§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's policy towards compensating service men for the alleged effects of radioactivity suffered during nuclear tests in the 1950s of the telegram, dated 31 July 1956, sent by Mr. Lloyd, a member of the Medical Research Council, to an official in his Department, Mr. Wheeler, stipulating that the Medical Research Council's findings on genetic effects, radioactivity and strontium levels should be interpreted as not showing any increase, rather than as showing an increase, as originally proposed.
§ Mr. SainsburyShortly after the Medical Research Council report "Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations" (Cmnd. 9780) was published in June 1956, briefing material was prepared for Sir William Penney to use in Australia during press conferences etc. prior to the Buffalo tests later that year. The briefing material, which is in the Public Records Office (AVIA 65/814 enclosure 180), dealt with the effects of atomic explosions and with radioactivity in general. It also included reference to the Medical Research Council report and commented as follows
Regarding the genetic effects of radiation the evidence from the bombed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and from those such as uranium mine workers and radiologists, whose work brings them into contact with more than the normal amounts of radioactivity, shows no increase in hereditary diseases".The telegram of 31 July 1956, to which the hon. Member refers was from Captain Lloyd, an official in Ministry of Supply to the MofS representative Mr. Wheeler in Canberra (same Public Records Office reference enclosure 187). Its purpose was to make a number of drafting changes to the briefing document and in particular, it suggests a change of emphasis in the above quotation to better reflect the Medical Research Council report conclusions from "show no increase" to
has not shown an increase".Unfortunately, the telegram appears to have contained a typographical error when quoting the original Medical Research Council document and the copy found shows an amendment in manuscript deleting "an" and substituting "no". The copy held in another Public Records Office file (AVIA 65 152 enclosure 49) does not appear to have been similarly amended. Therefore it was concluded that, 773W although the telegram contained an error, it enabled the recipient to identify where a change was needed and he was in no danger of being misled.In the circumstances, it is not thought that this telegram has any implications for the Department's policy on compensation of test participants which was reached after consideration of a wide range of evidence, including the Medical Research Council report as well as a considerable volume of material published since.