidence study results.(25)
Monitoring of nuclear test participants studies and new evidence

The process by which the Government monitors the results of studies into the impacts of the nuclear tests was outlined by Mr Kevin Andrews, MP in an answer to a question on notice in the House of Representatives on 15 May 2002.(26)
Kaldor report commissioned by the Australian government

John Kaldor, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of New South Wales was asked in January 1999 by the Australian Government to review research by Sue Rabbitt Roff into the health of nuclear veterans from the UK.(27) Her work was of interest because many of the tests had occurred in Australia and involved the Australian military and civilians. The terms of reference for his review were to basically examine the findings made by Sue Rabbitt Roff, in particular her conclusion that there was a higher incidence of cancer and deaths amongst nuclear test participants, and report to government. Kaldor reported back to the Government in July 1999.(28) The major findings of his report were:

The Rabbitt Roff studies looked at the causes of death and self-reported health status of members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. She did not use any standard epidemiological method for comparing the occurrence of death or illness in the study population with a relevant unexposed population. Due to methodological limitations the studies provide no new information about health risks experienced by Australian participants in the UK Tests.

Rabbitt Roff s finding concerning high levels of multiple myeloma should be tested further by cross-matching the cases she identified with those identified in a 1991 study by the UK National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).

The value of further mortality or cancer incidence studies of Australian test participants and the combination of those studies with the NRPB studies should be investigated.
Australian government-commissioned mortality and cancer incidence studies recently released

It was largely due to the recommendations in the Kaldor report that the Government announced a study into the mortality and cancer incidence of nuclear test participants in 1999.(29) The cancer incidence and mortality studies studies were released on 28 June 2006.(30) The study estimated that there are some 5 500 nuclear test participants alive today.(31)

Compensation for illness/injuries arising out of participation in the nuclear tests
UK and Australian agreement for compensation

The UK and Australian governments signed an agreement on 11 December 1993 under which Britain agreed to pay Australia 20 million in an ex-gratia settlement of Australia s claims concerning the British nuclear test program in Australia. Under this agreement, the payment was to cover future claims for compensation for participants.(32)

There have been a number of means by which those who participated in the British atomic weapons testing program have been able to claim compensation for any adverse health effects, which they claim to have suffered as a result of the tests. The Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill sets out in brief these compensation arrangements.(33)

The Roff Studies referred to:
S Rabbitt Roff, Mortality profile from a pre-defined sample of death certificates of veterans of UK nuclear weapons tests, Dundee University Medical School, October 1997 and

S Rabbitt Roff, Report on morbidity study of the British nuclear tests veterans association and the New Zealand nuclear tests veterans association and their families, Dundee University Medical School, April, 1998.

It remains exceptionally difficult for Australian nuclear veterans to win compensation under the current regime.

While there may be some improvement in process, the Australian nuclear veterans have been driven to take their case to the Human Rights Commission.

There has always been a strong moral basis for government to acknowledge and remedy the degradation in quality of life suffered by nuclear veterans and their families. The regime of decades of imposed contest between the service personnel and government is a long standard insult to the veterans.

For many, the denial of justice is part of the cover up percieved to have been in place since the time of tests.

A coverup which the Royal Commission involved the Chair of the Safety Committee, Titterton, being subject to the secrecy provisions of the USA and Britain, and who was found by the Royal Commission to have acted in manner which placed his duty to Australia in a subordinate position rather than in a pre-eminent one.

Titterton admitted to the Royal Commission he with held critical information from both the Safety Committee and the Australian Government.