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.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article