From: Dennis Hayden
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:49 AM
To: Alan Rimmer
Cc: DAVID WHYTE ; Archie Ross ; ADVOCATE ; John Urquhart
Subject: The exclusion of Professor Busby’s evidence at the Pension Appeal
Hi Alan ,
This is a hurried response as I will be away for the rest of the day .
However , many thanks for July 2013 edition of Fissionline and again for the
excellent coverage of radiation related topics .
The controversial exclusion of Chris Busby as expert witness for nuc vet and
widow appellants at the Pension Appeals needed particular focus . We must
all applaud the long association Chris has had with fighting against the
consensus view of the establishment on the damage to veterans’ and others
health from inhaled and ingested fall out .
Professor Busby’s recent paper ” Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal
Radionuclides – 2013 ” written for Jacobs University , Bremen , Germany
contains 111 scientific papers supporting the science. This illustrates
that, far from Professor Busby holding a minority view, he is in fact at
the cutting edge of advanced knowledge on the subject . This latest paper
is yet another addition to works on behalf of all nuclear veterans and
The” Childrens Health Study 2007- for the BNTVA, C Busby and M de Messieres
” and”Metorogical records , airflow and other factors affecting local
fallout from British nuclear tests at Christmas Island in 1957 -58 – 2010 ”
by C Busby and D Williams are just other small examples of his unceasing
supportive work on our behalf .
There is every reason for the UK Ministry of Defence and Treasury Solicitors
to fear the solid scientific evidence by Britain’s leading independent
expert on ‘Nuclear Pollution and Human Health’ ( which happens to be the
subtitle of his 1995 book ” Wings of Death “) another work , which is
essential reading for all nuclear veterans . This is why Fissionline’s
acknowledgment of the importance of this campaigning, independent and
honest scientist is to be applauded .
Chris has a CV as long as your arm to back the science that the ICRP
radiation risk model is significantly flawed . This view demolishes the
opinion of governments’ and nuclear industry’s cosy club that radiation has
a threshold that only becomes harmful when doses exceed a minimum annual
permissible level of 50 mSv per annum .A point the military/ nuclear
industrial complex will defend at all cost which , of course, includes the
manipulation science and even court procedure by whatever means possible .
” Genetic damage occurs at the lowest levels ” [ see para 39 of the NZ
Attorney General’s 1978 submission to the International Court of Justice for
New Zealand’s reasons to oppose French nuclear testing in the Pacific ] and
please read the European Committee on Radiation Risk , Lesvos Declaration of
2009 signed by 17 eminent scientists from 10 nations who also support
Professor Busby’s work .
So, the outdated , 70 year old , politically convenient establishment view
of radiation risk to health is under severe attack . It is no wonder every
effort is being made to keep Chris out of the courts . After all, he has
won every Pension Appeal tribunal he has given evidence at and much more
The least we can do for Chris Busby is give him ALL the support we can and
DEMAND his presence as an INDEPENDENT expert on our behalf . In contrast,
many of the experts batting for the other side have track records of having
worked for government departments or institutions which of course cannot
give them any impartiality since the have at some time signed the official
secrets act .
Professor Busby wrote in a letter published in the Daily Mail of 30th March
2010 ; ” Arguments by the military and their government supporters are based
on the outdated , incorrect radiation risk model of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection ( ICRP ) using Japanese A- bomb
survivors . ”
Technology has moved on since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Perhaps we need to call for cytogenetic blood testing of all persons
potentially exposed to ionising radiation to check for GENETIC DAMAGE ?
Let’s get the rules of engagement defined for current and future use and
with the support of stalwarts such as Professor Busby let us go on and win.
All the best ,
founder of the CVFI
PS See fwwd emails also on the subject of the current impasse in litigation
This is copied also to International Advocate and Attorney at Law , Ian
Anderson for his comment on the best way forward .
From: Dennis Hayden
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 11:22 AM
Cc: DAVID WHYTE
Subject: Fw: Pension Appeal Decision
Hi Alan ,
Many thanks for copy no.5 of ‘Fissionline’ also sent to me by Dave as at the
time I had not had copy from you .
You may have noted from the exchange of email between 9th and 17th May
I’ve been extremely disappointed with the Pensions Appeal verdict . After
the 4 to 3 Supreme Court verdict I incorrectly assumed the legals would
hammer home our QC , James Dingeman’s boast ” We have proof of causation
“and focus at last on the inhalation and ingestion of alpha / beta particles
in the fallout area . Only ‘ reasonable doubt’ had to be shown , it should
have been just a walk in the park because the WHOLE of Christmas Island
and several hundreds of square miles of pacific ocean is the ‘forward area’
of fall out . On this science all appellants should have won their appeals .
On the basis of the verdict given those who were not successful should
appeal . As Dave said to me , if all appeals had been successful the MoD
would have appealed immediately !
The great concern of mine is that despite all the information on causation
we’ve passed to the legal team ( internal emitters from fall out , the
genetic damage shown in the Rowland study etc etc ) the MoD are trying to
say if you were at the southern tip of Christmas Island i.e. the ” forward
area ” you were at risk from internal alpha emitters ( Peter Williams), yet
if you were a few miles north ( Barry Smith , Ken McGinley et al ) you were
not at risk ! It’s a bit like the farmer, post Chernobyl, [ Heavy Water or
some other DVD ] with a fence bordering the outer limit of the area
designated radioactive from fall out , uninhabitable for hundred of years ,
when he asks a government official :” Will my cattle be affected if they put
their head over the fence ?” and the official ( obviously affiliated to the
MoD and Health Protection Agency ) said ” No , it would be better if your
cattle only stick their asses over .”
I spoke recently at public meeting in Lydney on the 16th for Severnside
Together Against Nuclear Development – STAND against Oldbury ,i.e against
the building of 3 or 4 huge new reactors on the site of the due to be
de-commissioned old power station . My focus was on the Health Effects of
Low Level Radiation , not from nuclear fall out but the licensed discharges
of alpha and beta particles from nuclear reactors . It’s the same science on
causation as the vets , inhalation and ingestion of alpha ad beta, leading
to a range of illness from immune system damage , sterility , still births,
childhood leukaemia , genetic damage passed to future generations . The talk
included a 3 minute extract showing the results of the Rowland Study .
It finished with a question and answer session after with the public . I
was introduced by STAND as a nuclear test vet , former member of the BNTVA,
now a Charity , founder of the CVFI and some questions were directed about
the nuclear test . My answer was : ” If you need to know the extent of
betrayal of the nuclear test veterans by government read BH &H etc” ..
STAND are planning more public meetings in the Severnside area and will hold
them in different towns such as Chepstow , Cinderford etc moving to
Gloucester , Newport and even to Bristol ( all areas within a possible
Fukushima / Chernobyl exclusion Zone if things went horribly wrong ) but
even without a catastrophic reactor meltdown 30 to 40 years of licensed
discharge and the inevitable small and other leakages never admitted to
environmental impact will be huge .
Have you got a professional flyer / leaflet that can be made available on
BH&H for such public meetings giving precise details of how the public can
obtain copy of your book . Fact is , my remit is to talk at these meetings
as Co-ordinator for the Health Effects of Low Level Radiation if I had to
talk about the nuclear tests I’d need a 15 hour slot rather than 15 minutes
From: Dennis Hayden
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 10:01 PM
To: Neil Sampson ; Dr Chris Busby
Cc: ANNA ; NICK ; DAVID WHYTE ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; ALAN BATCHELOR ;
Subject: Re: Pension Appeal Decision
Dear Neil and Chris ,
I agree this is not the best way to hold post- mortem of yet another impasse
in litigation .The Sawada paper is however vital evidence and Anna Smith
told me on the telephone that although her late husband Barry had included
this important evidence in his bundle the SPVA said to her it had ‘ not been
I suspect the true meaning is that it had ‘not been received’ because , in
the opinion of the SPVA / MoD etc , the Sawada paper , that has won
litigation cases in Japan , was evidence likely to cause the defence
problems . I have examined the whole Appeal Decision document and can find
no reference to this paper . Even in the relevant sections on Fall Out
para’s 105 to 138 where this paper would have impact as showing that fall
out from nuclear weapons testing in the pacific islands cover areas up to
1000 km from the point of detonations with significant health effects even
at that distance . The paper is also not listed in the ‘Studies on Health
Risks of Ionising Radiation’ from para 203 onwards where it also would have
relative evidentiary impact . The paper makes no appearance in Barry’s
decision notes . So it may have been ‘before the Tribunal ‘ as you say but
it was obviously ignored as evidence .
Appeals for all unsuccessful appellants should be considered because :
1) The Tribunal document , even to an untrained legal eye like mine, clearly
shows the SPVA/MoD set the parameters for the hearing in such a way as
evidence submitted , likely to establish causation of injury and / or
premature death by ingested fall out has been prevented from being fully
2) Our counsel Mr James Dingeman QC on the last day of the Supreme Court 4
to 3 verdict assured the law lords that we ‘had proof of causation’ . My
assumption was that this evidence would therefore be presented at the
Pension Appeal Hearings yet I find the ‘prime causal link’ of inhaled and
ingested fall out nor the ‘crucial and pivotal’ evidence of genetic damage
shown in the Rowland Study has not been fully examined .
We appear to have reached a watershed where treachery and manipulation of
the legal process has enabled Treasury solicitors to win another deceptive
victory . We veterans and widows need help .Perhaps Alan Rimmer may post
advice on his ‘Fissionline’ website for appellants to appeal or perhaps you
may have their addresses and on behalf of Rosenblatts contact them ?
From: Neil Sampson
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:13 PM
To: Dennis Hayden ; Dr Chris Busby
Cc: ANNA ; NICK ; DAVID WHYTE ; email@example.com ; ALAN BATCHELOR ;
Subject: RE: Pension Appeal Decision
It is generally not helpful to respond to comments piecemeal but I note that
you suggest that SPVA deny having received Prof Sawada’s helpful document
dealing with the cover-up of the effects of internal radiation and impliedly
that it was not produced at the recent Tribunal hearing. I am not sure
where that suggestion came from but I can confirm that it was in the papers
before the Tribunal.
DDI: +44 (0)20 7955 1453
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 0888
Mobile: +44 (0) 7785 303540
9-13 St. Andrew Street London EC4A 3AF
DX: 493 Chancery Lane
T +44(0)20 7955 0880
From: Dennis Hayden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 15 May 2013 07:46
To: Neil Sampson; Dr Chris Busby
Cc: ANNA; NICK; DAVID WHYTE; email@example.com; ALAN BATCHELOR;
Subject: Re: Pension Appeal Decision
Dear Neil and Chris ,
I believe ‘Reasonable Doubt ‘ has been discriminatingly applied .
This is a personal view by a nuclear veteran written to assist all veterans
and widows who have been justifiably dismayed by the pension appeal
tribunal’s decision . Having read the whole document it appears the tribunal
hearing has discriminatingly applied ‘reasonable doubt’ because insufficient
weight has been given to ALL appellants with regard to the hazard of
ingested /inhaled fall out at Christmas Island and other test locations.
In Williams for example, PARA 486.3, the tribunal document states :
” We find that Mr Williams ingested a small amount of radioactive material
at the time and was thereby internally exposed to ionising radiation
including alpha particles , the means of ingestion including inhalation (
dust directly from contaminated equipment and areas ) , orally ( through
eating and drinking whilst hands other body surfaces and clothing were
contaminated ) and through entering the blood stream through an open wound .
This exposure would not have been recorded on his personal film badge .”
PARA 489 concludes
” We therefore find that reliable evidence does raise a reasonable doubt
that Mr Williams activities at Christmas Island led to significant exposure
to ionising radiation above background ( para 486 ) for his death to be due
to or substantially hastened by service.”
This is an interesting admission because we have evidence that the whole of
the Island and several hundred square miles around the Islands where nuclear
testing takes place is a forward area of residual alpha and beta fall out .
In his paper ” Cover -up of the effects of internal exposure to residual
radiation from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ” , Professor
Shoji Sawada ( peer reviewed 2007 ) records ( Fig 2, ) abnormal births in
Marshallese Islanders per woman decreased with distance from the Bikini
Atoll nuclear tests .This evidence is worth repeating :
Professor Sawada then shows his research clearly indicates the effects of
nuclear test fall out extended over the whole of the Marshall Islands .
Before the test the abnormal birth rate per woman was only 0.04 per birth ..
After the tests the abnormal births rose to between 1.0 to 1.1 per woman at
100 km to 200 km from the distance to Bikini Atoll. Islands at the
distances of 900 km to 1000 km still showed abnormal births at 0.4 per
woman that is still 10 times the normal rate before nuclear testing .
Nuclear test fall out covers large areas .
Anna Smith whose husband Barry , like Williams , died from pancreatic cancer
has mentioned , prior to the tribunal , that the Sawada paper was sent in
Barry’s evidence bundle but the SPVA denied having received it !?
My personal view is that the whole of Christmas Island was a forward area
exposed to fall out on the basis of the above . This could explain why the
tribunal ignored the Sawada evidence and the implication is therefore that
all appellants cases should have been successful on the basis of inhaling
and ingesting radioactive fall out .
It is hoped that an appeal against this decision will be made . It is my
personal view that the deliberate exclusion of Dr Busby from being able to
attend the tribunal should not be allowed to be repeated again and the
attached list of papers are given serious consideration at the European
Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg .
The need for expert witness to cross examine those blocking justice is
essential and vital .
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:26 PM
To: Neil Sampson
Cc: Dennis Hayden ; ANNA ; NICK ; DAVID WHYTE ; STEPHEN EVANS ;
firstname.lastname@example.org ; ALAN BATCHELOR ; ADVOCATE
Subject: RE: Pension Appeal Decision
Dear Neil and All,
If I may make a relevant point here, Neil is wrong about my evidence.
My evidence would show that the low internal doses particularly from
Uranium and Plutonium are sufficient to cause the illnesses because the
Radiation Risk Model used by the government and which is fundamental to
these analyses, which uses the concept of ABSORBED DOSE, is faulty. It
would not be my word but it would be a whole series of research papers
in the peer review literature which show unequivocally that this is so.
CERRIE stated it. The French IRSN stated it. This is the key issue.
There is evidence. The court would have to address this evidence. The
current and MoD radiation risk model i.e. x amount of dose gives y
amount of cancer is not valid for internal exposures. That is why there
are all these child leukmias near nuclear sites. Neil is being
disingenuous: he knows this argument perfectly well. I came in on this
issue what I first met Neil Sampson and I discussed it with him and
Clive Hyer of Rosenblatts and started work on the big Rosenblatt case. I
told them then that these cases are not winnable without that, and that
is where you must start and that is how I won all the 5 other appeals I
have acted in. And the jury case on Depleted Uranium in Coventry. How
did you imagine I won every case I acted in, but Rosenblatts and Hogan
Lovells have lost all the cases they acted in? Interesting question eh?
That is also why I was squeezed out. And they relied on so called
experts who believe in the risk model. I cannot believe it was not a
This evidence was never before the court as I was not there to be cross
On 12.05.2013 14:30, Neil Sampson wrote:
> If I may add my personal view.
> The recent decision of the Tribunal and those of the Court of Appeal and
> the Supreme Court are predicated upon the repeated assertions of the
> Ministry of Defence that there is no record of exposure. I do not know
> which of three simple scenarios is correct
> 1 if the MoD has records it has not disclosed that support the
> 2 if the MoD has no records because non were made; or
> 3 if the MoD had records which would have supported the claims but
> they have been destroyed.
> With great respect to Chris Busby I do not think his lack of oral
> evidence made any difference to the result. The point made by the
> Tribunal is that it accepts the link between a range of diseases and
> ionising radiation but cannot find evidence of sufficient dose from the
> contemporaneous records produced by the MoD. That is not an issue that
> Chris can give evidence to overcome, yes he can postulate calculations
> to suggest levels of radiation (I must emphasise I do not denigrate his
> ability as a scientist) but that is not evidence to overide the MoD
> documents that have been disclosed and which the Tribunal accepts as
> The issue which I feel is important and which was raised in all the
> Courts and the Tribunal is that in every other nuclear power country the
> same problem exists – proving the individual dose absorbed by individual
> servicemen. In all the other countries this problem is acknowledged and
> the obligation to compensate is accepted. In the UK the MoD and all
> governments since the 1950’s have failed to make a public
> acknowledgement of exposure at all. The French Minister of Defence only
> recently accepted the position in relation to his country’s test
> It seems to me, and I emphasise this as a personal view, that it just
> cannot be correct that the test programmes of other countries caused
> their servicemen to be exposed but the UK tests did not expose UK and
> Commonwealth servicemen to the dangers of ionising radiation.
> A question perhaps for Ian Anderson, who I understand has done so much
> research in this area, is if there has ever been a comparison of the
> ‘safety’ systems adopted for US servicemen with that used by the UK. I
> have not found any such work but that does not mean it does not exist.
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Dennis Hayden [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 12 May 2013 12:04
> To: Neil Sampson; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: ANNA; NICK; DAVID WHYTE; STEPHEN EVANS; email@example.com; ALAN
> BATCHELOR; ADVOCATE
> Subject: Re: Pension Appeal Decision
> Dear all ,
> I agree with Dr Busby ALL appellants should appeal against this Pension
> Appeal decision .If the court had ruled all cases had been won ( thank
> you Dave ) we can be sure the Ministry of Defence would have immediately
> appealed . The question is whether there is a lawyer available in the
> UK to take this necessary appeal forward ?
> As with the Supreme Court 4 to 3 verdict last year the prime route of
> veterans causation of ill health and premature death , that is ingested
> and inhaled fall out radioisotopes acting as internal emitters appears
> , yet again , not to have been allowed to be cross examined by
> international expert independent witness such as Dr Busby . As founder
> of the Combined Veterans’ Forum International I believe it is not only
> the UK veterans who have to protected from current injustice but also
> those of our commonwealth allies in Australia , New Zealand and
> elsewhere who participated in the UK nuclear weapons test programme .
> Dr Busby’s earlier remarks “this is a clear case for an appeal by
> individual appellants who had not been consulted about my removal from
> the case and it represents a clear injustice because of this ” . In
> question of the attitude of the establishment towards the effects of low
> level radiation inhaled or ingested into the body I strongly believe
> legal use should be made in court of the 2003 intervention by government
> lawyers to prevent the government Committee Examining Radiation Risk
> from Internal Emitters ( CERRIE ) from including the views of
> independent experts Dr Busby and Richard Bramhall on this committee .
> In fact it appears the time has arrived when government scientific
> experts of the Health Protection Agency and lawyers of DEFRA ,
> representing the government’s view that internal emitters are no hazard
> to nuclear veterans , are cross- examined in court on this subject .
> They should be cross examined to explain why they blocked the CERRIE
> report in 2003 from presenting the views of independent experts and yet
> , barely three years later , admitted the death of Litvinenko was a from
> an internal emitter , ( that is , a low level fallout radioisotope
> polonium – 210, found in the trigger mechanism of nuclear weapons ). In
> response to Litvineko’s death Government scientists admitted in 2006
> this type of radiation represents no danger to human health ‘ unless
> inhaled and ingested ‘ .
> It is a fact of life veterans in fall out locations all needed to
> inhale , drink and eat to survive . Litivenko was dead within three
> weeks from the type of radiation said at the Supreme Court and now the
> Pension Appeal hearing to be “only low dose , low level radiation ” and
> therefore of no risk to health .
> Just a thought ,
> Regards to all ,
> —–Original Message—–
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 10 May 2013 10:18
> To: Neil Sampson
> Cc: Dennis Hayden; ANNA; NICK; DAVID WHYTE; STEPHEN EVANS;
> firstname.lastname@example.org; ALAN BATCHELOR; ADVOCATE
> Subject: RE: Pension Appeal Decision
> Dear Neil
>> As you know, and as the judge confirmed, my reports had no weight and
>> could not inform the decision without my being present for
>> cross-examination. Which is why I was excluded. The reason they lost
>> was because the Hogan Lovell case could not win without my evidence;
>> there was no case. And my evidence was excluded. I pointed this out
>> before the hearings. Of course, the vets believe that Hogan Lovells
>> knew this, and Kay who is Batterby’s daughter spoke with Stephen Evans
>> before the case and asked for my involvement even at that late hour.
>> Apparently she was told that if she involved me, Hogan Lovells would
>> pull out of representing her. I am sure that she will say this under
>> oath at any appeal. She was also apparently told that if the decisions
>> went against them, they could all appeal on this point of exclusion of
>> This is what I suggest they now do.
>> Chris Busby
Salient portion of a relevant document authored by the New Zealand Attorney General which provides the rationale for that nation’s position on the matters.
The New Zealand position is based on the facts and is in utter contradiction of the position taken by the British Government.
In fact, despite the Rudd’s government’s amendments to provisions regarding to Australian Nuclear Veterans in the same matter, it remains near impossible for Veterans and widows to achieve justice in Australia. Hence the current action here by Australian Nuclear Veterans via the Human Rights Commission. Any decision made by that authority will not be legally binding upon the Australian government.
The people of the world need to take note of these matters. The first step is governmental denial of dose records. The second step is to deny harm from internal emitters based upon “dose reconstruction”. In between, agents of the authorities promote the dose recieved as being “beneficial”.
The fourth step is to totally ignore the body of knowledge which is contrary to the “modern” line and which was originated at a time when the effects of internal emitters were first determined as military weapons.
See next post.