British Nuclear Test Veterans Association
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Committee News
OPEN STATEMENT
15 November 2002
50 years after Britain's first Nuclear Weapons Test Programme, which took place on the 3rd October 1952, we, the BNTVA, respectfully request, the present UK Government, to honour its duty of care to the nuclear veterans and their families.
This organisation has been asking this of the present Government and the previous one, for nearly twenty years and before many more veterans die, we shall once more place our requests before you.
1. War pensions be granted without the need for a tribunal, as recommended by Admiral Torlesse in the early 1950s.
2. A fair pensions policy and arrangements put in place for it to be revised to reflect each man's health problems.
3. A review of previously denied war pensions.
4. A repudiation of the two NRPB Studies, which have proved to be flawed - Sue Rabbitt Roff of Dundee University Medical School will provide details.
5. Funding for a Blood and Saliva programme to be conducted under the auspices of Dundee and St Andrews Universities. Because we were refused funding for this research, it had to be left to the New Zealand Government to have the integrity to supply funding so that their nuclear veterans could be tested. Now we ask you - if the subsequent findings of the New Zealand programme show justification, will this UK Government fund a Blood and Saliva Test on the UK nuclear veterans? For those who are not conversant with this particular test, the results can prove, up to 40/50 years ago, whether or not a veteran was irradiated. We are willing to take the chance that we are wrong in our claims, why will the present UK Government not take the chance that they may be correct and that nobody was harmed?
6. For twenty years this Association has been asking for pensions. However, now it is too late for many veterans and for those remaining, they would possibly only benefit for one or two years - if they are lucky - therefore compensation needs to be given consideration.
7. A full study conducted on our children and now also our grandchildren, by a non-governmental organisation. We have been told by the MOD, on a number of occasions, that they will not entertain this request and that we have to prove the men were damaged first before our children could be considered. This is not good enough. Our nuclear veteran families have a larger number of genetically affected children than the normal average and the quote, by Anthony Eden, when he first became Prime Minister in 1954, "Pity but we cannot help it" is not something for this country to be proud of! This comment was in reply to a 'possible genetic effect investigation' from the Nuclear Test Programme, held at that time.
There have been statements made to various veterans, by the MOD, that scientific studies have been held that prove the nuclear veterans were not harmed. The BNTVA has never been given the privilege of seeing these. There have been two statistical, epidemiological studies conducted by the NRPB, they were NOT scientific ones!
The first study result was released in January 1988 and this Association was informed that it warranted enough concern to have it continued for a further ten years with an interim report to be given. In 1993, the BNTVA was given this 'interim report' only we were informed that it was the final report and no further research was to be held. The first study had shown that our veterans had 25% more leukaemias and 100% more multiple myelomas than the average population. The second study, so we were informed, ruled out the multiple myelomas and that was it - no more research - no chance of all the other illnesses being investigated. When we queried the 100% multiple myelomas we were told "It is unfortunate that we chose a Control Group that did not have any multiple myelomas!" Surely that is the object of the exercise, to compare one group against another and take notice of the difference, not make excuses and not use the word 'unfortunate'!
In 1997 our organisation discovered, we were never told officially, that the NRPB Studies were going to be down-loaded to papermat and placed in a office in the MOD. I, as Secretary, immediately wrote and asked if it could be given to an independent body, such as a University, so that we could carry on further research. To make a long story short, although, in the beginning the answer was 'possibly', I was given obstacle after obstacle to overcome as to why we, the Association, could not do this. The Ethics Committee was just one of the obstacles but each time we were able to overcome the problem. The final obstacle was - we could not afford it! We raised the money and said 'now can we have the data'. The answer was 'no'. That is when we asked Dundee University Medical School would it conduct an independent study.
This research took two years with the results being published in 1999 but they were worth waiting for. They were startling enough to persuade the New Zealand and Fijian Governments to award their nuclear servicemen pensions. It made the Australian Government begin to work out how they could do likewise for their nuclear veterans. Sadly, the only offer the UK Government awarded us was - another Study! This is still ongoing and is long past its proposed publishing date. However, as it has been conducted, using the same method as the previous two, we doubt if it will be any different from the others!
There has also been talk of studies having been held on children showing they did not receive any damage - again we have not seen sight of these studies. I do know that none of our children were part of these mysterious studies. The only study that has been held on our children was conducted by Tyne, Tees TV in 1991, under the auspices of John Urquhart but again, when it was presented to the Government, they would not entertain it, perhaps because of the damning evidence it portrayed. We were informed that the BNTVA still needed to first prove the nuclear veteran had been harmed.
Some of our men have been known to class themselves as guinea pigs. We cannot agree with them. When a guinea pig is used during a test in a laboratory, it is examined before the test begins; monitored throughout the test and monitored even more after the test is concluded. This did not happen with the nuclear veterans. They were sent out to a Test Site with the only safeguard suggested to them being, that they should take out extra life insurance but 'Do not tell the insurance company why they are doing this! Upon their return to the UK quite a number were invalided out of the Service because of ill-health, many with out a pension. The rest were just left to get on with their lives as best they could!
We nuclear veterans were denied the right to take our grievances to Court because of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. This was the Act that forbade Servicemen from suing the Government for damage caused them whilst in the Services. So, in 1985, we formed a group called STAG - Section Ten Abolition Group - and asked for the Act to be repealed. We were successful - partly. However, in their wisdom, the Government of the day, although they did repeal it, would not make it retrospective, therefore, anything that had occurred, prior to 1985, would not count and so we were still being denied the right of every citizen - to take our grievances to court!
Members of our Association are constantly being told that the men were given protection whilst at the test sites. If being told to cover your eyes or turn your back - is this country's 'scientific' method of protecting its people from radiation, it does not say much for our capabilities and knowledge! In fact, if there was so little danger, only warranting that primitive kind of protection, why did the tests have to be carried out at the other end of the world, why not closer to home!
I will close now but I want you to think with your logic and not what you have been told to think. Radiation is dangerous and if a human being is in the vicinity of its presence, surely it is only logical that some of it will fall on them and so cause harm - incidentally, it is a scientific fact that there is NO SAFE DOSE! I was once told by an MOD official that 'our radiation is different to USA radiation'. Perhaps that is why we are the only citizens that radiation cannot harm - or so we are being led to believe!
Thank you.
Sheila Gray (Mrs)
National Secretary