British Nuclear Test Veterans Association
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortality and Morbidity of Members of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association and the New Zealand Nuclear Tests Veterans Association and their Families
SUE RABBITT ROFF
University of Dundee Centre for Medical Education
Published in Medicine, Conflict and Survival (Volume 15, Supplement 1, July-September 1999)
Abstract
More than 20,000 British servicemen - many of them on their National Service, few of them volunteering for the tests, and most in their early twenties, some still boy soldiers in their teens - were required to 'participate' in the United Kingdom nuclear tests in Australia and Christmas Island in the 1950s and 1960s. 528 members of the New Zealand Navy were also present for one series of tests. There was also a Fijian Army contingent, which has been variously numbered between 100 and 500 men. An estimated 16,000 Australian servicemen and civilians were also involved in the tests at Maralinga and other sites.
The men performed a wide range of duties, from highly technical preparations for the detonations to catering and
clerical jobs. But whatever their role, they were all required to witness the detonations as part of their
'indoctrination' for the possibility of nuclear war. Most of them were required to line up on the beach, with
their backs to the detonations and their hands over their eyes for the first minute or so. They were then allowed to
turn around and look at the awesome sight as the mushroom cloud plumed thousands of feet into the air. Very
few wore more than shorts and sandals during their time at the tests; only those who were thought to be at risk
from radiation injury were issued with protective clothing and radiation dose badges. The UK government was
sure that the troops, most of whom were standing within 20km of the detonations and some of whom were
present for 25 nuclear bomb blasts in as many weeks on Christmas Island, were not irradiated. The Ministry of
Defence still routinely issues a document to nuclear veterans who feel that their illnesses were caused by the
radiation they encountered when they were young men which states:
The background [radiation] dose received by civilians and members of HM Forces serving at or off
Christmas Island in the years 1956 to 1964 was only about 35% of that which they would have received
on average had they remained, for that period of their lives, in the United Kingdom - that is, some 100
microsieverts per calendar month less at Christmas Island than in the United Kingdom.
This sanguine view of the health burden borne by nuclear veterans and their families is not borne out by the data
reported in this study of the health outcomes of the 2,500 men (2,200 UK, 238 New Zealand and 62 Fijian) on
whom data are available to the present researcher.
Thirty per cent of the men in this sample have already died, mostly in their fifties. Two-thirds of them died from cancers that are pensionable in the United States as presumptively radiogenic among nuclear veterans. About one in seven of the men in the sample of 1,014 who responded to the questionnaire circulated in late 1997 did not father any children after they returned from the weapons tests. Among the nearly 5,000 children and grandchildren of this group of more than a thousand veterans, there are 26 cases of spina bifida alone 97 more than five times the usual rate for live births in the UK.
Nearly half the health problems among the offspring of the nuclear weapons tests veterans reported in this study consist of the same dermatological, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal conditions from which many of the men have also suffered. Among the 2,261 children of 1,041 veterans, more than 200 skeletal abnormalities were reported, including more than 30 cases of short stature and 18 spinal problems, mostly curvature and scoliosis. More than 100 skin conditions were reported, mostly eczema and dermatitis, in many cases described as congenital. Over 50 of the children are already suffering from arthritis and similar conditions, although they are only now entering their thirties. Hip deformities were reported for 19 children and kneecap deformities for 14. More than 100 of the veterans' children reported reproductive difficulties; 24 women reported problems with their ovaries. This pattern of morbidity was repeated in the grandchildren, though there seems to be some diminution of the effect.
A similar pattern is evident in the health of the men, their children and grandchildren of the 238 New Zealand veterans on whom data were collected separately. The data on the 62 Fijians are not reported here. They are currently submitted as evidence to the European Court of Human Rights.
Any bias in the respondents from the UK nuclear veterans organization for which data are reported here is in fact towards a more youthful, healthier group than the full cohort, on whom standardized mortality studies were undertaken up to December 1990 by the National Radiological Protection Board. The data in this study point to an accelerated rate of death for the UK nuclear veterans at precisely the moment the NRPB studies terminated, and the UK Ministry of Defence acknowledged in late 1998 that the finding in relation to multiple myeloma alone compels a re-analysis and updating of the NRPB studies. But radiobiological tests are now available which can detect evidence of past radiation exposure. It is a major recommendation of this study that research henceforth proceed beyond the epidemiological to the clinical and pathological levels. Then at least medical science can learn from this 40-year-old tragedy with its cast of thousands.
Read Part One