DOCSLIB.ORG

UK High Court Ruling on Health Effects of Nuclear

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 1225 (QB) Case No: TLQ/08/0023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 05/06/2009 Before: MR JUSTICE FOSKETT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: AB & Others Claimants - and - Ministry of Defence Defendants - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Benjamin Browne QC and Catherine Foster & Mark James (instructed by Rosenblatt Solicitors) for the Claimants Charles Gibson QC and Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC, David Evans & Adam Heppinstall (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendants Hearing dates: 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th January and 4th, 5th, and 6th February 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment CONTENTS OF JUDGMENT Section Item Para 1 The Issue 1-11 2 The historical context 12-29 3 The relevant nuclear tests 30-36 4 The men who went to the tests and the scale of the operations 37-45 5 The commencement of these proceedings and the broad nature of the limitation issues 46-55 6 The essential case that the Claimants seek to advance 56-87 7 The Defendant’s essential response to the Claimants’ case 88-91 8 The evidence underlying these proceedings 92-98 9 Breach of duty and causation – a general observation on the law 99-101 10 The correct approach to the Lead Cases 102-104 105-106 11 The underlying science – 108-110 A. The essential nuclear physics – ionising radiation 111-113 114-115 (i) Atoms 116-119 (ii) Elements 120-122 (iii) Isotopes 123-131 (iv) Half-life 132-143 (v) Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion 144-147 (vi) The types and effects of ionising radiation 148-150 (vii) Fall-out (viii) Doses (ix) Ionising radiation from other sources 151-158 B. Essential cytogenetics 12 The effects of ionising radiation on health 159-182 13 Causation – the evidential issues 183-187 Strike out/abuse of process 188-222 (i) General approach 223-237 14 (ii) The current state of the evidence and post- 238-241 Fairchild authorities (iii) Concluding remarks on strike out 15 Some broad areas of the evidence 242-244 (i) What was in the public domain about the effects of 245-254 ionising radiation? 255-325 (ii) The BNTVA 326-338 (iii) The Pearce case 339-348 (iv) The funding issues 349-375 (v) The NRPB reports 376-391 (vi) Monitoring 388-391 (vii) The essential position of successive Governments 392-400 (viii) The Australian Royal Commission 401-441 (ix) The Rowland Report The limitation arguments – general 442-445 (i) History of the 1980 Act 446-466 (ii) “Knowledge” – the statutory provisions 467-470 (iii) The discretion to disapply – the statutory provisions 471-472 (iv) Accrual of cause of action/‘more than minimal’ damage 473-481 16 (v) Burden of proof on the issue of knowledge 482-484 (vi) The authorities on the issue of knowledge (vii) The “preferred view” on this issue 485-513 (viii) The actual view and some factors to be considered 514-521 522-525 Section 33 – some general matters (i) The approach (ii) Section 33(3)(a) 526-534 (iii) Section 33(3)(b) 535-538 (iv) Section 33(3)(c) 539-540 (v) Section 33(3)(e) 541-555 (vi) Section 33(3)(f) 556-557 (vii) Other circumstances – 558-560 17 (a) Alternative claim 561 (b) Diversion of resources 562-564 (c) The broad merits test 565-567 568-570 Section 33 in this case – some potentially relevant factors 571 (i) The broad issue of the effect of the passage if time on a fair trial (ii) The need for these issues to be ventilated 572-611 (iii) The need to avoid apparent injustice 18 (iv) The case advanced is not a new one 612-617 The Lead Cases: Roy Keith Ayres 618-619 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 John Allen Brothers (decd) 620-625 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 Kenneth McGinley 626-627 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 628-644 645-650 Michael Richard Clark (decd) 651-652 (i) knowledge 653-674 19 (ii) section 33 675-681 Andrew Dickson (decd) 682-686 (i) knowledge 687-707 (ii) section 33 709-715 Arthur Hart 716-719 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 720-737 738-742 Christopher Edward Noone 743-746 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 747-758 759-765 Eric Ogden (decd) 766-768 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 769-785 786-791 Pita Rokoratu 792-793 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 794-807 808-812 Bert Sinfield (decd) 813 (i) knowledge (ii) section 33 814-823 824-829 830-831 832-845 846-850 851-852 853-860 861-866 20 Overall conclusion on the Lead Cases 867-870 21 Broad concluding observations 871-872 22 Resolution of the case/mediation 873-876 23 Ministerial Statement on 21 April 2009 877-880 24 Parting observation 881 25 Expressions of thanks 882-885 Appendix Statistics concerning “core participants” 210-212 A Appendix Ministerial Statement and associated Press Notice of 21 April B 2009 213-214 Index 215-217 Mr Justice Foskett : 1. The Issue 1. The broad issue in this case is whether those who claim to have suffered injury, disability or death in consequence of their exposure to ionising radiation as a result of their presence near, or involvement in the aftermath of, nuclear tests carried out by the British Government in the 1950s may now pursue claims for compensation and, in respect of those who have died, whether claims by or on behalf of their dependants or their estates may now be maintained. 2. The majority of those who seek to make a claim in these proceedings, or on behalf of whom a claim is made, are former servicemen from each of the three major British services, but there are a few civilian Claimants and a number of Fijian and New Zealand servicemen who form part of the group. Many of the British Claimants were young men undergoing National Service at the time. 3. The Ministry of Defence contends that it is now too late for any such claims to be advanced, relying upon the Limitation Act 1980 in support of the argument that any opportunity to bring a claim of this kind was in many cases lost years ago. 4. The claims are brought as part of a group action involving 1011 Claimants, ten individual test cases having been chosen by the parties for the purposes of helping to determine the limitation issues. 5. This case does not deal with the claims for compensation in their own right. Subject to the question of the extent to which it is relevant and appropriate for the Court at this stage to make an assessment of the strengths or otherwise of the claims sought to be advanced (see paragraphs 568-569 below), the merits of the individual claims do not arise for consideration. If, in due course, the ultimate outcome of the present proceedings is that the claims may continue, the full merits of the cases on each side will be determined at a future trial. 6. It is important to emphasise the matters reflected in the previous paragraph because a fair amount of the argument during the hearing, both on paper and in some of the oral submissions, involved contentions about the potential merits of each side’s case. It is a matter to which it will be necessary to return, but it should be noted that a good deal that has been asserted by Counsel at this stage of the case has not been tested by reference to a full analysis of the evidence. A number of matters that may appear to have been put forward as “facts” have yet to be considered fully and properly in the way that a full trial of the issues demands. It should also be understood clearly that my task in these proceedings at this stage necessarily and inevitably involves making a number of assumptions about what may be established at a future trial. Whether those assumptions prove to have been valid or correct will depend upon a full evaluation of the evidence at trial. 7. It should also be understood that the case does not deal with claims made in respect of miscarriages undergone, and stillbirths experienced, by wives and partners of men who were involved in some way in the tests: by agreement between the parties any issues arising from matters of that nature have been put to one side whilst the issues arising in the way mentioned in paragraph 1 are dealt with. 8. The broad issue identified in paragraph 1 is easy to state. It is far less easy to resolve. There are complex and detailed issues to consider. As will become apparent, there are various categories of potential claimant and the issues concerning each category may differ. The purpose of this trial has been to decide whether, in accordance with the applicable law, any or all of those categories of claimant are now, some 50 years or so after the material events, entitled to proceed with their claims. 9. It will be necessary to refer to things done or not done, said or not said, as the case may be, by various British Governments and others over the years in relation to questions such as suggested inquiries, claims for compensation, considerations relating to pensions and so on. However, this judgment is not to be seen as a critique of, or commentary upon, those matters. Nor is it or can it be a commentary upon what other countries have done in respect of their nationals who may arguably have been affected in a similar manner. The hearing has not been a public inquiry – nor has it been a request for one.
Recommended publications
  • Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization

    Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization

    Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, May 1988 Seattle University, Seattle, WA Master of Science in Technical Management, May 1997 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Master of Arts in International Science and Technology Policy, May 2009 The George Washington University, Washington, DC A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 10, 2020 Dissertation directed by Kathryn Newcomer Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of November 26, 2019. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Dissertation Research Committee: Kathryn Newcomer, Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, Dissertation Director Philippe Bardet, Assistant Professor,
  • Grappling with the Bomb: Britain's Pacific H-Bomb Tests

    Grappling with the Bomb: Britain's Pacific H-Bomb Tests

    Timeline and glossary Nuclear timeline, 1945–1963 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, United States conducts first-ever nuclear New Mexico, USA test, codenamed ‘Trinity .’ 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan US aircraft Enola Gay drops the atomic weapon ‘Little Boy’ on Hiroshima, killing 80,000 people immediately and an estimated 100,000 people within six months . 9 August 1945 Nagasaki, Japan US aircraft Bockscar drops the atomic weapon ‘Fat Man’ on Nagasaki, killing 70,000 people immediately and tens of thousands in following months . 30 June 1946 Bikini Atoll, Marshall Under Operation Crossroads, United Islands States conducts the first of two atomic tests at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. ‘Able’ and ‘Baker’ are the first of 67 atmospheric tests in the Marshall Islands between 1946–1958 . 6 August 1948 Hiroshima, Japan Hiroshima’s first Peace Festival. 29 August 1949 Semipalatinsk, USSR conducts first atomic test Kazakhstan RDS-1 in Operation Pervaya molniya (Fast lightning), dubbed ‘Joe-1’ by United States . 1950–1954 Korean peninsula United States, Britain and Australia, under a United Nations mandate, join military operations in Korea following clashes between forces from the south and north of Korea. The Democratic People’s Republic is backed by the newly created People’s Republic of China . 3 October 1952 Monte Bello Islands, Under Operation Hurricane, United Western Australia Kingdom begins its nuclear testing program in Australia with a 25 kiloton atomic test . xi GRAPPLING WITH THE BOMB 1 November 1952 Bikini Atoll, Marshall United States conducts its first Islands hydrogen bomb test, codenamed ‘Mike’ (10 .4 megatons) as part of Operation Ivy .
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And

    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And

    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
  • The Question of Reducing the Threat Posed by Nations Possessing

    The Question of Reducing the Threat Posed by Nations Possessing

    Mesaieed International School Model United Nations Forum: General Assembly 1 Issue: The Question of reducing threat posed by nations possessing nuclear Weapons. Student Officer: Subhan Khan Position: Deputy Chair Introduction The issue of nuclear weapons has been an ever-present issue within the world and was the first issue adopted by the UN (United Nations) in 1946. Nuclear armaments when detonated have devastating effects both environmentally and socio-economically via the fallout that it left behind from the bomb exploded. Many nations throughout the world are working to combat the issue, and the dismantling of all these weapons would be the perfect solution to all these issues, but this would be very difficult to do. Over 14,900 reported missiles remain on the Earth, and the decommissioning of all these weapons would be a feat for the human race. There is also the issue that nuclear weapons provide a sense of security and defence to a nation as they can pose a severe threat to any potential adversaries looking to harm a country. The decommissioning of nuclear weapons is an effort to preserve peace in the world and eradicate further complications that are to arise due to the threat of atomic weapons. Nations such as the US (United States) and formally the Soviet Union are unwilling to decommission their nuclear arsenals due to the risk of an attack that may occur at any point with the invention of ICBM’s (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). Definition of Key Terms WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) Regarded as a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon that is capable of causing great damage to humans, infrastructure and biological systems in the vicinity of its deployment.
  • The Secret History of Australia's Nuclear Ambitions

    The Secret History of Australia's Nuclear Ambitions

    Jim Walsh SURPRISE DOWN UNDER: THE SECRET HISTORY OF AUSTRALIAS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS by Jim Walsh Jim Walsh is a visiting scholar at the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He is also a Ph.D. candidate in the Political Science program at MIT, where he is completing a dissertation analyzing comparative nuclear decisionmaking in Australia, the Middle East, and Europe. ustralia is widely considered tactical nuclear weapons. In 1961, of state behavior and the kinds of Ato be a world leader in ef- Australia proposed a secret agree- policies that are most likely to retard forts to halt and reverse the ment for the transfer of British the spread of nuclear weapons? 1 spread of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons, and, throughout This article attempts to answer Australian government created the the 1960s, Australia took actions in- some of these questions by examin- Canberra Commission, which called tended to keep its nuclear options ing two phases in Australian nuclear for the progressive abolition of open. It was not until 1973, when history: 1) the attempted procure- nuclear weapons. It led the fight at Australia ratified the NPT, that the ment phase (1956-1963); and 2) the the U.N. General Assembly to save country finally renounced the acqui- indigenous capability phase (1964- the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty sition of nuclear weapons. 1972). The historical reconstruction (CTBT), and the year before, played Over the course of four decades, of these events is made possible, in a major role in efforts to extend the Australia has gone from a country part, by newly released materials Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of that once sought nuclear weapons to from the Australian National Archive Nuclear Weapons (NPT) indefi- one that now supports their abolition.
  • Leonard Abdale and Others

    Leonard Abdale and Others

    IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL WPAFCC Refs: as below WAR PENSIONS AND ARMED FORCES COMPENSATION CHAMBER Sitting at Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 16th December 2016 TRIBUNALS COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL) (WAR PENSIONS AND ARMED FORCES COMPENSATION CHAMBER) RULES 2008 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE BLAKE MRS I MCCORD DR J RAYNER BETWEEN 1. LEONARD ABDALE (Deceased) ENT/00203/2015 2. DARRYL BEETON ENT/00202/2015 3. TREVOR BUTLER (Deceased) ENT/00258/2015 4. DEREK HATTON (Deceased) ENT/00200/2015 5. ERNEST HUGHES ENT/00254/2015 6. BRIAN LOVATT ENT/00201/2015 7. DAWN PRITCHARD (Deceased) ENT/00258/2015 8. LAURA SELBY ENT/00199/2015 9. DENIS SHAW (Deceased) ENT/00253/2015 10. JEAN SINFIELD ENT/00204/2015 11. DONALD BATTERSBY (Deceased) ENT/00250/2015 12. ANNA SMITH ENT/00251/2015 Appellants - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE Respondent Hearing Dates: 13 to 30 June 2016 Representation: Roger Ter Haar QC and Richard Sage (instructed pro bono by HOGAN LOVELLS) for Appellants 1 to 10. Christopher Busby, Hugo Charlton and Cecilia Busby acting as pro bono lay representatives for Appellants 11-12. Adam Heppinstall and Abigail Cohen instructed by the Government Legal Department for the Respondent. TRIBUNAL’S DECISION AND REASONS The unanimous DECISION of the Tribunal is: the appeal of each appellant is dismissed save for the appeal of Leonard Abdale deceased in respect of his claim for cataracts. On this issue his appeal is allowed. INDEX TO DETERMINATION PART ONE INTRODUCTION p.5 Outline
  • MARINEMARINE Life the ‘Taking Over the World’ Edition

    MARINEMARINE Life the ‘Taking Over the World’ Edition

    MARINEMARINE Life The ‘taking over the world’ edition October/November 2012 ISSUE 21 Our Goal To educate, inform, have fun and share our enjoyment of the marine world with like- minded people. FeaturesFeatures andand CreaturesCreatures The Editorial Staff (and the zen bits, grasshopper) Emma Flukes, Co-Editor: Shallow understanding News from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. BREAKING: Super Trawler stopped – a summary of events & YOUR FEEDBACK 1 [I’m definitely not zen enough to understand any National & International Roundup 6 of this, but let’s run with it anyway...] State-by-state: QLD 8 Michael Jacques, Co-Editor: In the practice of WA 10 tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. NT 12 NT Honcho – Grant Treloar TAS 13 Tas Honchos - Phil White and Geoff Rollins SA Honcho – Peter Day WA Honcho – Mike Lee Bits & Pieces Federal marine parks cop a roasting 16 Climate change sceptics on the decline – are we finally getting through? 17 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication The imminent future of Wave Energy 18 are not necessarily the views of the editorial staff or Seaweed: the McDonald’s of the Ocean? 20 associates of this publication. We make no promise that any of this will make sense. Ugly animals need loving too! – an experiment in anthropomorphism 21 Feature Stories Cover Photo; Maori Octopus – John Smith Saving the sand of SA beaches (and more about those cuttlefish…) 24 We are now part of the wonderful The Montebello Islands (WA) - A nuclear wilderness 27 world of Facebook! Check us out, stalk our updates, and ‘like’ our Heritage and Coastal Features page to fuel our insatiable egos.
  • We Envy No Man on Earth Because We Fly. the Australian Fleet Air

    We Envy No Man on Earth Because We Fly. the Australian Fleet Air

    We Envy No Man On Earth Because We Fly. The Australian Fleet Air Arm: A Comparative Operational Study. This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Murdoch University 2016 Sharron Lee Spargo BA (Hons) Murdoch University I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work which has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. …………………………………………………………………………….. Abstract This thesis examines a small component of the Australian Navy, the Fleet Air Arm. Naval aviators have been contributing to Australian military history since 1914 but they remain relatively unheard of in the wider community and in some instances, in Australian military circles. Aviation within the maritime environment was, and remains, a versatile weapon in any modern navy but the struggle to initiate an aviation branch within the Royal Australian Navy was a protracted one. Finally coming into existence in 1947, the Australian Fleet Air Arm operated from the largest of all naval vessels in the post battle ship era; aircraft carriers. HMAS Albatross, Sydney, Vengeance and Melbourne carried, operated and fully maintained various fixed-wing aircraft and the naval personnel needed for operational deployments until 1982. These deployments included contributions to national and multinational combat, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. With the Australian government’s decision not to replace the last of the aging aircraft carriers, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982, the survival of the Australian Fleet Air Arm, and its highly trained personnel, was in grave doubt. This was a major turning point for Australian Naval Aviation; these versatile flyers and the maintenance and technical crews who supported them retrained on rotary aircraft, or helicopters, and adapted to flight operations utilising small compact ships.
  • Nuclear Fallout and Intelligence As Secrets, Problems, and Limitations on the Arms Race, 1940-1964

    Nuclear Fallout and Intelligence As Secrets, Problems, and Limitations on the Arms Race, 1940-1964

    © Copyright 2016 Michael R. Lehman NUISANCE TO NEMESIS: NUCLEAR FALLOUT AND INTELLIGENCE AS SECRETS, PROBLEMS, AND LIMITATIONS ON THE ARMS RACE, 1940-1964 BY MICHAEL R. LEHMAN DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2016 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Lillian Hoddeson, Chair Professor Kristin Hoganson, Co-Chair Professor Michael Weissman Professor Robert Jacobs, Hiroshima City University Abstract Fallout sampling and other nuclear intelligence techniques were the most important sources of United States strategic intelligence in the early Cold War. Operated as the Atomic Energy Detection System by a covert Air Force unit known as AFOAT-1, the AEDS detected emissions and analyzed fallout from Soviet nuclear tests, as well as provided quantitative intelligence on the size of the Russian nuclear stockpile. Virtually unknown because the only greater Cold War secret than nuclear weapons was intelligence gathered about them, data on the Soviet threat produced by AFOAT-1 was an extraordinary influence on early National Intelligence Estimates, the rapid growth of the Strategic Air Command, and strategic war plans. Official guidance beginning with the first nuclear test in 1945 otherwise suggested fallout was an insignificant effect of nuclear weapons. Following AFOAT-1’s detection of Soviet testing in fall 1949 and against the cautions raised about the problematic nature of higher yield weapons by the General Advisory Committee, the Atomic Energy Commission’s top scientific advisers, President Harry Truman ordered the AEC to quickly build these extraordinarily powerful weapons, testing the first in secrecy in November 1952.
  • Australian Radiation Laboratory R

    Australian Radiation Laboratory R

    AR.L-t*--*«. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES Public Health Impact of Fallout from British Nuclear Weapons Tests in Australia, 1952-1957 by Keith N. Wise and John R. Moroney Australian Radiation Laboratory r. t J: i AUSTRALIAN RADIATION LABORATORY i - PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT OF FALLOUT FROM BRITISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS IN AUSTRALIA, 1952-1957 by Keith N Wise and John R Moroney ARL/TR105 • LOWER PLENTY ROAD •1400 YALLAMBIE VIC 3085 MAY 1992 TELEPHONE: 433 2211 FAX (03) 432 1835 % FOREWORD This work was presented to the Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia in 1985, but it was not otherwise reported. The impetus for now making it available to a wider audience came from the recent experience of one of us (KNW)* in surveying current research into modelling the transport of radionuclides in the environment; from this it became evident that the methods we used in 1985 remain the best available for such a problem. The present report is identical to the submission we made to the Royal Commission in 1985. Developments in the meantime do not call for change to the derivation of the radiation doses to the population from the nuclear tests, which is the substance of the report. However the recent upward revision of the risk coefficient for cancer mortality to 0.05 Sv"1 does require a change to the assessment we made of the doses in terms of detriment tc health. In 1985 we used a risk coefficient of 0.01, so that the estimates of cancer mortality given at pages iv & 60, and in Table 7.1, need to be multiplied by five.
  • Atomic Testing in Australian Art Jd Mittmann

    Atomic Testing in Australian Art Jd Mittmann

    ATO MIC TEST ING IN AUST RAL IAN ART JD MIT TMA NN Around the world artists have be en conce rned wit h Within a radius of 800m the dest ruction is co mplete . and Walle r. He docume nted the Austr alian New Gui nea nuclear iss ues, from the first application of atomic bomb s Over 70,000 die instantl y. campaign and its afte rmath . at Hi roshima and Nagasaki, to at omic testing, uraniu m A person stan ds lost amongst the ruins of a house . In 1946 he was se nt to Japan whe re he witnes sed mining, nuc lear waste tra nspo rt and storage, and We don’t see the chi ld’s exp ression, but it can only be the effects of the ato mic bomb. He doc umented the va st scenarios of nuclear Armageddon. The Australian artisti c one of shock and suffering. A charred tree towers ov er dest ruction from a distant vi ewpoint, spa ring the viewe r response to Bri tish atomic te sting in the 195 0s is les s the rubble. Natu re has withe red in the on slaught of hea t the ho rri fic deta ils. His sketch Rebuilding Hiroshim a well-know n, as is the sto ry of the tests . and shock waves. Simply titled Hi roshima , Albe rt Tucker’ s shows civil ians clearing away the rubble. Li fe ha s Cloaked in se crec y, the British atomic testing progra m small wate rcolour is quiet and conte mplative.
  • Roy Dommett Interviewed by Dr Thomas Lean

    Roy Dommett Interviewed by Dr Thomas Lean

    NATIONAL LIFE STORIES AN ORAL HISTORY OF BRITISH SCIENCE Roy Dommett Interviewed by Dr Thomas Lean C1379/14 © The British Library Board http://sounds.bl.uk IMPORTANT This interview and transcript is accessible via http://sounds.bl.uk . © The British Library Board. Please refer to the Oral History curators at the British Library prior to any publication or broadcast from this document. Oral History The British Library 96 Euston Road London NW1 2DB United Kingdom +44 (0)20 7412 7404 [email protected] Every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this transcript, however no transcript is an exact translation of the spoken word, and this document is intended to be a guide to the original recording, not replace it. Should you find any errors please inform the Oral History curators. © The British Library Board http://sounds.bl.uk The British Library National Life Stories Interview Summary Sheet Title Page Ref no: C1379/14 Collection title: An Oral History Of British Science Interviewee’s Dommett Title: Mr surname: Interviewee’s Roy Sex: Male forename: Occupation: Rocket scientist, Date and place of birth: 25th June 1933 aeronautical engineer. Mother’s occupation: Father’s occupation: Painter and decorator Dates of recording, Compact flash cards used, tracks (from – to): March 18 (1-3), April 13 (4-5), April 20 (6-10), 20 July (11-14), 16 September (15-19) 2010 Location of interview: Interviewee’s home, Fleet. Name of interviewer: Thomas Lean Type of recorder: Marantz PMD661 on secure digital [tracks 1 - 10] and Marantz PMD660 on compact flash [tracks 11 - 19] Recording format : WAV 24 bit 48 kHz (tracks 1 - 10), WAV 16 bit 48 kHz (Tracks 11-19).