printable article

Originally published July 10 2013

EXPOSED: Health threats of 'safe' levels of radiation covered up by Anglo-American establishment in nuke test; vets fight for pensions

by Anna Bragga

(NaturalNews) A pensions case has become the site of a vicious battleground between the Anglo-American establishment and a British scientist in a row over accepted safe levels of radiation exposure.

It began in 2011 when a group of 16 veterans of UK nuclear bomb tests in Australia and Christmas Island applied for pensions on the grounds that their illnesses (and those of their children and grandchildren) were most likely caused by particulate uranium inhalation.

In a tale with more twists than a John Grisham novel, the veterans have had their appeals quashed after being forced to change their firm of solicitors and their expert witness - international radiation authority and Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, Dr. Chris Busby, who has a track record of winning five similar cases in a row.

The veterans, originally represented by Rosenblatts Solicitors, had commissioned Dr. Busby to provide evidence. But Rosenblatts suddenly pulled out of the case in December 2012 after funding provided by the Royal British Legion dried up. Washington-based Hogan Lovells International - a firm with a history of representing government and pharmaceutical companies, quickly filled the gap.

Coincidentally, at the very same time, Dr. Busby had obtained access to secret nuclear test reports by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), revealing information of significance to the case. He had also by then written 12 reports showing new evidence of the link between internal radiation exposure to uranium, the main component of all the bombs and a range of ill health effects.

Dr. Busby states:

"Evidence from photographs taken at Christmas Island showed that the Grapple Y bomb had sucked up enormous amounts of sea water which rained out as black rain. The black rain was black because the bomb, according to a secret document, was made of 4 tons of uranium.

It was the uranium particles that were the most likely cause of the cancer and other health problems in the veterans and the genetic damage and malformations in their children and grandchildren. This was exactly like the uranium effects in Iraq and in the Gulf War veterans and their children."

A victory for the vets would destroy the current radiation risk model and open the floodgates for more claims

If the court were to allow the evidence, a victory is more likely, setting a legal precedent for some 900 other veterans waiting in the wings.

Three weeks before the case was due to be heard, Hogan Lovells dropped Dr. Busby as an expert witness and replaced him with a nuclear physicist with no track record on the health impacts of radiation. The veterans weren't consulted and left with no alternative but to accept the new arrangement. The evidence in the MoD's reports was excluded from the court's decision-making, and the current radiation risk model, which offers obsolete and incorrect evidence about the effects of uranium inhalation, was used instead.

All the cases were lost, but two separate appeals have been lodged. Despite attacks on his name and reputation, Dr. Busby is adamant about continuing the fight for the veterans. He concludes:

"Should this appeal go unchallenged it would have the effect of knocking on the head any chance that future veterans will have to show that their illnesses were caused by their exposures. Millions have died because of this cover up of the effects of internal radiation, and millions more will die if we don't succeed in destroying this risk model."

Sources for this article include:

About the author:
Anna Bragga is a freelance journalist and owner of public relations company, Conscience Communications

Anna Bragga is a freelance journalist and owner of public relations company, Conscience Communications

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit