Why nuclear veterans' war pensions are denied. Part Two

Many nuclear veterans have been denied war pensions, in a document obtained by LABRATS, we look at the Adjudication Guidance.

The Veterans Agency Adjudication Guidance is a 186-page document giving guidance for the Veterans Agency and providing reasoning for not approving war pension claims. Interestingly enough, nuclear veterans appear 60 times in this document.

Following on from part one where it was documented that you needed dosimeter readings for a claim:

Internal doses only come from an area where high levels of resuspendabe fallout emitting photon and beta radiation, it is highly unlikely that this could happen without at the same time there being a measurable external dose received as indicated by his film badge. Yet men did not have badges, fallout rain fell on the island after the tests. This document should be updated after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Black Rain trial.

According to the report, if you had stayed in the UK, you would have received 3 times more radiation than that at a Nuclear Explosion!

The report concentrates on Ms Sue Rabbit Roff and her studies:

No mention of the inaccuracies of the NRPB study, the many criticisms, or the 'watering down' of the participants.

As these reports do not fit the MoD's narrative, they are dismisse

Conclusion

The author of this document is Dr E A Briadwood, who for many years has provided testimony in many war pension tribunals. CLICK HERE On many occasions, she has spoken outside of her area of expertise in fact in the Atomic Veterans Group Litigation of 2005 – 2013 when cross-examined in court by Neil Sampson, the MOD’s ‘expert’ witness, Dr Anne Braidwood had to admit she was not an expert and did not know what she was talking about to avoid answering questions liable to incriminate MOD.

The odds are stacked against any nuclear veteran claiming a war pension, one veteran has been waiting 4 years for an appeal. Other veterans have been asked for testimony for activities that happened in 1958! The board of appeal had no documentation, no dosimeter readings, yet they were asking the veteran to prove a causal link.

How can the UK still take this stance? Look at the US RECA program, participation at the tests or 6 months afterward is accepted if the participant develops one of the conditions on their list.

Is there something special about UK radiation? Why are our tests different?

We suggest Dr Braidwood and the MoD looks at the RECA program:

The United States conducted nearly 200 atmospheric nuclear weapons development tests from 1945 to 1962. Essential to the nation’s nuclear weapons development was uranium mining and processing, which was carried out by tens of thousands of workers.

Following the conclusion of these activities, lawsuits against the United States alleged failure to warn of exposures to known radiation hazards. These suits were dismissed by the appellate courts. Congress responded by devising a program allowing partial restitution to individuals who developed serious illnesses after presumed exposure to radiation released during the atmospheric nuclear tests or after employment in the uranium industry. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed on October 5, 1990. The Act’s scope of coverage was broadened on July 10, 2000.

This unique statute was designed to serve as an expeditious, low-cost alternative to litigation. Significantly, RECA does not require claimants to establish causation. Rather, claimants qualify for compensation by establishing the diagnosis of a listed compensable disease after working or residing in a designated location for a specific period of time.

Millions of pounds were spent on this denial, thousands of veterans dead, millions of lives destroyed, medical records destroyed or altered, and according to the MoD if you had stayed in the UK, you would have had 3 times more radiation exposure. This is a crime on humanity and the UK should be ashamed.

Read the Full Document