nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

British Nuclear Test Veterans Update – Fissionline 54

main

Posted to nuclear-news.net by Shaun McGee 5th April 2018

This is an extract of an article published by Prof. Chris Busby in this months Fissionline magazine sent to me by a concerned member of the public. In it Prof. Busby discusses a change of strategy that has been submitted to the courts concerning health damage to the British Nuclear test Veterans. However, not only is the statutory response time for this submission been exceeded (by some weeks) by the UK “Misery” of Defence (MoD) but also his emails were hacked which delayed the submission of the final draft of the papers that supports the argument (Fusion Doctrine at work?). Here is a link to the Fissionline Magazine which has many interesting nuclear related articles and please support the Fissionline Magazine as it is being filtered (re-indexed etc) by Googles search engine etc (Which we have discussed and proven on this blog recently and discussed here, in part);  https://issuu.com/fission/docs/fissionline-54

The June 2016 Pensions Appeals hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice was intended to be the last word on the Nuclear Veterans issue. The findings for the 14 appellants (of which I represented two—Don Battersby and Barry Smith—were intended to be automatically applicable to all test veteran pension appeals that came along in the future. To knock the issue of the test veteran illnesses on the head once and for all. In particular, it was the finding by the 2016 Tribunal under judge Sir Nicholas Blake, that the radiation doses received at the test sites in Australia and at Christmas Island were not large enough to cause cancer, or indeed any of the illnesses claimed, that laid down the law for all subsequent hearings. additionally, any other finding of that Tribunal (e.g. which cancers cannot be caused by radiation) could be used to defeat any subsequent use of the same argument in a new determination.
First let me write a few lines about justice and judges in England. Julian Assange, (Wikileaks) who is still in sanctuary at the Embassy of Ecuador in London, was recently told by a British judge that his new passport, issued by Ecuador, would not protect him from arrest if he emerged from the building. This is actually an assault on international law and the concept of passports. Assange attacked the judge for bias. He drew attention to an EU document which reported the results of a confidential questionnaire survey where judges in all the EU States were asked if they had decided a case in a direction under pressure from the government. Britain was one of the worst, only comparable with Albania, Bulgaria and Poland for lack of independent justice.
So, it was sad, but no surprise, that Blake, previously famous for the Deepcut Barracks decision not to investigate, refused to listen to our expert witnesses, ignored our Statement of Case, and effectively colluded with the Secretary of State’s lawyer, Adam Heppinstall, to avoid addressing any of the questions raised by our legal submissions. I myself subsequently made a formal complaint about Heppinstall’s behaviour to the Bar Standards Board.
The 2016 First Tier Tribunal process failed to follow the Directions made by Judge Charles in December 2014 and after Blake’s disgraceful decision I applied to the First Tier
(refused) and next to the Upper Tier (also refused) to appeal on this clear Point of Law. The Bar Standards Board did nothing. So, as the table from the EU study shows, England is a judicial Banana Republic. But never give up, never surrender! If 43% of British judges are dodgy, that means 57% are not. Certainly, the late judge Hugh Stubbs was an honest and  a good person. Between 2004 and 2010, I was responsible, as expert witness, in persuading him in five Pension appeals to find for the veteran. Then in 2014 Judge Charles threw me out as an expert witness and I was refused any chance to appeal that decision on a point of law. Not only that, I was fined £2700 in costs for having the temerity to try.

I came back as the representative, and fielded four Professors, as expert witnesses in the new First Tier under judge Blake. Although that case was lost, a development enabled me to have another go at this. That was the death from pancreatic cancer of Trevor Butler in 2016. Trevor was one of the appellants in the 2016 list, but for a range of conditions relating to immune system and kidney damage. Needless to say, Blake threw out his appeal with the others. But Butler died from pancreatic cancer during the case. And Don Battersby, whom I was representing, and who was appealing for chronic lymphatic leukaemia, also died from pancreatic cancer during the case. Barry Smith, whose widow I represented died of pancreatic cancer too, as did Alun Williams who was one of the original appellants. So that is 4 appellants who all died from pancreatic cancer out of 14 appellants who had been selected at random.

In the same way as throwing four sixes one after another in dice is extremely unlikely, this cluster of 4 pancreatic cancers is statistically impossible unless the victims had a common cause for their deaths from pancreatic cancer. It is like a 50-sided die with one of the sides being pancreatic cancer. Imagine the odds of throwing four of those in a row. We are bringing this statistical argument back to the Tribunal with an eminent statistician, Prof Roy Carr-Hill. But the issue of the pancreatic cancers is ludicrous at the out- set. Two of these, Battersby and Williams, had been given pensions for their pancreatic cancer (by Stubbs and following Stubbs) and two had been refused: told by Blake (relying on evidence from Geraldine Thomas, a biochemist) that pancreatic cancer cannot be caused by radiation. What a farce.
However, the question is:

How to proceed in a legal atmosphere constrained by the precedent set by Blake. It is no good saying that Prof Geraldine Thomas is a dishonest, ignorant and biased scientist, in no way an expert in any area she gave evidence on, and that nothing she said could be relied upon. In English law, a judge can find that Black is White, and you cannot come along afterwards and say that it isn’t. These radiation dose arguments, were all laid to rest by Blake. We have to find a way round.
And there is one. It is based on avoiding the concept of radiation dose altogether and focusing on a new approach, chemistry, or specifically the interaction between chemistry
and radiation: Radiochemical Genotoxicity. This is a perfectly valid argument. It is emerging science in the last 20 years that certain radioactive materials, when ingested or inhaled, are chemically attracted to DNA. It is damage to DNA, in the form of mutations, that results in cells that become cancerous. The radiation “doses” delivered by these substances, and calculated painstakingly by the SSD witnesses using the current radiation model, are of little use in predicting or explaining the genetic damage they cause, because it is a combination of their chemical identity and form which is responsible for their genotoxicity, their ability to introduce cancer-causing mutations.

The most important of these is Uranium. The Uranium content of the Christmas Island bombs was obtained for us from the MoD by judge Stubbs in 2012. He had to threaten the MoD to get the data, which was secret. In the Blake hearing, the SSD finally conceded that these data showed that 95% of all the solid material from the bombs at Christmas Island was Uranium, and that it amounted to 8 tonnes. It fell out as nanoparticles, on the island and in the sea. The material from the sea washed ashore on the island, contaminating the coast and coastal lagoons through sea-to-land transfer. It was inhaled from the air and ingested from contaminated water and food.
So our new case is based on Uranium; it entirely by-passes all the argument about “dose” on which previous appeals were fought. It is the chemical composition and genetic effects of the internal Uranium which is now the issue. The Blake Determination is therefore irrelevant, except insofar as we can employ previous reports by both our experts and other experts to argue that there was Uranium contamination. And there is plenty of evidence for that U-235, the fissile isotope in the bombs was even measured in the south west coastal area by the New Zealand surveys in the 1980s, but was wrongly characterised as Radium dial material, a cover-up that continues. I trekked down to the Case management hearing in London on 31 st January, presided over by a new Judge, Fiona Monk. The MoD began by asking that Blake’s decision about what cancers could not be caused by radiation should be accepted by any new Tribunal. Amazingly, she refused: saying that each case must be re-heard on its merits. Then I said that we were bringing in a new argument—radiochemical genotoxicity.

This naturally upset the defence; but the judge said we could bring in our new evidence and experts, and that we had 28 days to do so and send it to the defence. The Secretary of State then had 28 days to respond. I prepared a Statement of Case for Trevor Butler in the allotted time, and presented expert reports by Dr Keith Baverstock, who has kindly agreed to act as expert witness, and by Prof Roy Carr- Hill, the eminent statistician. But the SSD (as usual, and as usual without any application or explanation) is now out of time.
There are 28 outstanding cases. Most of them are represented by the Royal British Legion. They have no defence against the argument that the radiation doses were too small, and I believe that they will all go down on this. But for Trevor Butler we have shifted the goalposts.

Advertisements

April 5, 2018 - Posted by | Uncategorized

3 Comments »

  1. Reblogged this on Activist news source and commented:

    Update to the British nuclear test veterans appeal here

    Comment by arclight2011part2 | April 5, 2018 | Reply

  2. […] “…So our new case is based on Uranium; it entirely by-passes all the argument about “dose” on which previous appeals were fought. It is the chemical composition and genetic effects of the internal Uranium which is now the issue. The Blake Determination is therefore irrelevant, except insofar as we can employ previous reports by both our experts and other experts to argue that there was Uranium contamination. And there is plenty of evidence for that U-235, the fissile isotope in the bombs was even measured in the south west coastal area by the New Zealand surveys in the 1980s, but was wrongly characterised as Radium dial material, a cover-up that continues. I trekked down to the Case management hearing in London on 31 st January, presided over by a new Judge, Fiona Monk. The MoD began by asking that Blake’s decision about what cancers could not be caused by radiation should be accepted by any new Tribunal. Amazingly, she refused: saying that each case must be re-heard on its merits. Then I said that we were bringing in a new argument—radiochemical genotoxicity….” https://nuclear-news.net/2018/04/05/british-nuclear-test-veterans-update-fissionline-54/ […]

    Pingback by The coming “Cuban” #missile crisis – 2018 – Activist news source | April 6, 2018 | Reply

  3. It is not only cancer that is affected by the Atomic and Hydrogen bombs, sterility is probably one of the largest factors. I can prove that the radiation doses are greater than those stated by the likes of Mr R Cockerill, dosimetry Manager at AWE.

    I have had Judges ‘Directions’ made for various documents to be produced at court, but the cowardly Ministry of Defence refuse to hand them over. The ‘Original Compendium’ of radiation film badges for Grapple Z is a good example. The authorities have altered the documents they produce in court. I have uncovered a plethora of lies which I intend to reveal at Court. My latest appearance was in an office at the back of the Courts, there was no provision for onlookers. I would like my case to be heard at the Supreme court where the entire case could be seen by the viewing public.

    Comment by David Whyte | August 24, 2018 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: