LETTER:Nuclear tests and Gulf War veterans
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Ms Sue Rabbitt Rolfe
Sir: In her useful review of the decision of the MoD to launch an inquiry into the Gulf war syndrome, Rebecca Fowler ("The war that never ended", 31 January) notes that the same department has always "fiercely resisted" paying compensation to the victims of nuclear tests who were exposed to radiation, including the 22,000 British service personnel who attended the tests.
That refusal has been admitted to trial in the cases brought before the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg by two veterans who have suffered radiogenic illnesses, and the daughter of a veteran who attributes her acute myeloid leukaemia to her father's exposure.
In admitting these complaints to trial, the Commission commented that the interpretation of its studies of British veterans of atmospheric tests conducted by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in 1985, in which it dismissed the finding that the levels of leukaemia and multiple myeloma in the veteran groups were three times higher than in the controls because of what it declared the extraordinarily low incidences in the control group, "would seem to undermine the very rationale of using a control group".
It also noted that the applicant questioned the suitability and independence of the NRPB to conduct the study, since all the information on which the study was conducted was supplied by the Ministry of Defence.
It is hoped that the studies of the Gulf war veterans do not repeat the same mistakes.
Yours sincerely,
Sue Rabbitt Roff
Centre for Medical Education
University of Dundee
Dundee
2 February
The writer is the author of 'Hotspots: The Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki' (Cassell 1995).
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments