Nuclear Medal Resurgence and the Facts
With regard to the resurgence of interest in a Nuclear Medal, government committees etc should consider all the facts. They of course will not consider all of the facts. All facts relevant have been airbrushed by government from history. The current Secretary of State for Defence will consider only the significantly biased advice inherited by bureaucrats. None of the politicians and officials, even as former servicemen, have any idea of the truth of what happened between 1952 and 67 at the nuclear bomb test locations.
Any Nuclear medal should therefore be inscribed:
“For serving in Cold War experiments at British nuclear fall out locations without respirators, personal protective equipment and any vaccine to ensure immunity from the known legacy of ill health, premature deaths and genetic damage”
Around the rim the medal should be etched:
“For service to PM edict : It’s a pity but it cannot be helped.”
Without such wording most nuclear veterans will tell them where to stuff any medal. The nuclear message for 2021 is unchanged. The truth is self evident in history and includes:
- The science of genetic damage regarding the prime causal to ill health etc from inhaled and ingested fallout has been suppressed for decades.
- Documents of radiation dose etc, relevant to the period, have been withheld. Scientists and others supporting the truth over decades have had careers wrecked and/or have been intimidated. The label ‘vexatious’ has been attached to anyone seeking the facts and being given lies instead.
- Politicians attempting to help nuclear veterans have been warned by the UK Government any help given to those who took part at nuclear test locations is regarded as ‘an unfriendly act ’. On becoming a Minister nuclear veterans archives show any MP is quickly forced to renege upon support.
- Any Minister setting up a committee that includes the views of independent scientists rather than Government scientists on radiation risk are known to be sacked.
- The World Health Organisation in the late 1950’s has been gagged from commenting on radiation induced ill health. This is the remit only of those organisations that support nuclear industry.
- Peer reviewed papers supporting the causal links of radiation to ill health etc have been ignored even when independent experts have gone on record of saying they should set alarm bells ringing in government.
- Epidemiological studies in the UK and in Australia have been significantly flawed and biased to favour joint-Government policies of denial . This is due to a 1993 bi-lateral UK – Australia treaty of cooperation to avoid accountability and any compensation payments. Biased methodology and protocols, without any cytogenetic blood testing, framed by a government appointed epidemiologist is the modus operandi often used to achieve the ‘right’ conclusion needed for government to deny any liability.
- An independent cytogenetic blood test analysis of nuclear test veterans showing peer reviewed genetic damage has been ignored . Whilst, in contrast, statistically manipulated and flawed epidemiology has been lauded as the consensus scientific view. This is despite being stated by independent scientists and experts as perverted for political reasons.
The list goes on. The treatment of nuclear test veterans can be summed up as follows:
Loyal servicemen are victims of a government policy without ethics or morality. It indicates a negative ethos that diminishes and ignores a public health issue of radiation and regards, in a warped cost v benefit analysis, that nuclear veterans health damage is an acceptable collateral damage of the Cold War.
What can be learnt from the Government’s handling of the COVID pandemic?
The shambolic handling of the COVID pandemic in the UK (and also in the US) has also shown advice by scientific Government appointees is biased, inadequate or ignored when handling public health issues. This appears similar to the collateral damage resulting from the 1950’s ‘committees of stooges’ of Government appointed committees set up to deny the impact of radioactive fallout.
A group of 70 or so Government MPs seem to have recognised this fact in the formation of the COVID Recovery Group (CRG), in November 2020, with their second guiding principle being :
“It is time to end the monopoly on advice of government scientists. Prevailing expert opinion must be challenged. Ministers should publish the models that inform policies so they can be reviewed by the public.”
This sounds promising but from past history is likely to be reneged upon by Ministers. Publishing models framing policies to be reviewed by the public will undoubtedly be blocked unless a radical change in government ethics and morality occurs.
There is hope perhaps for more openness and transparency for the next generation. The NZ Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, with an emotional empathy for the people has been rightly praised for her firm handling of the pandemic.
When asked by the Press to explain her firmness and decision-making authority in handling the pandemic she included the following :
“ I think one of the sad things I’ve seen in political leadership is – because we’ve placed overtime so much emphasis on notions of assertiveness and strength – that we probably have assumed that it means you can’t have those other qualities of kindness and empathy. We need our leaders to be able to emphasise with the circumstances of others; to empathise with the next generation .The world doesn’t need a whole lot of thick-skinned politicians ; they do need people who care.”
Nuclear veterans have learnt the kindness and empathy does not sit well with the UK government track record of the dealing with health concerns. This has been shown clearly in the combined history archive of nuclear test veterans accumulated and held by those who served in the British nuclear weapon test experiments. The only words that describes UK Government and Ministry of Defence policy towards nuclear veterans is: unhelpfulness, betrayal and a total absence of any duty of care.
The NZ Premier’s comments are interesting in context. One of her closest political colleagues happens to be Winston Peters, the New Zealand party leader, who in 1999 was warned by the British High Commissioner that any help to nuclear veterans would be regarded as ‘an unfriendly act’ by the UK Government. He was not impressed at the time and rightly so.
The pandemic has shown democracies in the west are miles apart regarding openness and honesty regarding public health concerns and this does not bode well for the future unless they begin to empathise with the concerns of the next generation.
Whatever happens in 2021 I hope it will be as happy time as possible.
With best regards to all
Founder of the Combined Veterans’ Forum International ( 2002 )
On behalf of the Combined History Archive of Nuclear Veterans
In support of all who participated in the British Nuclear Test Experiments 1952 to 67.