Gerry Georgatos
Maralinga’s and Emu Field’s long suffering Aboriginal victims of the British atomic tests have been told by lawyers that a class action for compensation would fail and that the fight in the courts is over because apparently it is impossible to adequately prove radiation from the atomic blasts specifically caused their illnesses and the premature deaths. Maralinga victim Yami Lester said this is “rubbish” and that his blindness was caused by nothing else other than the fallout from the blasts. He was a young child at the time.
Human rights lawyers and advocates have called for both the Australian and British Governments to finally take full responsibility and to make ex-gratia payments or what are also known as grace payments to the victims.
Mr Lester, born in 1949, is a Yankunytjatjara man and he said that the blindness followed the “oily looking black mist” that quickly appeared after the “thunderous bangs”.
“After the mist and black smoke passed my community suffered skin rashes, vomiting, diarrhoea. My eyes were sore and one of them swelled shut for three weeks,” said Mr Lester.
It was nearly 57 years ago when on November 10 a seven year young Yami Lester was exposed to the fallout. In a cloak of secrecy and with a bent to harness the critical mass of atomic and hydrogen molecular energy the British government conducted nuclear tests at Maralinga in South Australia.
South Australian lawyer, Patrick Byrt who works at the Roma Mitchell Aboriginal Community Centre in Norwood, Adelaide, said what the lawyers have said to the victims is scandalous and that indeed radiation poisoning and fallout from atomic bombs can be causally linked, directly, to illnesses and deaths. “This is the shock news story of the millennium that the Maralinga victims are not legally entitled to compensation,” he said.
Mr Lester recalls the skies were lit with black clouds and what followed has never left his memory. He recalls that his peoples’ lands were blighted by the deluge of black clouds. Mr Lester’s recollections were part of a number of accounts that brought about the 1984-85 McClelland Royal Commission which investigated what happened at Maralinga. Its findings corroborated Mr Lester’s claims. The Australian Government, in 1951, entered into an agreement with Great Britain for the tests between 1952 to 1967 to be conducted in South Australia (Maralinga and Emu Fields, with the fall out reaching Western Australia) and along the north Western Australian coast (the Montebello Islands).
“It’s the agreement that legally obliges both Australia and Great Britain to compensate the victims,” said Mr Byrt.
However lawyers have said that the seven atomic bombs detonated at Maralinga in the 1950s and 1960s are not enough to prove radiation caused illnesses and deaths. The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) hired law firm Hickman and Rose to pursue the class action in the British Courts on behalf of the victims.
ALRM director Christopher Charles said it was not likely it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that ionising radiation is dangerous to human health. Mr Byrt said this is wrong let alone “scandalous”.
“Regrettably, it has been made very clear that they just cannot proceed in the English Courts,” said Mr Charles.
Modern medical science has not been able to find a way to prove a causation link between ionising radiation and subsequent illness.” He said despite people having been affected by radiation “if you can’t prove the link between the ionising radiation and the illness” then “that is the end of the story.”
Mr Byrt said ionising radiation has more energy than non-ionising radiation, enough to cause chemical changes by breaking chemical bonds. This effect can cause damage to living tissue.
Mr Clarke said many Aboriginal victims had been interviewed and had been hanging on the class action. They were informed of the sad news in a DVD prepared by Hickman and Rose from London which the ALRM sent to Aboriginal communities in Ceduna and Yalata. He said the communities were shattered by the news.
“I don’t’ think anyone would dispute the trauma that was caused to Aboriginal people, to non-Aboriginal people, to servicemen and to everybody (affected by the atomic blasts),” said Mr Clarke.
Last year Britain’s Supreme Court knocked back a class action by one thousand British Maralinga ex-service personnel who sought compensation.
Mr Byrt disagrees with the Hickman and Rose findings and that the class action could have been pursued, and that the rejection of compensation to the British servicemen is not comparable.
“The Crown was made subject to a lesser duty of care to the veterans than what the Law applied to the Crown to protect Descendants (Aboriginal peoples)… (In effect) there was no wrong being done to the veterans by the explosions taking place as they agreed to be involved and also by law to be treated by the negligence of the Crown as part of their veteran service agreements… however the Descendants (Aboriginal people) had always been complete strangers to the test,” said Mr Byrt.
“It is therefore just a false statement that the claimants from South Australia would not be able to get their cases into the English Courts solely because the two factors that Hickman and Rose raised, both which are not directly relevant to the claimants.”
Mr Lester said he had been scared by the sounds. “There was the first big explosion, then more came, quickly, boom, boom, boom.”
“The old people knew what it was. They said it was the bad spirits.”
“We knew even as kids that is was something new, we were scared, it wasn’t red dust flying around, it was black dust. The smoke clouds were black and oily looking.”
“We kids went to school the next day and there was something maybe wrong with many of us. We had eye problems and skin rashes. Some old people died. My one eye would not open for about three weeks. What happened is I went blind in 1957.”
Decades later Mr Lester spoke out after hearing Government officials alleging no harm was done to the nearby Aboriginal peoples. He contacted the Adelaide Advertiser which ran his account of Maralinga and led to the McClelland Commission. The Commission’s findings included that there had been significant radiation hazards that still existed at the Maralinga tests sites. Recommendations included en masse compensation for the Maralinga Tjarutja peoples, and for the clean-up and restoration of their Traditional Lands. More than a quarter of a century following the Royal Commission there is still no compensation – more than 200 Aboriginal victims of the Maralinga atomic tests continue to wait, they are old and time is running out. It now requires the Prime Minister to step in, however the Government and the Opposition have been quiet.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Forwarded by Patrick Byrt - lawyer, Roma Mitchell Community Centre, Norwood, Adelaide):
Written by Patrick Byrt:
Following its legal incorporation in 1999, ANTaR SA Inc was introduced in 1999 to the fallout issues affecting Descendant victims of the British nuclear testing on Anangu lands in South Australia. After doggedly campaigning for the following 10 years with an unswerving determination to fight for justice for the affected Descendants who had been left out of the official compensation process, ANTaR SA received information that pro bono legal support to obtain UK legal aid for the Descendants may be available for the Descendants. An offer of pro bono legal help was raised by a Melbourne born and educated British Barrister, Angela Ward, who had contacted ANTaR SA inquiring about pro bono work on the issues for the Descendants in London and seeking UK legal aid to run with the 2009 UK High Court case principles enunciated by Mr Justice Foskett in the Limitation Trial Summary, handed down in London on June 5th 2009.
ANTaR SA Inc then decided to run with the mammoth task of getting the South Australian Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) officially to take up the issues ventilated by ANTAR SA for the affected Descendants from 1999, with any of those affected Aboriginal Descendants who may have been interested to pursue UK compensation after ANTaR SA got on board, based on the 2009 decision of the UK High Court in the Nuclear Veterans case (Mr Justice Foskett – Limitation trial summary, London , June 5th 2009)..
ANTaR SA arranged for Angela Ward to attend a meeting with the Director of ALRM. A meeting was organized with affected Descendants at ALRM to begin the legal process with ALRM backing and financial support. The State Co-ordinator of ANTaR SA Inc., was engaged part-time by ALRM to work as liaison with the Descendants on the ALRM revival of the Anangu claimants issues that Angela Ward needed to have addressed. Ms Ward apparently took formal instructions on the case to obtain UK legal aid. ANTaR SA dropped out of an ongoing involvement. Next, the State Co-ordinator of ANTaR SA Inc., resigned from ANTaR SA Inc., and left the organisation.
ALRM then pursued the matter and questions may reasonably be raised, in the light of how the whole matter has now panned out, whether ALRM acted without having first got 100% commitment from the ALRM Board. The Director of ALRM eventually was removed from employment by ALRM following the engagement of the UK solicitors Hickman & Rose, apparently for an advise and report. Angela Ward apparently had been engaged pro bono to pursue UK legal aid for the Descendants prior to this.
The reasonable questions whether Ms Ward was engaged with the previous 100% approval of the ALRM board; whether financial reimbursement was made by ALRM for fares and/or accommodation and/or other expenses of Ms Ward with the previous 100% approval of the ALRM board; and whether the decision for ALRM to support the Descendants required the prior 100% approval of the board, remain unraised. The reasonable question of whether the engagement of Hickman & Rose by ALRM and the internal ALRM support provided to the Descendants was outside the ruling Commonwealth Attorney-General's manual for the operation of Aboriginal legal services also remains unraised in public.
ALRM removed the Director following legal approaches that were made in the UK to revive the Descendants claims. Now the ALRM board has terminated all ALRM support for the Descendants' valid claims through ALRM for a reason or reasons relating to their cases that is or are transparently unsound, apart from the express determination of the ALRM board to follow other agenda priorities. The current ALRM Director of Legal Services has asserted publicly to the reasonable effect that the ALRM board is determined to cease and terminate the whole activity by and for the Descendants.
Questions may be reasonably asked in public whether personal approaches were made in the UK to the UK Foreign Office without the 100% approval of the ALRM board; whether the Commonwealth Attorney-General's office has intervened in the process of attempting to pursue the claims - and if so for whose benefit; and irrespective of those matters, whether there has been any intervention by the Commonwealth under the ruling Commonwealth Attorney-General's manual for the operation of Aboriginal legal services.
No word has come back to the Descendants from Angela Ward. The question reasonably may be asked whether Ms Ward may still be interested in providing pro bono help to any of the Descendants to pursue their issues or whether the 4 to 3 verdict in the vets case by the law lords at the UK Supreme Court in March 2012 has influenced her also to cease all help to the Descendants.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION ON IONIZING RADIATION:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/index.html
Ionizing radiation, health effects and protective measures
Fact sheet N°371
November 2012
Key facts
Ionizing radiation is a type of energy released by atoms in the form of electromagnetic waves or particles.
People are exposed to natural sources of ionizing radiation, such as in soil, water, vegetation, and in human-made sources, such as x-rays and medical devices.
Ionizing radiation has many beneficial applications, including uses in medicine, industry, agriculture and research.
As the use of ionizing radiation increases, so does the potential for health hazards if not properly used or contained.
Acute health effects such as skin burns or acute radiation syndrome can occur when doses of radiation exceed certain levels.
Low doses of ionizing radiation can increase the risk of longer term effects such as cancer.
What is ionizing radiation?
Ionizing radiation is a type of energy released by atoms that travels in the form of electromagnetic waves (gamma or X-rays) or particles (neutrons, beta or alpha). The spontaneous disintegration of atoms is called radioactivity, and the excess energy emitted is a form of ionizing radiation. Unstable elements which disintegrate and emit ionizing radiation are called radionuclides.
All radionuclides are uniquely identified by the type of radiation they emit, the energy of the radiation, and their half-life.
The activity — used as a measure of the amount of a radionuclide present — is expressed in a unit called the becquerel (Bq): one becquerel is one disintegration per second. The half-life is the time required for the activity of a radionuclide to decrease by decay to half of its initial value. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time that it takes for one half of its atoms to disintegrate. This can range from a mere fraction of a second to millions of years (e.g. iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days while carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years).
Radiation sources
People are exposed to natural radiation on a daily basis. Natural radiation comes from many sources including more than 60 naturally-occurring radioactive materials found in soil, water and air. Radon, a naturally-occurring gas, emanates from rock and soil and is the main source of natural radiation. Every day, people inhale and ingest radionuclides from air, food and water.
People are also exposed to natural radiation from cosmic rays, particularly at high altitude. On average, 80% of the annual dose that a person receives of background radiation is due to naturally occurring terrestrial and cosmic radiation sources. Background radiation levels vary due to geological differences. Exposure in certain areas can be more than 200 times higher than the global average.
Human exposure to radiation also comes from human-made sources ranging from nuclear power generation to medical uses of radiation diagnosis or treatment. Today, the most common human-made sources of ionizing radiation are X-ray machines and other medical devices.
Type of exposure
Radiation exposure may be internal or external, and can be acquired through various exposure pathways.
Internal exposure to ionizing radiation occurs when a radionuclide is inhaled, ingested or otherwise enters into the bloodstream (e.g. injection, wounds). Internal exposure stops when the radionuclide is eliminated from the body, either spontaneously (e.g. through excreta) or as a result of a treatment.
External contamination may occur when airborne radioactive material (dust, liquid, aerosols) is deposited on skin or clothes. This type of radioactive material can often be removed from the body by simply washing.
Exposure to ionizing radiation can also result from external irradiation (e.g. medical radiation exposure to X-rays). External irradiation stops when the radiation source is shielded or when the person moves outside the radiation field.
Health effects of ionizing radiation
Radiation damage to tissue and/or organs depends on the dose of radiation received, or the absorbed dose which is expressed in a unit called the gray (Gy). The potential damage from an absorbed dose depends on the type of radiation and the sensitivity of different tissues and organs.
The sievert (Sv) is a unit of radiation weighted dose also called the effective dose. It is a way to measure ionizing radiation in terms of the potential for causing harm. The Sv takes into account the type of radiation and sensitivity of tissues and organs. The Sv is a very large unit so it is more practical to use smaller units such as millisieverts (mSv) or microsieverts (Sv). There are one thousand Sv in one mSv, and one thousand mSv in one Sv. In addition to the amount of radiation (dose), it is often useful to express the rate at which this dose is delivered (dose rate) e.g. Sv/hour or mSv/year.
Beyond certain thresholds, radiation can impair the functioning of tissues and/or organs and can produce acute effects such as skin redness, hair loss, radiation burns, or acute radiation syndrome. These effects are more severe at higher doses and higher dose rates. For instance, the dose threshold for acute radiation syndrome is about 1 Sv (1000 mSv).
If the dose is low or delivered over a long period of time (low dose rate), there is greater likelihood for damaged cells to successfully repair themselves.. However, long-term effects may still occur if the cell damage is repaired but incorporates errors, transforming an irradiated cell that still retains its capacity for cell division. This transformation may lead to cancer after years or even decades have passed. Effects of this type will not always occur, but their likelihood is proportional to the radiation dose. This risk is higher for children and adolescents, as they are significantly more sensitive to radiation exposure than adults.
Epidemiological studies on populations exposed to radiation (for example atomic bomb survivors or radiotherapy patients) showed a significant increase of cancer risk at doses above 100 mSv.
Prenatal exposure to ionizing radiation may induce brain damage in foetuses following an acute dose exceeding 100 mSv between weeks 8-15 of pregnancy and 200 mSv between weeks 16-25 of pregnancy. Before week 8 or after week 25 of pregnancy human studies have not shown radiation risk to fetal brain development. Epidemiological studies indicate that cancer risk after fetal exposure to radiation is similar to the risk after exposure in early childhood.
Radiation exposure in nuclear emergencies
Radioactive material may be released into the environment during an emergency in a nuclear power plant (NPP). The radionuclides of greatest concern to human health are iodine and caesium.
Occupational exposure, either internally or externally, of rescuers, first responders, and NPP workers is likely to occur during the emergency response. It may result in radiation doses high enough to cause acute effects such as skin burns or acute radiation syndrome.
Those living in closer vicinity to a NPP can be externally exposed to radionuclides present in a radioactive cloud or deposited on the ground. They can also be externally contaminated by radioactive particles deposited on skin or clothes. Internal exposure may take place if radionuclides are inhaled, ingested, or enter an open wound.
The general population is not likely to be exposed to doses high enough to cause acute effects, but they may be exposed to low doses which could result in increased risk of long-term effects like cancer. Consumption of contaminated food and/or water contributes to overall radiation exposure.
If radioactive iodine is released into the environment and enters the body through inhalation or ingestion, it will concentrate in the thyroid gland increasing the risk of thyroid cancer. The risk of thyroid cancer is higher in children than adults, particularly those under 5 years, and those whose diets are generally deficient in iodine.
Protective health actions in nuclear emergencies
During nuclear emergencies, public health protective actions may be implemented to limit radiation exposure and associated health risks.
In the early phase of an emergency (within the first few hours/days), urgent protective actions should be implemented to prevent radiation exposure, taking into account projected doses that people may received in the short-term (e..g. effective dose within 2-7 days, thyroid dose within one week). Decisions are based on NPP conditions, amount of radioactivity actually or potentially released into the atmosphere, prevailing meteorological conditions (e.g.. wind speed and direction, precipitation), and other factors. Local authorities may announce urgent actions including evacuation, sheltering indoors, and the administration of non-radioactive iodine.
Evacuation is most effective when used as a precautionary action before an airborne release takes place. Sheltering indoors (e.g. homes, schools, and office buildings) can also significantly reduce exposure to the radioactive material released and dispersed.
The administration of non-radioactive iodine can prevent the uptake of radioactive iodine by the thyroid gland. When potassium iodide (KI) pills are taken before or shortly after exposure, they saturate the thyroid gland to reduce the dose and risk of thyroid cancer. KI pills do not protect against external radiation, or against any other radioactive substances apart from radioactive iodine.
Potassium iodide pills should be taken only when instructed by competent authorities. It is important to follow dosage recommendations, especially for children. Pregnant women should take KI pills when instructed by competent authorities to protect their thyroid and the thyroid of the fetus. When instructed, breastfeeding women should also take KI pills to protect themselves, and give KI to the breastfed baby following recommended dosages.
Food, water and agricultural countermeasures may be implemented to reduce radiation exposure during the early phase of an emergency (e.g. restricting consumption of water, and locally produced food and dairy products).
Mental health support to manage acute stress after a nuclear event can speed recovery and prevent long-term consequences such as post-traumatic stress disorder or other persistent mental health disorders. Reactions may be intense and prolonged with profound emotional impact, particularly in children.
As environmental and human monitoring data increase, other protective actions may be implemented, including relocation of people to temporary housing or in some cases, permanent resettlement. These protective actions are implemented taking into account the doses that a population may receive over the long-term (e.g. effective dose during one year). Food and water monitoring programmes should be established to inform longer-term decisions on food restriction, water consumption, and the control of internationally traded foodstuffs.
The recovery phase may last for a considerable period. Cessation of protective measures should be linked to environmental, food and human health monitoring and based on a risk-benefit analysis. Appropriate long-term follow-up programmes should be established to assess public health consequences and the need for any subsequent actions.
WHO response
In accordance with its Constitution and the International Health Regulations (2005), WHO is mandated to assess public health risks and provide technical consultation and assistance in public health events, including those associated with radiation events. In doing so, WHO works with independent experts and other UN agencies.
WHO's work is supported by a global network comprising more than 40 specialized institutions in radiation emergency medicine. The network, the Radiation Emergency Medical Preparedness and Assistance Network, provides technical assistance for radiation emergency preparedness and response.
PAUL LANGLEY writes:
Hi Patrick sure, however talking with Lallie Lennon and Michele Madigan would be a good idea. I can email the report based on Lallies oral history - at the time of the Royal Commission and in the last few years one taken by Michele at Pt Augusta. I have the ARPANSA CEO's letter in response saying the dose could not have caused harm and I have Andrew Collett's email informing me that he was involved in a legal case in which on the basis of the medical evidence the court found that the injuries suffered were caused by bomb fallout (all this in relation to Totem 1).
The medical precedent is the Marshall Islanders. Even though Totem 1 was a year earlier. Further medical precedent is found in the case of Martha Bordoli Laird and her son and husband who both died in Nevada from leukemia. They suffered skin rashes, sore eyes, etc. Their livestock suffered skin lesions admitted to be Beta burn by the AEC. This was Warm Springs Nevada. about the same distance from the Nevada Test Site as Lallie was from Totem 1. The year was 1953.
The farmer, radiation monitor and photographer Joe Fallini Snr (now deceased) took photos of ground level or near ground level nuclear smoke clouds with a camera in a lead box (with a little hole in it for the lens. These photos have long been published. The legal case fought by Martha and Joe, who took up her cause, went on for years. Joe is dead, the family are exhausted from fighting and they also were active against the Nevada waste site. I think they want to be left alone.
But there is public record stuff. This was all going on at the time of the Royal Commission which could find no similar incident with all its efforts and resources. The best it could come up with was the Sedan test in Nevada which was an underground test. But in 1957, a Grey Mist was photographed by Joe Fallini Snr engulfing farming land and buildings over 100 miles from the Nevada Test Site. And this has been common knowledge in the USA since Fallini, an appointed AEC monitor, took issue with the organisation about what he found and about how it affected people and livestock. The symptoms are the same.
When you relate to the Marshall Islanders, you find in the US records that skin samples were taken from the Islanders and the AEC compared these livestock lesions. Beta Burn. This was 1954.
When you relate all that to what happened to Aboriginal people in Australia in 1953 there is no deviation from cause and no difference in effects. The Marshall Islanders are diagnosed radiologically - radiation caused the illnesses and deaths and miscarriages. Everyone else is medically diagnosed with no reference to the causative agent. It is denied.
That includes the Aboriginal people and the school children of Warm Springs and Dry Springs Nevada. Who suffered sore eyes, skin rashes the runs and the other symptoms.
There are precedents.
I have been talking about this for decades Patrick. Noone gets it.
Until you cross reference the different populations and compare them, they remain isolated events. But they are not isolated events in actual fact.
The attitude of the British authorities is not surprising. However, if one gathers evidence from the US tests and uses it in relation to the British Tests, the British tests are revealed as being dirtier than the US ones.
After all this time I do not think myself that briefing someone on the spot will do much. Noone gets it.
If you give me his email address I will email him a copy of the report. And the court case Andrew Collett informed me of is sealed and is not on the public record. But Andrew knows about for he was the plaintiff's solicitor.
The AEC proves the medical link between radiation exposure and disease in fallout affected people in 1954 Patrick. Britain can deny it but that denial flies in the face of nuclear history as it is written in the US Congressional Record.
Paul
LINKS:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-11/fight-over-for-maralinga-victims/4...
The Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement employed legal firm Hickman and Rose to pursue a class action in the British courts on behalf of Aboriginal people from the area.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1727792/No-compensation-for-Maralinga...
Interview with Rosemary Lester, daughter of Yami Lester
http://www.maralingaclassaction.com.au/
During the 1950’s and 60’s, the British government conducted nuclear tests at Maralinga, in South Australia. Over the course of eight years, a total of seven major tests were carried out, as well as more than 500 smaller trials. These tests exposed both the servicemen stationed at Maralinga and the local Aboriginal inhabitants to unhealthy levels of radiation, as well as contaminating the sites with radioactive materials, some of which will remain active for hundreds of thousands of years.
In 1993 the British Government paid the Australian Government the sum of twenty million Pounds Sterling as a compensation fund for the clean up of the nuclear testing sites. While this amount was paid for the clean up, there are thousands of Australians who have suffered as a result of the British nuclear testing and not received a cent in compensation.
Following a landmark ruling in the British courts, British ex-servicemen and their widows won the right to take the UK Ministry of Defence to court in a class action suit. A group of Australian veterans, led by the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, will join in the suit, represented by a legal team headed by Tom Goudkamp of Sydney-based law firm Stacks/Goudkamp.
The purpose of this website is to raise awareness within the Australian community about the catastrophic nuclear tests that took place on our soil and had devastating effects on the lives of thousands of our servicemen, civilians and indigenous Australians.
It is also to provide an opportunity for us to show our support for these victims by lobbying the Australian government to accept responsibility for the actions of the past.
