Issue 24 Bulletin of Nuclear Veterans and Children July 2014

fissionline

Caption describing pic-

ture or graphic.

Lead Story Headline

Secondary Story Headline

This story can fit 75-125

words.

Your headline is an impor-

tant part of the newsletter

and should be considered

carefully.

In a few words, it should

accurately represent the con-

tents of the story and draw

readers into the story. De-

velop the headline before you

write the story. This way, the

headline will help you keep

the story focused.

Examples of possible head-

lines include Product Wins

Industry Award, New Prod-

uct Can Save You Time!,

Membership Drive Exceeds

Goals, and New Office

Opens Near You.

PAGE 2 FISSIONLINE 24

THE British Nuclear Tests Veter-ans’ Association officially surren-dered to the Ministry of Defence on October 29, 2008, fissionline can reveal. In a deal kept below the radar from the vast majority of its mem-bers, the BNTVA executive agreed to ditch a UK-style Row-land study in favour of a much less effective ‘health needs’ study of veterans. In a separate clause to the ‘surrender terms’, the executive also agreed with the Ministry of Defence that it was not possible to overturn war pension decisions that had gone against nuclear veterans. They went along with the Minis-try of Defence position that it had to work within the “art of the pos-sible” and would only look at “inconsistencies” in the way indi-vidual war pension claims had been treated. The dual climb-down came dur-

ing private discussions between BNTVA Chairman John Lowe, together with BNTVA officials Jeff Liddiatt and Doug Hern at a meeting with Defence Minister Kevan Jones and several MoD officials. The crucial turning point came when it was agreed there was “no point” in the UK replicating the peer-reviewed Rowland cytoge-netic study, which proved New Zealand mariners were damaged by radiation at Britain’s H-bomb tests. Official minutes of the meeting, one of several held between the MoD and the BNTVA, were re-leased to fissionline after freedom of information requests. The meetings were called by a panicked MoD after it was rocked by the publication of the Rowland study which for the first time pro-vided peer-reviewed evidence of radiation injuries to troops who witnessed A-bomb tests.

The decision by the BNTVA ex-ecutive not to pursue a Rowland study in the UK was greeted tri-umphantly by Jones who later announced: “I was pleased that everyone in the meeting was gen-erally in agreement with me that there is no point replicating this piece of research in the UK.” To drive the point home, he added: “The Rowland Report is already on the table and any new work is not anticipated to tell us anything further about any possi-ble link between participation in nuclear tests and subsequent ill health.” The move signaled the end of the BNTVA as a campaign group and the beginning of a far more pas-sive role for the organisation that had fought for 30 years. It was now reduced to a junior partner role with the MoD in an ineffec-tual health needs study which has not helped a single veteran. *MORE NEXT TIME

NUKE VETS SELLOUT

Soubry has been pro-moted within the Ministry of Defence and is now just one step away from the full cabinet,” said the official. “She now has more responsibilities than previously, but she is still fully engaged in looking after veterans’ affairs.” One nuclear veteran com-mented:“Put your tin hats back on.”

There were hopes of a softening of attitude toward Britain’s nuclear vet-erans when flinty-hearted Minister for Veterans Anna Soubry was tipped for greater things in the Cam-eron reshuffle which promoted more women into government. But Soubry, 57, who famously made mincemeat of nuke vets champion John Baron during a parliamentary debate, is going nowhere, according to her official spokesperson. “We are glad to announce that Ms

OH NO! SHE’S STILL THERE

Backroom discussions that torpedoed Nuke Vets justice campaign

Backroom dealers L to R: Defence Minister Kevan Jones. BNTVA team: John Lowe, Jeff Liddiatt, Doug Hern

PAGE 3 FISSIONLINE 24

By Roy

Sefton Dear Prime Minister, I write in my capac-ity as Chairman of the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veter-ans Asso-

ciation, (NZNTVA) to express my concern at developments in the UK. There was a time when the veteran members of the NZNTVA/BNTVA stood shoulder to shoulder and lent support and assistance to each other as they did during their service at the UK's nuclear weapons sites. However a change of BNTVA administration has resulted in a change of BNTVA direction that no long includes consul-tation between the two associations. The outcome is the New Zealand vet-erans UK interests are being ignored. Additionally although I have no au-thority to speak for them, there are UK veterans who are not supportive of the BNTVA, and veterans from Fiji, and Australia who now find themselves in the same isolated situation. The recent speech delivered at the 2014 BNTVA AGM illustrates well the many misconceptions and inaccurate opinion held by the BNTVA execu-tive. In particular it shows well the BNTVA's policy of disassociation with the NZ veterans, (and in my opinion, those of Fiji and Australia also). The self appointed position of the BNTVA being the prime body to represent the UK veterans is also incorrect and un-democratic. It gives no chance for consideration of input from any veter-ans who are not members of the BNTVA and those outside of the UK. In the BNTVA's decision to con-cede pursuing compensation settle-ments in exchange for £25million for obscure use for quote, "3500", mem-bers. That number of members is considered incorrect by veterans in the UK and many veterans do not agree with the policy. Indeed Minister Ro-batham made the point at a meeting with the BNTVA that a number of veterans preferred compensation. The Supreme Court hearing although intended to address the question of "Limitation" and qualification for Claimants from the UK, NZ, and Fiji, with the Australians, represented by separate counsel, observing the pro-ceedings, was lost by the most narrow of votes, "one". Too close I believe to say that true justice had been served. I

notice that all of the court hearings in-cluded opinion from both sides on the Rowland study findings of significant elevated chromosome damage in the NZ Operation Grapple veterans. The Rowland study was downgraded by the UK Government because it failed to provide information on the health con-ditions that chromosome translocations may cause. The fact is the study re-searchers were not medically qualified to give such detailed opinion. That responsibility was presumed by NZNTVA to be left to Government. Further criticism was directed at the methodology used in the study. On completion the research was subjected to the usual protocols. It was published in a very reputable European Journal specialising in genetic research and peer reviewed. Further support was voiced by scientists internationally, including a favourable report by Dr David Brenner, Higgins Professor of Radiation Biophysics at Columbia Uni-versity centre for Radiological Re-search, New York, to the UK High Court. In New Zealand a "Ministerial Advisory Group on Veterans Health" was set up by the Government. Chaired by Profes-sor John Campbell of Otago University, NZ. A group of six academics of the group, and invited scientists, disre-garded all previous publication and peer reviews of the Rowland study. They started afresh to review all aspects of the research. On 23rd December 2010, Professor Campbell advised the NZ Government of the Advisory Groups conclusions which in part stated:- “i) The Massey University mFISH study results do provide evidence that the nuclear test veterans were exposed to ionising radiation. It is not possible to determine the extent of the exposure from these studies. ii) The clinical consequences of this, if any are not known." The Massey research has therefore been subjected twice to rigorous scientific investigation including one set up by the NZ Government. There can be no doubt as to the scientific integrity of the Rowland research. It must also be con-cluded that the very same factors that radiologically affected the NZ veterans have also affected all of the veterans, irrespective of their country of origin , who took part in the UK testing pro-gramme. Previous UK Government opinion has denied irradiation of the servicemen who served at the sites, except for air crews. The Rowland report proves that personnel stationed at considerable distances from Ground Zero have been affected by contaminants probably by inhalation and ingestion. Professor Al Rowland is strongly of the

opinion that as the veterans are to this day carrying active contaminants within their bodies, they must have suffered various types of cancers and ill-health which has resulted in earlier deaths and chronic health conditions, and that situation has existed right up to the present. Additionally Dr Rowland considers abnormal damage to chromosomes has the ability to cause cancers and other health problems. Indeed some well known health conditions can be identified due to chromosome abnor-malities. CONCLUSIONS a. The court hearings did not restrict argument related to Limitation only. Argument was also exchanged on operational, radiation levels, questions of health and in particular the Row-land study. b. It can now be safely considered that the Rowland study reveals that personnel involved in the nuclear weapons testing programme have suffered chromosome damage. c. As such legal argument against the findings of the Rowland study can now be ignored. d. This leaves only the question of Limitation. Considering the final hear-ing before the Supreme Court found against the veterans proceeding for compensation claims was decided by ONE VOTE ONLY. and e. With the argument against the Rowland study now found to be incor-rect, the case against the veterans must be greatly diluted and the Su-preme Courts finding must likewise must also be compromised.. f. Additionally the court has an op-tion to disregard applying Limitation. g. I submit that the previous Supreme Court finding be ruled invalid and immediate negotiations be initiated to investigate settlement for the claim-ants and costs against Rosenblatt So-licitors be cancelled. h. There is additional assistance to compensation that can be offered to the UK veterans and widows also. An investigation into these options is also encouraged. Roy Sefton QSM

NO THANKS MR PM fissionline director Roy Sefton confronts Prime Minister Cameron

PAGE 4 FISSIONLINE 24

THE APPEAL against the First Tier Tribunal decision was

fiercely contested by the MoD’s bar-rister Ms Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC (left). She took the best part of two days trying to con-v i n c e J u d g e Charles that the

tribunal had been right to deny war pension rights to servicemen who participated in nuclear weap-ons tests. Ms Mulcahy argued the first tier tribunal had got the law right and that the Appeal Court should not interfere just because there had been disagreement. She went on to discuss the stan-dard of proof needed for claiming health conditions were the result of exposure to radiation. She said the law states that the claimant must raise a reasonable doubt based on reliable evidence that he suffered an injury which was caused by service in the Armed Forces. Anthony Metzer QC for the veter-ans argued the appellants only had to show a reasonable doubt that they suffered injury or a health condition as a result of ex-posure to ionizing radiation while taking part as a serviceman at the nuclear tests. Judge Charles remarked that al-though the first tier tribunal had found in favour of the MoD, it had provided no reasons for the deci-sion. He added it had also failed to explain what was being re-jected and why. Ms Mulcahy clashed frequently with the judge on this point.

Caption de-

scribing pic-

ture or

graphic.

In later arguments, a discussion arose as to what level of radiation was required to raise the possibil-ity that exposure had been harm-ful. The veterans legal team said any radiation above background, that is what is there in the envi-ronment anyway, was enough to be a threat to health. The MoD team was unable to answer this because there had not been enough radiation monitors de-ployed on the island. Ms Mulcahy continued to argue that there was insufficient evi-dence to support claims that ser-vicemen were irradiated by con-taminated water or by general movement on the island. The second week of the trial was taken up with the appeals by two veterans represented by Dr Chris Busby, whose evidence, contro-versially, was not allowed in the

first tier hearing. Dr Busby, an expert on nuclear physics and the health effects of radiation, said all his previous appeals before the tribunal had been successful and that he had had similar success in American proceedings. He was cross-examined for two days by the MoD team who questioned his impartiality as an expert wit-ness because he was a passionate campaigner and activist for his organisation, Green Audit. Dr Busby stood up to the challenge, although it became apparent that in some material areas, he was not supported by other physicists. When the case ended there was general agreement that Judge Charles felt the first tier decision was poor. If he allows the appeal, the likely outcome is that he will order a retrial to be heard before a different tribunal later this year.

Judge Stubbed Out Retrial on the cards as questions raised about Judge Stubbs’ handling of First Tier Tribunal

The special Ionising Radiation Pension Appeal Tribunal was mired in controversy after Judge Hugh Stubbs dismissed nearly all pension claims despite overwhelming evidence of radiation damage to ex-servicemen who took part in A-bomb tests . There was further disquiet after it was learned the judge died from a terminal illness not long after announcing his decision. An appeal against the Stubbs decision was heard before Judge Charles who has indicated he was not happy with the decision. According to a legal insider it could lead to a sensational retrial.

PAGE 5 FISSIONLINE 24

ing firm ATOS. The French-based organisation, which carries out fit-for-work assessments on disabled peo-ple, was recently sacked by the Bene-fits Agency after a welter of bad pub-licity. Ex-Royal Engineer Mr Shaw, 76, from Newcastle currently gets a 30 per cent disability pension for skin cancer after he was involved in clean-up operations on the island in 1958. He is now fighting for a full war pen-sion for various other injuries. He said: “This firm want to send a cou-ple of so-called medical experts to

Christmas Island veteran Denis Shaw got a nasty shock when he received a letter from the Ministry of Defence ordering him to see ‘medical experts’ from the controversial benefits slash-

my house to carry out an assessment of my injuries. This is a sinister de-velopment. It looks as though the MoD is taking over where the Bene-fits Agency left off. What can ATOS possibly know about radiation?

Watch Out! ATOS Is About

By Ken McGinley I met a lot of good mates during my year on Christmas Island and non more so than the 100 or so Fijian soldiers and workers who were posted with me. They were an extremely happy, friendly bunch of men who would do any-thing for you. I worked alongside them as we helped strengthen the airfield for the arrival of the big Valiant bombers used to drop the H-Bombs. They never com-plained about the sometimes back-breaking work we were involved in. In fact they seemed to relish it and always seemed to be singing; I sang along with them and can still remember word for word their national anthem. They were a people who had an awful lot of respect, and even love, for the British and the Empire. When the bombs went off they were terri-fied, as were we all, but they soon recaptured their sunny disposi-tions. Unfortunately, like many of us, they got sick in later years. But unlike us few knew nor seemed to

care very much about what hap-pened to them. Our own Ministry of Defence repaid their dedication by refusing to even consider giv-ing those who were injured a war pension. I became aware of their plight back in 1993 and wrote on their behalf to the Ministry of De-fence. The result? You’ve guessed it: a blank refusal. A “Senior Claims Officer” wrote on Novem-ber 23, 1993: “I believe the Fijians would not be eligible for British forces’ war pensions…” I never

forgot the coldness of that reply. I was delighted to meet up with one of my old pals, Pita Rokoratu, (picture) in London a few years ago as part of the Rosenblatt class action. Although a very sick man, Pita still had the same sunny dis-position. He died not long after, but I intend that he, and those like him, are not forgotten. We at fissionline are now in touch with his compatriots in Suva, the Fijian capitol. I hope to take up their kind offer of visiting them soon.

Forgotten Fijians fissionline Director Ken McGinley remembers the forgotten A-bomb heroes

In 1983 a group of sick nuclear veterans got together to form an association. Their common purpose was to demonstrate that their illnesses were caused by exposure to radiation at the A-bomb tests in the 1950s. Their campaign took off and hundreds — then thousands — of ex-servicemen came forward with similar stories of disease, illness and early death. But worse was to follow: it soon became clear that many of the men had passed genetic illnesses on to their offspring. There was a national out-cry. The government of the day ordered a statistical survey into cancer and mortality rates among the 20,000 nuclear servicemen. The study, one of the largest ever car-ried out, found leukaemias, a universally accepted marker for radiation exposure, were “significantly higher” in nuclear veterans than in a similar number of service-men not involved in the tests. Instead of accepting this, the government ordered more studies. These suggested the men had come to no harm. But in 2007 the New Zealand Rowland report was published which proved once and for all that men wit-nessing A-bomb tests suffered radiation damage. The Government could not fault the report so, with the agreement of the BNTVA leadership, they chose to ignore it and settled instead on a shoddy ‘Health Needs Audit’ which proved nothing and helped no-one. The decision by the BNTVA executive to surrender the enormous advantage given to them by the Rowland Report must surely rank as the biggest betrayal ever by an organisation set up to demonstrate exactly what the report proved.

fissionline

casons. And as for it being as ‘good as getting a medal’, as one febrile executive member of the association trumpeted...well I suggest he go and get a cold shower before he self-combusts.

*

Our exclusive story about how the BNTVA chiarity bosses asked for a pay-off out of funds earmarked for the world’s poor upset a few people.

Try as I might, I can’t get ex-cited about David Cameron’s ‘historic announcement’ last week in Parliament in reply to a PMQ from an increasingly

desperate-looking John Baron MP. I may be missing something, but his ‘official recognition’ of Britain’s nuclear veterans in the form of an expression of being ‘extremely grateful’, is not much different from what successive defence ministers have been saying for the past 15 years. The fact that it is the Prime Minister who is saying it I sup-pose adds a little bit more weight. After five years of ‘working hard behind the scenes’ (as the BNTVA Charity bosses have apparently been doing) it is some-thing to show for all that effort, and a victory of sorts. But as to it being an ‘historic announcement’, as some excit-able members of the BNTVA have proclaimed, it is not really up there in the pantheon of parliamentary oc-

So what? Charity begins at home they said….and besides countries like India that are beneficiaries of the UK’s over-seas aid have their own nuclear weapons and even a space programme. A point of view, I suppose. But don’t forget thousands of Indian soldiers fought beside and died alongside British troops through two world wars and innumer-able other conflicts. The doughty Ghurkhas also distinguished themselves alongside British troops. Nepal is an evolving country with many modernis-ing projects in the pipeline. Are we to cut their aid to pay the Nuke Vets? Try telling that to Joanna Lumley. And what happens if the Scots vote for independ-ence come September? Do we cut them off as well? The argument is nonsense, of course. The fact is that British over-seas aid helps millions of poor people, from India, Africa and many other parts of the world out of starvation and stone-age living conditions. I, for one, would not take a penny from any of them.

A THANKYOU SIMPLY WON’T DO MR CAMERON

LEST WE FORGET

fissionline is an independent newspaper with no political ties. It is read all over the world

by more than 13,000 (and growing) people. Join our ever-expanding army by contacting:

fissionline@gmail.com for free copy. Or you can Google us at ISSUU fissionline