EX-SERVICEMEN who took part in atomic bomb tests yesterday said they

were ''disgusted'' by a 10-year study which shows they did not run a

greater risk of developing cancer.

The men who witnessed nuclear tests in Australia and the Pacific

during the 1950s and 1960s pledged to continue fighting for compensation

because they claim they were used as ''guinea pigs'' and had not been

protected from radiation.

A row broke out after authors Sir Richard Doll and Dr Sarah Darby, of

the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, announced the results of the National

Radiological Protection Board study at a London news conference.

Commissioned by the Ministry of Defence, the report confirmed that

overall death rates among test veterans are lower than national rates

and similar to those in a control group of servicemen and civilians who

did not witness the trials.

However, Mr John Cox, 58, of Nottingham, a cancer victim who witnessed

three H-bomb tests, attacked the report. He said: ''I think this is

disgusting and a complete turn around after all the fighting we have

done on this.

''I got myeloma three years ago and I have had chemotherapy for the

last two years and am in remission now.''

The report says the tests ''have not had a detectable effect on

participants' expectation of life or on their overall risk of developing

cancer or other fatal diseases.

''But the possibility that test participation caused a small risk of

leukemia in the early years afterwards cannot be ruled out.''

''It is difficult to attribute it to any known cause, as the risk was

not concentrated in those known to have been exposed to radiation, those

involved in any particular operation or those employed in any particular

type of job.''

An interim study, published in 1988, showed overall death rates were

lower both in test veterans and controls than in the general population.

However, death rates from leukemia and multiple myeloma, both blood

cancers, were significantly higher in test veterans than in the

controls.

However, this appeared to be largely because of unexpectedly low death

rates in the controls rather than high levels in the veterans. The MoD

then decided to carry out a second survey to clear up any misgivings.

It was found during the extra seven years of follow-up that death

rates from multiple myeloma were low in the test veterans and close to

the national average in the controls -- exactly the opposite of the

observation in the first study.

If radiation had caused myelomas it would be expected from other

studies that they would continue to show up in the second period of

follow-up.

The fact that death rates from this cause were lower in veterans than

in the controls suggests the original observation was due to chance, the

NRPB said yesterday.

''The excess of relative risk of leukemia in test veterans found in

the first study was also largely due to low levels in controls, with

death rates in test veterans close to the national average.

''As with multiple myeloma, this picture was reversed in the extra

seven years of follow-up.

''However, in contrast to multiple myeloma, the majority of any

radiation-induced leukemias would be expected to appear in the period

two-25 years after exposure.

''The second survey does, however, suggest the low levels of leukemia

in controls found in the first survey were not typical.

''Since these low levels in controls were largely responsible for the

original observation of an elevated relative risk in test veterans, this

may also have been due to chance.''

Mr Tom Armstrong, 74, secretary of the British Atomic Test Veterans'

Association, said: ''This is the very last thing we hoped to get. I have

been fighting this for 10 years and seen hundreds of my fellow

servicemen get cancer and, of course, some have died.''