|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 2 - Background
The tests
2.1
Between October 1952 and October 1957 twelve British atomic weapons
detonation tests were conducted in Australia at Monte Bello Islands off the
west coast of Western Australia, and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South
Australia. The tests were conducted on the following dates:
Operation Hurricane – Monte Bello Islands
Operation Totem – Emu Field
- 15 October 1953
- 27 October 1953
Operation Mosaic – Monte Bello Islands
Operation Buffalo – Maralinga
- 27 September 1956
- 4 October 1956
- 11 October 1956
- 22 October 1956
Operation Antler – Maralinga
- 14 September 1957
- 25 September 1957
- 9 October 1957[1]
2.2
There were also six hundred minor trials, including the testing of bomb
components, conducted between 1953 and 1963 at Emu Field and Maralinga. The
tests were conducted with the full cooperation of the Commonwealth Government
and involved both Australian and British personnel. Tests involving hydrogen
bombs were also conducted at Christmas and Malden Islands in the Pacific Ocean,
but Australians were not involved in the conduct of these tests.[2]
2.3
Both military and civilian personnel participated in the tests. Different
sources provide different estimates of the number of Australians involved. A
nominal roll of participants has been compiled by the Department of Veterans
affairs. However the roll has been subject to revision over time and concerns
about its accuracy remain. The Report of the Review of Veterans' Entitlements
released in 2003 stated that the nominal roll contained 15 406 names at
that time, 8035 Defence Force personnel and 7371 civilians.[3]
A recent study into cancer and mortality incidence among participants in the
tests stated that over 16 000 Australians participated in the tests,[4]
while the Bills Digest compiled for the Australian Participants in British
Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Bill stated that 17 023 Australians participated in
the tests.[5]
These publications referenced various versions of the nominal roll.
Brief history of studies
2.4
There have been a number of studies and research activities, conducted
in Australia and overseas, regarding the effects of the British atomic tests in
Australia. These include:
- the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council Report No. 9
provided to government in 1983;[6]
-
the 1983 report Health of Atomic Test Personnel (commonly
referred to as the Donovan Report), based on a survey of Australian test
participants;
- the 1984 Report of the expert committee on the review of data
on atmospheric fallout arising from British nuclear tests in Australia;[7]
- the 1984 Royal Commission into the British nuclear tests in Australia,
led by the Hon James McClelland;
- the 1988 and 1993 studies conducted by the UK National
Radiological Protection Board on personnel who participated in the tests;[8]
- the development by the Department of Veterans' Affairs of a
Nominal Roll of participants involved in the tests;
- the 1990 and 1997 studies of New Zealand participants in the
British nuclear tests in the Pacific;[9]
- mortality and morbidity studies of the nuclear test veterans
conducted by Sue Rabbit Roff in the UK;[10]
- the 2003 UK study of mortality and cancer incidence in the period
1952–98 among UK participants in the nuclear tests;[11]
- the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests in Australia
Study, which reported in June 2006.[12]
2.5
The studies have produced different findings and insights into the
conduct of the tests and circumstances of the test participants. Reviews of the
Donovan report state that definite conclusions about the relationship between
participation in the nuclear tests and health effects, such as increased
incidence of cancer and infertility, cannot be drawn from the study.[13]
Yeend and Biggs note that the survey 'did find a correlation between illnesses
and test participation and also a higher incidence of some illnesses with
increased exposure to radiation through the tests' but that these incidences
'were mostly ascribed to chance'.[14]
2.6
Summaries of the 1988 and 1993 UK studies present a mixed picture. Some
strong associations between participation in the tests and ill health effects
found in the first study were not evident in the second study. The authors are reported
as concluding that the possibility that test participation had caused a small
increase in the risk of non-chronic lymphatic leukaemia could not be ruled out,
with the evidence suggesting that the risk was greatest in the early years
after the tests.[15]
The 2003 UK study was reported as finding that the overall rates of death and
cancer incidence among test participants were very similar to a matched control
group, and that reports of a raised risk of multiple myeloma amongst test
veterans were not substantiated. Again the possibility that test participation
caused a small risk of leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) could
not be ruled out.[16]
2.7
A summary of the New Zealand research states that these studies found
evidence for a link between haematological cancers and test participation, but
no association with other cancers.[17] Sue Rabbit
Roff's first study 'suggested that there was an excess of radiogenic cancers
and other conditions among the British and New Zealand nuclear veteran
respondents'.[18] Her second
study 'eventually resulted in proactive health care entitlements for New
Zealand test veterans and their families' [original emphasis].[19]
2.8
The 1984 Royal Commission in Australia was instrumental for subsequent
initiatives that sought and obtained compensation from the British Government
relating to the tests. Recommendations arising from the Commission related to
the clean up of the test sites, control of access to unsafe areas and
compensation for Indigenous owners of the land.[20]
The Royal Commission also made recommendations relating to compensation for
participants, including:
The benefits of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government
Employees) Act 1971, including the shifting of the onus of proof from the
claimant to the Commonwealth, should be extended to include not only members of
the armed forces who are at present covered by the Act, but also civilians who
were at the test sites at relevant times, and Aborigines and other civilians
who may have been exposed to the ‘Black Mist’.
To assist the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation in the
performance of the additional duties recommended in Recommendation 1, a national
register of nuclear veterans, Aborigines and other persons who have been
exposed to the ‘Black Mist’ or exposed to radiation at the tests should be
compiled.[21]
The Mortality and Cancer Incidence
Study
2.9
The most recent study relating to health effects resulting from
participation in the nuclear tests is the Australian Participants in British
Nuclear Tests in Australia Study, which was released in June 2006. In July 1999
the Government announced the development of a nominal roll and conduct of a
cancer and mortality study. The nominal roll was a prerequisite for the study. The
Department of Veterans' Affairs commissioned the Department of Public Health at
the University of Adelaide to undertake the study in early 2003. The study was
based on 10 983 test participants identified from the nominal roll, of whom
7116 were military and 3867 civilian participants in the tests.[22]
2.10
The study had two main components. One, the dosimetry study, used data
from the nuclear tests and modelling techniques to estimate the radiation
exposure of participants in the nuclear tests. The other, the mortality and
cancer incidence study, compared the number of deaths and cases of cancer among
test participants with that in the general population, from 1982 to the end of
2001.
2.11
Staff of the Department of Public Health at the University of Adelaide
conducted the study and authored the study report. A Scientific Advisory
Committee was established with the role of reviewing and advising on the
methodology of the study and supervised the report's preparation. An Exposure
Panel was established to reconstruct ionising radiation dose estimates and a
Consultative Forum representing twenty organisations and individuals was
formed.[23]
2.12
The study estimated that the radiation doses received by Australian
participants in the nuclear tests were generally small. The findings state:
Approximately 79% of the participants were assessed as receiving
doses less than 1 mSv that is, approximately half the annual dose received from
natural background radiation. Only 4% received more than 20 mSv, the current
internationally accepted annual limit for a radiation worker recommended by the
International Commission on Radiological Protection.[24]
2.13
The study also reported that some groups did receive significant
exposures. The groups estimated to have been exposed to doses of 5mSv or higher
were:
- some RAAF aircrew who flew through the contaminated clouds in
RAAF or RAF aircraft after nuclear explosions
- crew members from HMAS Hawkesbury who assisted in records
recovery and participated in Joint Services Training Unit (JSTU) exercises
during Operation Hurricane
- crew and divers from HMAS Koala who recovered a landing craft
during Operation Hurricane
- members of the JSTU who undertook radiation monitoring training
during Operation Hurricane
- members of the Radiation Hazards group at Operation Totem
- Peace Officers who patrolled contaminated areas
- Indoctrinee Force members at Operation Buffalo
- elements of the Maralinga Range Support Unit who provided a range
of engineering and support duties in forward areas from Operation Buffalo
through to post Operation Antler activities
- drivers and passengers in contaminated vehicles travelling over
contaminated ground
- members of the Australian Health Physics Group (AHPG) who
conducted radiation surveillance
- members of the AHPG team who collected Cobalt-60 (60Co) pellets
after Operation Antler
- a team that decontaminated and dismantled the DC 12 building in Maralinga
Village at the end of the minor trials.[25]
2.14
The overall death rate among the nuclear test participants studied was
not significantly different to the general population. However, cancer
mortality was found to be 18 per cent higher among the test participants than
the general population and cancer incidence was 23 per cent higher.[26]
2.15
The cancer incidence experienced by participants in the tests was
significantly higher than the general population across a range of cancer
types, including lip, oral cavity and pharynx cancers, cancer of the
oesophagus, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, melanoma, prostate cancer and
leukaemia.[27]
Results were reported separately for the three services and the civilian
participants. Some cancers, although not higher across the board, were more
prevalent among specific services. For example, mesothelioma was not significantly
higher in the test participant group as a whole, but 180% higher among RAN nuclear
test participants than the population in general.[28]
2.16
The study found that the increases in cancer rates 'do not appear to
have been caused by exposure to radiation'.[29]
The report states:
Neither all cancers combined nor any cancer known to have an
association with radiation showed any increase in mortality or incidence with
increasing radiation exposure in this cohort.
The lack of association between cancer and radiation is not
surprising, given the estimated low radiation exposure of most cohort members,
and the relatively small proportion of subjects with any significant exposure.[30]
2.17
The report suggests other possible causes for some of the cancers. For
example, the Main Findings state that the increased incidence of mesothelioma
among RAN personnel 'is most likely due to asbestos in naval vessels'.[31]
In relation to lung cancer, the report states that 'the excess could be due to
a higher smoking prevalence in test participants' and that 'some contribution
to lung cancer excess is also likely from asbestos in RAN personnel, and
possibly in civilian participants also'.[32]
However, causal relationships between these factors and the increase in cancer
incidence among nuclear test participants were not tested by the study.
2.18
A covering letter to the report by Professor Bruce Armstrong, Chair of
the Scientific Advisory Committee to the study, acknowledged some tensions
regarding presentation of the study findings:
Towards the end of the Committee’s consideration of the reports,
there was contention over the content and wording of some parts of them;
particularly the section entitled Main Findings. Most of the Committee members
present at the time considered the matters under contention to be matters of
presentation not of science. However, the contention was not resolved and Ms Ann
Munslow-Davies, the Consultative Forum representative on the Committee, felt,
in consequence, that she could not endorse the reports.[33]
2.19
Criticisms of the study raised in evidence this inquiry are canvassed in
Chapter 4.
Review of Veterans' Entitlements
2.20
In February 2002 an independent review of veterans' entitlements was
commissioned by the Hon Danna Vale, Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister
Assisting the Minster for Defence.[34]
Among the terms of reference, the review committee was tasked with reviewing
access to Veterans Entitlement Act (VEA) benefits and qualifying service for
several specific groups. The terms of reference stated that the review would:
- Consider perceived anomalies with eligibility for access to VEA
benefits and qualifying service that might be raised by some World War II
veterans, veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces in Japan,
Australian participants in British atomic testing in Australia, Australian
service personnel engaged in counter-terrorist and special recovery training,
and other interested parties; and
- Recommend possible changes to address any anomalies and to
facilitate the equitable and efficient administration of the VEA.[35]
2.21
The review received 160 submissions regarding the British atomic tests.
The Report of the Review of Veterans' Entitlements, which has become commonly
referred to as the 'Clarke report', noted that the submissions argued for
compensation coverage under the VEA through the hazardous service provisions in
Part IV of the act. A small number of submissions also sought qualifying
service to give access to the service pension.[36]
2.22
According to the Clarke report, coverage as hazardous service under the
VEA would provide the following entitlements for those eligible:
- entitlement to claim for the disability pension and for their
dependants to claim the war widow’s or orphan’s pension under the generous
standard of proof known as the ‘reverse criminal’ standard of proof;
- entitlement to the Repatriation Health Card — For Specific
Conditions (White Card) for accepted disabilities;
- access to the Repatriation Health Card — For All Conditions (Gold
Card) subject to the VEA criteria being met (e.g. where the rate of disability
pension is above 100 per cent); and
- entitlement to the White Card for malignant neoplasm and
posttraumatic stress disorder, irrespective of whether the condition is
accepted as caused by that service.[37]
2.23
The report assessed that participation in the British nuclear tests
could be considered non-warlike hazardous service, on the basis that it met the
following criteria for such service:
- the military activity is more hazardous than normal peacetime
duty;
-
the application of force, if applicable, is limited to
self-defence; and
- the threat to members is such that casualties might occur but are
not expected.[38]
2.24
The Clarke report concluded that:
... the British atomic test series was a unique, extraordinary
event in Australia’s history. Atomic devices were exploded in Australia, with
Australian forces potentially exposed to levels of radiation beyond what would
today be considered safe levels. By common sense and by any reasonable measure,
service in the test operations must be regarded as involving hazards beyond
those of normal peacetime duties.[39]
It recommended:
Participation by Australian Defence Force personnel in the
British atomic tests be declared non-warlike hazardous and the legislation be
amended to ensure that this declaration can have effect in extending VEA
coverage.[40]
2.25
The report also noted that such an extension of the VEA should be
unique:
The recognition of non-warlike hazardous service by the members
involved in the tests should be regarded as a one-off extension of the VEA.
Apart from involvement in wars, other conflicts and overseas deployments, it is
difficult to conceive of another Australian military operation in the 20th
century comparable to the tests’ scale and risk of harm to individuals.[41]
2.26
Some submissions to the review raised concerns regarding the hurdles
that test participants may face in VEA coverage were extended. These related to
the Statements of Principles (SOPs) set by the Repatriation Medical Authority
in relation to cancers which must be met for claims to be successful. Concerns
included that the SOPs were inadequately researched, that they did not
recognise that cancers caused by radiation exposure can metastasise as other
types of cancer and that there would be considerable evidentiary difficulties
for individuals in showing that they had radiation exposures to the levels
required in the SOPs.[42]
2.27
The report noted that at that time the Australian Participants in
British Nuclear Tests Cancer and Mortality Study was assessing the possibility
of estimating dosages for each of the tests and associated activities. The
report considered that such an exercise 'if viable and successfully conducted,
could provide the foundation for individuals to make claims of exposure based
on their position or placement during and after test explosions'.[43]
2.28
The Review of Veterans' Entitlements did not support a fully presumptive
approach to compensation on the basis that it 'would be contrary to the
principles and features of the repatriation system'.[44]
To resolve the issues of causation, the review considered it important that the
cancer and mortality study and exposure estimates be completed quickly.
Accordingly, the report recommended that 'the Government move quickly to
finalise the cancer and mortality study'.[45]
Government response to the review
2.29
The Government announced its response to the Review of Veterans'
Entitlements in March 2004.[46]
The response to recommendations relevant to participants in the British nuclear
tests were as follows:
Recommendation
45. Participation by Australian defence force personnel in the
British atomic tests be declared non-warlike hazardous and the legislation be
amended to ensure that this declaration can have effect in extending VEA
coverage.
Accepted in principle - the Government will respond
positively to the needs of those affected by the British Atomic Test programme
when the outcomes of the Australian Participants in the British Nuclear Test
Programme - Cancer Incidence and Mortality Study are available.
Recommendation
46. The Government move quickly to finalise the cancer and
mortality study.
Accepted - this study is expected to be released in late
2004.[47]
The new entitlements
2.30
The Government's announcement of the health care entitlements provided
by the Bills followed the release of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear
Tests in Australia Study in June 2006. The Hon Bruce Billson, Minister for
Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, stated:
Although the study found that the rate of some cancers among the
nuclear test participants was higher than in the general Australian population,
it did not find any link between the increase in cancer rates and exposure to
radiation.
Despite the lack of association between cancer rates and
radiation exposure, the Government has decided that it would be appropriate to
provide health cover for nuclear test participants who have any form of cancer.[48]
2.31
The Hon Mr Billson noted that the health care entitlements applied
equally to Defence personnel, APS employees and third party civilian
contractors. The Minister outlined that the proposed legislation would enable
access to treatment for all malignant cancers, such as those affecting the
thyroid, stomach, prostate, liver, lung, skin, throat and breast as well as
other non-radiogenic cancers.[49]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 8 November 2006 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
