Green Audit



LLRC/ GREEN AUDIT appeal for money to fight for the Test Veterans


There is a critically important court case in the Royals Courts of Justice in London which began in July 2015 and which is being fought by a small team of poor old men on the one side, against the enormous resources of the Secretary of State for Defence on the other. The issue is the effects of low doses of radiation from contamination at the test sites, cancer in veterans who were there, and congenital birth defects in their children and grandchildren. The team of five is being led by Dr Chris Busby who is not acting in his usual role as expert witness, but is now personally representing the veterans in court as a lay advocate. No one on our side has any money; LLRC was left a small bequest in a will and has been supporting the case since 2015 but that pot is empty. We need money to continue this case which has been ordered for three weeks from June 2016 in the Royal Courts of Justice in London.  The team are Prof Chris Busby (Riga, Latvia), Group Captain Andrew Ades MBE (Cornwall), Mr David Williams (Woking), Mr Robbie Manson (Carmarthen, Wales), and Mr Hugo Charlton (London). All are working for nothing, often not even expenses.

  1. We need to bring four expert witnesses to give evidence before the Tribunal; these witnesses are Prof. Inge Schmitz Feuerhake (Germany), Prof Shoji Sawada (Japan), Prof Vyvyan Howard (Ireland), Prof Malcolm Hooper (Sunderland). We also have three lay witnesses to bring and support.
  2. We need to pay for accommodation and expenses for Chris and two other members of the group to be in London for the three weeks of the trial. Busby is in the process of selling his house in England and lives in Riga Latvia. We need to support the massive amount of photocopying and clerical work which has been carried out by Dai Williams of Woking and who acts as the groups clerical base in London.


LLRC involvement

The Low Level Radiation Campaign has, together with Green Audit, been supporting and funding the Atomic Test Veterans Pensions Appeals since 2004 when Chris Busby first acted as Expert Witness in a Tribunals Pensions Appeal for the wife of Australian test site veteran Gerald Adshead. Gerald died of cancer after

 his exposure at Maralinga. At the appeal in Birmingham, the decision to refuse him a pension was overturned. Between then and 2010, Chris, as expert witness, won appeals for 5 other veterans, and had been commissioned by three others when the Ministry stepped in and cancelled the hearings. MoD needed to destroy Chris as an expert because he was winning appeals and was being relied upon by the Tribunal judge the late HH Hugh Stubbs, who wrote in one of his decisions (Colin Duncan Appeal 2008):

On 24 October 2006 Mr Duncan appealed against the Secretary of State’s refusal to award him a War pension in respect of the claimed conditions. In his reasons for appeal Mr Duncan referred to his exposure to Alpha and beta particles and to the danger of inhalation or ingestion. Professor Busby submitted a detailed expert report dated 30 March 2008 (page 209 SoC). He is a distinguished scientist who was asked by Michael Meacher MP. Minister of the Environment. to be a member of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). This is an area of science where there are divergent views. We find that the Secretary of State has insufficiently considered Professor Busby’s two principal arguments:

  • that the greater risk to Mr Duncan was through inhalation; and
  • that a low reading on a dose meter does not necessarily indicate also a low exposure to alpha and beta particles.

The Secretary of State chose to make no further comment on the information contained in Professor Busby’s further expert written statement. Professor Busby gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing. We find that his evidence is both cogent and reliable and raises a reasonable doubt that the Secretary of

State’s views which rely exclusively on contemporary dose meter readings is wrong.

The Ministry of Defence fights back

The government collected all of Chris’s cases, and 12 others into one huge case to be heard in London. Rosenblatt Solicitors represented the veterans. Chris was commissioned to write reports for all of these. In the next two years Chris fought it out on paper against the MoD experts producing twelve reports. But in 2011 Rosenblatt pulled out and was replaced by Hogan Lovell. The new firm waited to the last possible minute, two weeks before the hearing in January 2013, to ditch Chris and all his twelve reports of evidence. They brought in their own expert witness, Prof Paddy Regan. All the cases were lost. Following this, two of the veterans appealed the decision on the basis that Busby’s evidence had been ignored and that they had not been consulted by Hogan Lovell about this in time to do anything. The judge, Hugh Stubbs allowed the appeal to go forward to the Upper Court.  In a bizarre twist, both the judge, Mr Stubbs and later our veteran Don Battersby, died from Pancreatic cancer, the same cancer that had killed our other veteran Barry Smith.

Busby assembled his new team. In the appeal court, over three days in the witness box, MoD QCs argued that Busby was not a proper expert and his evidence should have been ignored. The case was advanced by Andrew Ades, Hugo Charlton and Robbie Manson. Sir William Charles agreed that Busby was an expert, but was persuaded by the MoD lawyers that he should not be allowed to give expert evidence as he was an “activist” and therefore biased. He could, however, act as the advocate for the veterans. Three days of cross examination enabled Chris to give all his evidence about low doses of internal radiation and the failure of the current radiation risk model. This may have influenced the judge to allow the appeal and overturn the decision, remitting the case to a new Tribunal. Busby then applied for a Judicial Review of Charles decision on “activist bias” which he argued was unlawful. The application was turned down and costs of £2750 were awarded to the MoD for their work in opposing the claim.

The new case


The new remitted appeal is being heard before a High Court judge, Sir Nicholas Blake in the Royal Courts of Justice. The first hearing was in the Court of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales with Busby (in a suit and tie) leading for the appellants.  We provided Statements of Claim and requests for Disclosure of secret information relating the fallout from the tests. The group have been pursued and harassed by the MoD under the Official Secrets Act but have soldiered on. We have travelled to London from Riga and Cornwall and slept on floors. We have called for help from our scientist friends in the European Committee on Radiation Risk.  Busby has to sell his house.

Despite the late Teddy Goldsmith writing that Busby was the greatest anti-nuclear activist of all, Busby’s and LLRCs support from the foundations like Rowntree, Polden Puckham, Goldsmith and others stopped after Busby was attacked by George Monbiot in the Guardian in 2011. In a scurrilous and misinformed series of articles just after Fukushima and in his UK “Gentleman George” tour, Monbiot accused Busby of cheating and false claims about radiation and its effects.  Despite rulings by the Press Complaints Council, the Guardian refused to allow Busby to respond. And Monbiot refused to debate the issue with Chris when invited to by Oxford CND and Oxford Green Party in 2012. Chris has shrugged this off and carried on with LLRC’s crusade to bring the truth about internal radiation effects to the public and the scientific community.  In 2013, LLRC received a small bequest. Busby has won some court cases in the USA and has published several papers in peer review journals, including three on cancer near UK nuclear sites. But after Monbiot, and the High court ruling about activism and expertise, the court cases have stopped. The financial situation is dire.

The judge in the new case has now been persuaded of the importance of the LLRC argument and has ordered the Secretary of State for Defence to release documents needed by the team. In his Decision reasons of 21st December he wrote:

Dr Busby who now represents the appellants Battersby and Smith raises a number of new points not previously determined. . .

. . . Uranium and other elements released by detonation are a source of risk by means that are not identified in conventional measurement. . . The International Radiation Protection Authority’s guidance on the safe maxima is insufficient to screen out all risks to human health arising for explosions of the kind undertaken and Maralinga and Christmas Island.

This is the best chance the anti-nuclear movement has ever had to win. A win will influence future Pensions awards to vets, and will also influence the belief in the current radiation risk model, and thus affect nuclear power, nuclear and uranium weapons. Please help us with a donation to the Low Level Radiation Campaign.

Send cheques to LLRC, The Knoll, Montpellier Park, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5LW and write Test Veterans on the back.

You can pay directly into HSBC Bank, Llandrindod Wells Branch,

40-30-05 Account: Low Level Radiation Campaign; Account No  51384007; or use the Donate buttons on

Or Green Audit: the Donate button on

Barclays Bank Aberystwyth 20-18-41 A/C Green Audit No 10161187


Phone Chris Busby on 07989-428833 for more information


Nuclear Test Veteran children and grandchildren study

October 18th 2014.

The paper:Miscarriages and Congenital Conditions in Offspring of Veterans of the British Nuclear Atmospheric Test Programme‘ is published in the peer reviewed journal Epidemiology: Open Access this week. In case it takes some time for the journal to put up a downloadable pdf version, the abstract only is up at the time of writing this and so the article can be accessed here

The details of what this study shows are given in the press release below:

Green Audit UK/ Environmental Research SIA, Latvia

Low Level Radiation Campaign

Press Release 15/10/2014: Immediate


Atomic Test Veteran Children and Grandchildren affected by fathers’ exposures to internal radiation from Uranium and Plutonium at the test sites.

New Study questions Japanese data underpinning current radiation risk model.


The results of a study of the health of children and grandchildren of British servicemen stationed at the atomic weapons test sites at Maralinga in Australia and Christmas Island in the Pacific will be published in the open peer-reviewed journal Epidemiology this week. Christopher Busby and Mireille Escande de Messieres conducted a case-control and cohort study of 605 children and 749 grandchildren of members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA) and compared congenital defects and cancer incidence with 311 control children and 498 control grandchildren of age-matched individuals. Results showed that, compared with controls:

1. There was three times the number (105) of miscarriages in wives of veterans.

2. There was 9.7 times adverse congenital conditions (57) in veteran children.

3. There was 8.4 times adverse congenital conditions (46) veteran grandchildren.

4. These rates were confirmed also by comparison with national EUROCAT data.

5. The existence of the same highly statistically significant rate in both generations points to genomic instability as likely cause, a trans-generational genomic switch discovered after Chernobyl and shown in animal studies to affect many generations.

6. The cause is argued to be Uranium, the main atom bomb constituent, which rained out at the test sites as sub micron particles in “black rain”. Recent research shows Uranium causes genomic effects at very low radiation doses because it binds to DNA and amplifies the radiation damage both through proximity and in other ways.

7. Black rain of Uranium was also a feature of the Hiroshima Atomic bomb and Uranium has been measured several kilometers from the Hiroshima epicenter.

8. The Ministry of Defence, in arguing recent court cases rely upon the fact that dosimeters at the test sites show low doses. However these devices do not register Uranium or other alpha emitters. Uranium was not looked for at the sites.

9. The study findings are supported by similar genomic effects found in Iraq populations exposed to Depleted Uranium particles (e.g. Fallujah sex-ratio, cancer and birth defects, USA and UK Gulf War veterans, Uranium miners and workers and Navajo and other local populations living near Uranium waste tailings. All of these groups show chromosome defects consistent with their exposures to Uranium.

Speaking from Riga, Latvia, Dr Busby remarks: This multi-generational effect is an unexpected finding. There are implications for the current radiation risk models which legally underpin all nuclear power development and also the use of radioactive weapons. Although weakly radioactive, when ingested and inhaled Uranium has properties which enable it to directly damage DNA in ways that are not incorporated into current legislation. Uranium was not measured at the test sites and is not routinely measured near nuclear sites or in the environment either.

Perhaps the most interesting development arose out of a defense to the attacks brought against Chris Busby by the Treasury Solicitor in the High Court case. The question arose of the data employed by the ICRP to support their argument that no genetic damage effects occur in human children unless their parents are exposed to more than 100mSv. This belief is based on the studies of the Hiroshima offspring. These studies were based on three groups, high dose, medium dose and no dose. The no dose group was not in the city at the time of the bomb. The adverse birth outcomes of all three groups (stillbirth, neonatal mortality, malformation) was roughly the same. This was even though the high and medium dose groups were exposed to what would now be considered very high doses. However, all three groups were exposed to fallout and particularly rainout of “black rain”. This was black because of the Uranium Oxide nanoparticles which formed coalescence foci for the water vapour sucked up into the mushroom cloud as it rose and cooled. The control group was thus as exposed to this Uranium as the high dose exposed groups. The adverse birth outcome rates in the control group differ from the “all-Japan” rates showing that the no dose control group cannot be used to assess radiation risk in the study group. The analysis of the relative rates of cancer, leukemia and genetic effects in the “not in city” controls is ongoing and will be the subject of a further paper.