You are on page 1of 12

Health consequences of exposures of British personnel to radioactivity whilst serving in areas where atomic bomb tests were conducted

Response to: K. Johnston: Exposure to Ionising Radiation at Christmas Island: A review Chris Busby PhD

Castle Cottage, Sea View Place Aberystwyth, SY23 1DZ UK Feb 5th 2012

1. Scope In this report I address the document: Exposure to ionizing radiation at Christmas Island: a review (K. Johnston, Nov 2011) which advances arguments and analyses for the defence in the issue of the veterans tribunals cases. Johnston’s report itself (KJ) examines the earlier reports by written by me and by Prof Regan, and presents a number of arguments and calculations. In addition, because I have results from new evidence which has recently become available, I will also present some analyses of photographs of the Grapple Y test which seems to me to be relevant to the discussions. 2. Natural Background radiation doses on Christmas Island (CI) and the UK. KJ returns to an issue which was raised in my earlier reports where I took issue with the defence assertion that the background radiation on CI was much lower than in the UK. I argued that the report by Clare et al 1987 was demonstrable false in tabulating the background on CI as 600µSv compared with 2300µSv in the UK because Clare had not included exposures to Uranium, Thorium, Radium and Radon gas, which carry a high weighting factor of 20 because they are alpha emitters. Most of the UK dose was from Radon gas and its daughters. KJ argues that I was in error in this in that Clare et al 1989 did in fact include internal exposures from Radon and other alpha emitters. KJ calls this a key issue and states that it renders my subsequent arguments to be without foundation. The key reference is supplied by KJ and is Clare et al’s Reference 13 which is appended to the KJ report. This reference 13 is: Supplementary Statement No 1 Issue No 3 of 21st August 1989: Exposure to Background Ionising Radiation on Christmas Island 1956-1964 MoD (PE) AWE (Aldermaston) ( henceforth SS1). SS1 Para 2 includes the key statement: The average background of the island of 580uSv per annum is lower than in the United Kingdom and refers this statement to two reports of the National Radiological Protection Board which give values for the UK, not Christmas Island. It continues: This is due to a number of factors. . . l. First the cosmic radiation is lower near the equator. . 2. . . . and last, and most importantly, the dose from alpha particle radiations from the gases radon (222Rn) and Thoron (220Rn) and their radioactive decay products is very low, less than 1% of the average in the United Kingdom, due to the coral composition and isolated position of this small island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean The first point is true, that the cosmic radiation is lower at the equator, but not by an amount that would justify the argument made in SS1. Table 1 of UNSCEAR 2000 gives the cosmic ray dose rate at Lat 0-10 degrees as 30nSv/h compared with Lat 5060 as 32nSv/h. This would be annual doses of 280µSv Cosmic Ray dose on Christmas Island and about 263µSv/h in the UK a difference of 7%. So we can discard this point. The second point above is more interesting and is also demonstrable false, as I wrote. SSI does not present any results of measurements for its statement that the alpha particle Radon etc doses are 1% of those in the UK, but bases its assertion on the vague and unscientific idea that because this is a coral island in the Pacific, it cannot have any Uranium or Uranium decay products in the soil. In addition, to

support this, it in turn cites two references, one of which is a personal communication (which I have no way of investigating), the other a report by the New Zealand National Radiological Protection Board (McEwan et al 1981, hereafter ME1981). So we are now two stages away from KJ and I will turn to ME1981. 3. The McEwan et al 1981 New Zealand Department of Health Survey ME1981 is the report of a radiological survey of CI carried out in 1981 by a team from New Zealand. But this report gives no measurements of Radon or Thoron levels in the air. It gives an outline of external dose rates at various parts of the island and measures Cs-137, Sr-90 and Pu-239 in soil samples. It does however make some interesting statements: 1. (p3) it was not considered necessary to make separate measurements for beta radiation (because the beta gamma ratio is constant for long lived materials) 2. (p8) although naturally occurring radionuclides viz. K-40, Ra-226 and U isotopes were detected in many samples, their concentrations are not tabulated or generally discussed in this report. 3. (p7) At site 41 which was on the shores of the enclosed salty lagoon the dose rate was about 45nGy/h at a distance of 40m from the waters edge. . . a soil sample demonstrated that the slight elevation in dose rate was due to Radium salts: the Ra226 concentration in surface soil at site 41 was 230Bq/kg. At a distance of 100m from the waters edge it had decreased to 100Bq/kg. CI is a coral island and is composed of Calcium Carbonate. It is made up of the skeletons of marine creatures built from calcium present in the sea. Also found in sea water are other elements including the alpha emitters Uranium and Radium, the origin of Radon and since these are both chemically similar to Calcium and in the same Chemical Group these will be laid down and incorporated into the Calcium Carbonate in concentration ratios which will largely be the same as in the sea water. We can check this. Other deposits of calcium carbonate from earlier sea creatures include the limestone deposits and derived soils all over the world. The concentration of Uranium and Radium in these limestone deposits is well documented. Table 6.6 in Eisenbud and Gesell 1997, the standard work on environmental radioactivity, give a mean U238 activity of 16Bq/kg in limestone rocks and the mean Ra-226 activity is the same at 15Bq/kg as it is a series descendant. This compares with 48Bq/kg in igneous rocks in the same table. However, although no results for U-238 are given in ME1981, we see that soil up to 100m from the edge of the lagoon has between 100 and 238Bq/kg of Ra-226. This is an unusually high activity of Radium and will give rise to significant Radon decays. No mention is made in the report of this finding, nor of the Radon concentrations anywhere on the island. I conclude two things: 1. No account was taken of internal exposures from Radon, as I argued in my initial report. The Radon concentrations in air from soil contaminated by 100238Bq/kg of Ra-226 are considerable and can be calculated on the basis of Radium-226/ Radon flux equations developed and reported in UNSCEAR 2000. If we assume that the whole island was contaminated by Radium at the lowest level reported, 100Bq/kg then the Radon doses would have inflated the natural background at CI to a level which is at least twice that for the UK

(assuming a mean Ra226 concentration in the UK of 20Bq/kg this would potentially deliver four times the annual UK dose) and maybe higher depending on the nature of the accommodation and where the veterans were sleeping in relation to the ground. Radon level in drinking water (in which it is quite soluble) will also have been a significant unmeasured and overlooked dose source. But I do not call this natural background Radium as it is more likely a Nuclear Test Uranium contamination byproduct; it is nevertheless a background radiation and this falsifies the argument made by KJ and earlier papers on this issue. 2. The Radium levels mentioned in passing draw attention to serious contamination of the island by Radium, and therefore probably Uranium, which could not be explained from consideration of the natural background concentrations in Calcium Carbonate rocks and results were dismissed as “natural” and mostly not reported by ME1981. This raises the question of the origin of the Radium and the failure of MC1981 to follow up this finding. It follows from all this that KJ is wrong and that my statement that the comparison of doses at CI and the UK are demonstrably false, stands. Radon exposure was not measured but it was assumed that there was no Radium on the island because it was an isolated coral island in the Pacific. The measurements of Radium on the island by the NZ team seem to have been overlooked. The same is true for Thoron. The parent nuclide, “natural” Thorium-232 was reported in ME1981(p7) but no reporting of Thorium occurred apart from one site where it was stated to be the cause of elevated gamma readings. The reliance of ME1981 on the gamma dose rate measurements alone if unsafe. U-238 contamination will produce hardly any gamma radiation. We should also ask why (point 1 above) the NZ team made a point of not measuring the beta dose rate because as they stated: the beta gamma ratio was known. In fact, the beta gamma ratio was anomalously high, much higher than they would have expected, as I showed from Oldbury’s paper and also in my 2nd supplementary report where I check the beta gamma ratio on the material on the aircraft. It is impossible that the NZ team did not also find this, and I find it rather suspicious that they omitted reporting it. This analysis therefore largely withdraws KJs platform regarding the dose comparison between CI and the UK. 4. Uranium series decays: U-234 Some explanations may be of value here. Table 1 shows the decay series nuclides U238 and U-235 series together with their half lives. It should be recalled that the bombs were made of U-238 and U-235. In addition, and rarely mentioned is U-234. When U-235 is separated from natural Uranium, the methods depend on the slight difference in atomic mass. Thus the lighter isotope U-235 is removed from the heavier isotope U-238. But it is clear that the natural Uranium will have also U-234 as a “stowaway” which is also an alpha emitter. Since it is the daughter of U-238 and has a much shorter half life, this isotope will be present in secular equilibrium, which is what is found when measurements are made of natural Uranium. The activity of U234 will thus be the activity of the parent U-238, generally 1:1 though in disturbed soils and waters this can vary slightly from about 0.9 to 1.2. Since the activity ratio of U-235 to U-238 in natural Uranium is about 23.6 (that is just the function of the

normal isotope atom ratio, the atomic ratio of U-235 in natural Uranium, 137.88), there will be 23.6 decays of U-234 (and also U-238) to each decay of U-235. It follows that if U-234, being lighter even than U-235, is separated from the natural Uranium in the enrichment process, the so-called enriched Uranium (used in the bombs) will be enriched also in U-234. But the activity of the U-234 will be 23.6 times greater than the U-235. Thus if there were total enrichment, to give 100% U235, the Uranium activity would be 80MBq/kg from the U-235 but also 23.6 * 80MBq = 1888MBq/kg (1.9GBq/kg) from the “stowaway” U-234. Thus it follows that U-234 is a serious component of the Uranium contamination in fallout and rainout. Indeed, Karl Z Morgan, the head of internal radiation and health effects Committee 2 of the USA NCRP and in charge of much of the US tests radiation health effects team came to Aldermaston in 1952 and told the UK teams this, that they should be very careful about Uranium contamination at the test sites, particularly U234. I saw a memo where this was reported in the files I examined. I will ask Rosenblatts to look it out. The reason I mention it here is that it is clear from Table 1 that Radium-226 is one of the later decay products of U-234, and that the unusually high levels of Ra-226 found in the ME1981 survey may signal the presence of even higher levels of U-234 and the other U nuclides. It is a great pity that ME1981 did not report the Uranium results they had and wrote them off as natural Uranium. In passing, should not the AWE memo in 1989 have questioned their own analysis about Radon and alpha emitters on the basis of the presence of Uranium and Radium on CI, rather than falsely cherry-picking from ME1981 that which supported their desire to show that the radiation doses were lower than in the UK? But as with many of the reports from AWE we see the questionable behaviour I have come to expect from the MoD. Table 1. Uranium Series. Only the earlier series nuclides are listed. (from Eisenbud and Gesell 1997 Tables 6.2 and 6.4). Nuclide U-238 Th-234 Pa-234m Pa-234 U-234 Th-230 Ra-226 Rn-222 Po-218 More Radon Daughters U-235 Th-231 Pa-231 Name Uranium Thorium Protoactinium Protoactinium Uranium Thorium Radium Radon Polonium Half life U-238 Series 4.47 x 109y 24.1d 1.17m 21.8y 244,500y 7.7 x 104y 1600y 3.8d 3.05m radiations Specific activity α β, γ β β, γ α α α α 12.4MBq/kg U-238 12.4MBq/kg U 238 12.4MBq/kg U-238 12.4MBq/kg U-238 12MBq/kg U-238; 230 x 109 Bq/kg U234

U-235, Actinium series Uranium 7.038 x 108y α, γ Thorium 25.5h β, γ 4 Protoactinium 2.27 x 10 y α, γ

80MBq/kg

More nuclides 5. KJs arguments relating to the external exposures as defined by the sticky papers; decay rates In KJ Section 6.2 there are a number of points raised. These mainly refer to my earliest attempts to try and make sense of the cumulative doses received by veterans living on the island for periods of time. These calculations have been overtaken by new data, and I will return to this. KJ makes a number of points: 1. I ignored readings from sticky papers which showed no gamma activity and chose only those which did. 2. I added these dose rates to make a cumulative dose which did not take into consideration the rapid decay of the hot nuclides on the sticky papers. 3. I failed to convert the contamination (µCi/m2) into dose rate 4. Drew misleading comparisons with Chernobyl: short lived vs longer lived nuclides 5. I alleged biased reporting I will briefly deal with the main points. First, KJ is correct that I was wrong to add the cumulative fallout deposition based on the measurements reported for the sticky filters in terms of the gamma defined surface contamination. KJs version of my Fig 3.3 which is given in KJ Appendix 2 would be accurate in terms of gamma emitters in fresh fallout. So that early analysis was incorrect in terms of fresh gamma emitters. However, in so far as the sticky papers actually reflect the fallout and rainout on the island (and we see from the evidence in my supplementary report and below that they do not), there will be a much larger component of unreported and unmeasured alpha and beta emitting long lived nuclides present in the mix. We know this from the measurements made on freshly dispersed material from the USA bombs where the beta gamma ratio is as high as 100 and is generally (see my 2nd supplementary report) of the order of 50. Since the expected value is about 1.5, we can see (and I have argued) that the missing beta emitters are the two Uranium daughters, Th-234 and Pa-234m (see Table 1). There will also be the U-235 daughter Th-231. There are thus 48.5 betas for every gamma measured by AWE in the sticky filters (assuming with KJ no fractionation of alphas, betas and gammas). If we ignore the U-235 there will be about 24 alpha decays from parent U238 for every gamma decay in the sticky papers. Thus the cumulative contamination as defined by my Fig 3.3 will actually be 24 times what I calculated for the gamma emitters. Over the period of the 1957-58 covered by my Fig 3.3 (in KJs appendix 2) there will have been a cumulative deposition of 0.23 x 24 µCi/m2. This is 888kBq/m2 of long lived alpha emitting U-238, and since the Chernobyl exclusion zone was defined as 555kBq/m2 this may be accurately compared with Chernobyl and gives levels greater than the exclusion zone limit. But there is also the question of whether the sticky papers accurately recorded the fallout and rainout. It has emerged since my first report that they do not and I point this out in my 2nd supplement report Section 6 where I discuss one interesting document released under the FoI. This draws attention to the way in which measurements of fallout were made (I subsume rainout under this heading of fallout). A memo by Maj.WG McDougall written from AWRE Aldermaston 14 Feb 1948 outlines required operation of fallout collection on Christmas Island (Veterans July

2008157654) is titled Air Water and Sticky Paper samplings. It states: Sticky paper is adversely affected by rain and should be taken in under cover when rain is falling. We assume that either this was carried out or wasn’t. If it was, then no radionuclides in the rain will have been collected on the filters. If it was not, then the filters will have had the fallout washed off them. Since the MoD depend to a great extent on the sticky filter data to argue their position that there was no fallout in areas where the veterans were stationed, this paper largely withdraws that evidence as unsafe. Therefore the real situation must be worse than that I have deduced above. 6. KJ’s approach to internal dose In my 2nd Supplement report I have already employed the KJ gisted data to assess the levels of likely contamination from Uranium U-238. I have also employed the Operation DOMINIC US aircraft surface contamination beta gamma ratios from the Oldbury 1962 report to show, as I do above, that the likely contamination was from Uranium, and this supports my very earliest attempt to do this using the Oldbury 1963 report of the beta gamma ratios on the airport washdown pad and other locations. KJ employs the gisted data to deduce maximum levels of plutonium contamination. As KJ points out, my own concern is with Uranium. This is, as I argue in my 2nd supplement report, because Uranium has singular and anomalously high genotoxicity which is arguable from scientific principles (binds to DNA, acts as a photoelectron amplifier of natural gamma radiation) and also from epidemiology (Iraq Fallujah papers, Gulf War syndrome etc). KJ makes two statements which are relevant here and which I will take issue with. The first in 7.3 states: There are no credible mechanisms for separate dispersal of Uranium Dust or Unexploded Uranium particles and in 7.5 so long as the fallout composition is not severely fractionated, this (his result) is also the fraction of the residual fissile material present. It is quite easy to show that there are such mechanisms and that different fallout components behave differently with regard to dispersion and transport. First, Uranium and Plutonium are quite differently distributed in the areas contaminated by Chernobyl. The Caesiums and Strontiums, being soluble in water, and of low boiling point, are dispersed as vapour and remain as gases at low temperatures. The boiling points of Cs, Sr, Ba, Pu and U are given in Table 2. Table 2 Melting points and solubility in water of Cs, Sr, Ba, Pu and U (CRC 1981) Element, isotope Caesium-137, 134 Strontium-89, 90 Barium-140 Uranium-238, 235,234 Plutonium-239, 240, 241 MP 28 769 725 1132 641 BP 678 1384 1640 3818 3232 Solubility water Highly soluble/ reactive Highly soluble/ reactive Soluble/ reactive Insoluble/ unreactive (oxide) Insoluble (oxide particles)

In the enormous temperatures generated by fission and fusion reactions the ion plasma containing these substances will condense as it cools with the formation of Pu and U sub micron particles quite close to the centre of the reaction fireball. The lighter elements will remain as vapours and will condense at lower temperatures much further away from the centre of the reaction. This is rather like fractional distillation

which relies on separating substances on the basis of their boiling points. It is therefore the credible mechanism that KJ argues does not exist, and indeed only a physicist could ask such a question. That such mechanisms exist is clear from maps of Caesium, Strontium and Plutonium contamination in the areas affected by the Chernobyl accident, also as we now know from the Xenon isotope ratios measured nearby, a nuclear explosion. It is clear that Caesium contamination occurred far away from the reactor whereas The Strontium contamination was located nearer and the plutonium contaminations was the closest to the reactor. I show two Chernobyl contamination maps, one for Cs-137 and one for Pu-239 (see e.g. Mould RF 1990) in Figs 1 and 2. A similar situation exists in the Fukushima contaminated territories of N Japan as I have personally determined by measurements of car air filters. It is also possible to draw attention to the measured contamination of upland parts of the UK, some 2000 miles from Chernobyl, with Cs-137 but virtually no contamination from Pu-239 or indeed Sr-90. Fig 1 Caesium contamination near Chernobyl (RF Mould)

Fig 2 Plutonium contamination near Chernobyl

I conclude that this fractionation argument goes against KJ. Indeed, at Christmas Island, it is my belief that the Uranium and Plutonium sub-micron particles will have formed condensation centres for water vapour and been rained out from the cloud quite early. Eisenbud and Gesell state that the particles formed in the fireball are 0.3 micrometers dameter. Heavy rain on CI and indeed in the camp areas after tests was reported by many veterans and by the observer aircraft. In one anecdotal report, the rain contained fish. I will discuss the origin of this rain below. 7. KJ’s argument about basing my analyses in the Oldbury Operation DOMINIC reports KJ 8.2 makes an issue of the fact that I have employed the Oldbury Operation DOMINIC measurements, which were mostly of US test fallout to draw conclusions about the UK tests. KJ argues that the USA data is irrelevant and that therefore my argument is invalid. My response is that I was interested mainly in showing that in nuclear test fallout and rainout, the fractions of the radioactive material that end up on the ground are dominated by Uranium isotopes and in terms of mass, principally U238. This must be true of the USA tests as well as the UK tests since these bombs are all based on the same principle, the fissioning of U235 with massive reflection components to contain the bombs made of U-238. Therefore I use the DOMINIC data: I would certainly have preferred to use the UK data but it has been kept secret and so I cannot. 8 Carter et al’s exposure dose calculations: KJ Section 9.8; calculating a dose.

I do not accept the accuracy of the figures for external dose given in the table in Carter et al 2006. The results in the tables given by Carter et al are incorrect. They are low by a factor of approximately 2. I use the UK Handbook of Radiological Protection HMSO 1971 to show this assuming a mean energy of 0.7MeV per photon. This is not so important to my arguments and I will not pursue it or lay out the calculations but is just one more piece of evidence of bias. Since KJ (Section 11.4) has complained that I have not estimated any doses from the contamination, I will make a quick calculation of the annual ICRP dose from Uranium-238 and Uranium 234 at a contamination level of 100Bq/kg which is based on the Radium-226 reading reported by ME1981. This translates into a surface contamination of 7.5kBq/m2 if we take the contamination to be to a depth of 5cm and the density of the soil to be 1.5. Using a resuspension factor of 1 x 10-5 this gives an air concentration of 0.075Bq/m3. At an inhalation rate of 23m3 a day (ICRP 23 Reference Man, 1975) this gives an annual internal inhalation exposure of 629Bq. Using the ICRP72 effective inhalation dose coefficients of 8 x10-6 and 9.4 x 10-6 Sv/Bq for U-238 and U-234 only (no daughters) this gives annual inhalation doses of 5.0 and 5.9mSv, a total Uranium inhalation dose of 10.9mSv. If I add in the Uranium daughters this goes up by a factor of 2 to about 20mSv ICRP. 9. New Evidence: Seawater source of rainfall after Grapple Y In my 2nd Supplementary report, Jan 2012, I employed a report released under the Freedom of Information requests to re-analyse the fallout and rainout from the Grapple Y test which was carried out over the sea in the SW corner of the island. I argued that heavy rain occurred after this test and assumed that this rain resulted from the drawing into the mushroom cloud the moist tropical air from sea level. However new information has come available since then which throws new light on the issue. Stephen Evans of Rosenblatt Solicitors obtained some photographs taken by the Canberra photographic aircraft of the development of the mushroom cloud. I append the photograph and a cropped section in Figs 3 and 4. Close examination of the cloud development shows a large mass (or more than one) being drawn up from the surface into the fireball. As this mass enters the fireball, a skirt of what seems to be water vapour is thrown down from the mushroom, and this is followed by a second skirt in the last frame. Thus we are left with what looks like two “petticoats” of vapour below the mushroom head, with a gap between them. This seems to be a property of air bursts over the sea. In Fig 5 I show a photo of a USA air burst Truckee (210kT) over the sea near Christmas Island (Light 2007). The petticoats are clearly apparent. These are not seen in any photos of air burst devices over the land (in 100 photographs of atomic explosions I have examined (Light 2007). I have used a laboratory travelling microscope to determine the dimensions of the labeled object seen flying upwards into the Grapple Y mushroom. If we take the Mushroom head diameter to be 8 miles diameter (13km) which is conservative and based on the Sniff measurements and speeds (given in my 2nd Supplement) then the dimension of this object modeled as a cylinder are L = 1.77km; D = 0.59km. The volume of this is thus 484 million cubic metres and if sea water this is about half a billion tons of sea water splashed up and drawn into the fireball. I believe this is caused by the blast driving a hemispherical depression in the sea and the filling of the depression and recovery from hydrostatic pressure resulting in the explosive meeting in the centre of the water rushing in to replace the displaced water. Anyone who has dropped a large rock in a pond knows that a vertical mass of water is ejected

following the closure of the temporary hole in the water surface. What would happen when this was lifted into and hit the hot centre? It would explode into water vapour which would be driven outwards radially and would condense where it met the extremely cold air existing at that altitude. This would create the petticoat. Further separated similar water elements would create further petticoats separated by the gaps in their arriving at the hot centre. However speculative this description of the petticoat effect is, there is no doubt that a very large object, at minimum (if water) half a billion tones, was clearly seen flying into the centre of the fireball. I submit that this is the source of the heavy rain experienced by the Sniff Boss and other Sniff aircraft which will have flown though these petticoat layers. I submit that this is the source, when rained out on CI of the fish found in the puddles and reported by veterans. It will have washed out enormous quantities of Uranium particulates on to the Island and these will have not been detected by the sticky papers for the reasons I have already given and which were accepted by the AWE personnel at the time. It is hard to exaggerate the enormous magnitude of these nuclear explosions like Grapple Y. For example, if we take 0.484 billion tonnes of water (0.484 x 109 m3) distribute it evenly over an island which is 60km by 20km (1.2 x 109 m2 ) the resulting depth of water is 40cm. Thus one single mass of water drawn into the cloud can produce 40cm of heavy rain over the whole island, and I submit that that is exactly what happened. As the W’ly upper winds drew the mushroom cloud east of the island, the rain, contaminated with fish and with sub-micron uranium and plutonium oxide particles fell 40,000 feet and was blown back over the island towards the inhabited areas by the lower SEly winds. The rainout was not measured with instruments which measured alpha emitters as there were none. The sticky filters were inundated and lost their stickiness, assuming they had not been taken indoors (as they were supposed to be). The material in the rain contained less of the lighter fission fragments owing to the lower boiling points and consequent fractionation at an early stage into the outer and upper parts of the cloud. There will however have been large amounts of Tritium in the rain. The result is that the groundwater at CI was contaminated with these materials, which washed down to the lagoon and this was later confirmed by the New Zealand team in ME1981 which reported the high levels of Ra-226 in a closed pond and unknown but finite levels of Uranium at other parts of CI. By this time, 1981, some 23 years after rain will have washed much of this material to the sea, we still see levels of Ra-226 (and arguably also much higher levels of U-234 and U-238) about 4 times higher than the mean global value for Calcium Carbonate limestone soils. Fig 3. The Canberra photos of the Grapple Y development Fig 4. The mysterious object in Grapple Y Fig 5. Truckee 1962 and the petticoats (Light 2007) 10 Conclusion: KJs basic dilemma The basic dilemma of KJ is also my problem. It is also a problem for the justice that the test veterans might receive. How do I analyse health effects from radionuclide exposures when none of the results of the measurements were made available because, even after not listing them, and wriggling out of releasing them in every

conceivable way over some two years, they ultimately are, for some reason, still a secret after 60 or more years? KJs approach is to try and create them by some simplistic theoretical calculations based on a theoretical bomb. I am always very suspicious about this kind of modeling and prefer semi-quantitative arguments based upon real measurements. The main problem with the theoretical approach of KJ is it assumes that no fractionation of nuclides can occur, that there are no mechanisms for this. This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of physical chemistry and a lack of knowledge also of the different dispersions of nuclides after the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes. Happily there are some real measurements, those of AE Oldbury, made for a quite different purpose, but applicable, despite being of USA fallout, to the UK bombs. These show that the beta gamma ratios (which KJ dismisses without an explanation based in data) are highly anomalous and can only be explained by the quite reasonable assumption (given that the bombs are actually made of Uranium) that they are due the presence of very large amounts of Uranium-238. And my own version of KJs approach using the gisted tables supports this belief, as do the remarks made by the New Zealand 1981 surveyors about Uranium measured on CI and the reported measurements of the Uranium 234 daughter, Ra-226. These measurements also show KJ to be wrong about the relative annual doses at CI compared with the UK. As I pointed out in my first report (and Prof Regan also pointed out) the CI doses do not contain components from Radon or internal exposures to alpha emitters and are not strictly comparable with the UK annual doses, Unless the author of KJ can bring new evidence on this point, his argument is without substance in fact. Arm-waving references to low activity calcium carbonate and isolated Pacific islands are not evidence. And the KJ arguments about Uranium and the possible doses from the Uranium are based on the ICRP risk model, which I have discounted. The evidence from many sources shows that inhaled Uranium particles are extremely hazardous and cannot be modeled using the methodology of the ICRP. But even if we employ the ICRP model and assume a surface contamination of U238 and U234 of 100Bq/kg (the Radium level reported by ME1981 23 years after the tests) and we only model inhalation exposure the result is Finally, there are two critically important developments. The first is the discovery of the photographs showing that huge quantities of seawater were drawn into the developing mushroom cloud which were arguably the source of the contaminated rainout containing the fractionated Uranium and Plutonium. The second is the discovery that the sticky filters were useless in rain which destroyed their ability to trap fallout. These taken together provide a mechanism for the alpha emitting particulate contamination of CI and the lack of evidence for this in contemporary measurements. C Busby Feb 6th 2012

Refs: Clare PM, Grinstead KH and Saxby WN (1987) Annual Background Radiation: UK and Christmas island 1956-64. SFS/MOD (PE) AWRE 1986 amended 1987; AWE STDN 14/87. Aldermaston CRC (1981) Handbook of Chemistry and Physics Boca Raton USA: CRC Press Eisenbud M and Gesell T (1997) Environmental Radioactivity San Diego, USA: Academic Press Light M (2007) 100 Solar 1945-1962 Stockholm: Bokforlaget Max Strom McEwan AC, Matthews KM, Gregory LP (1981) An Environmental radiation survey on Christmas Island, Kiribati: Department of Health. New Zealand National Radiation Laboratory No 1981/9. Oldbury AE (1963) SSCTD Technical Memorandum No 6/63 Operation DOMINIC Decontamination Group Report AWRE SSCTD 6/63 Oldbury AE (1962) Decontamination of Cloud Sampling Aircraft AWRE report T 16/62 UNSCEAR (2000) Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation Vol 1 Sources. New York: UN.