This week's blog is a review of the paper Exposure Worry: The Psychological Impact of Perceived Ionizing Radiation Exposure in British Nuclear Test Veterans.
The paper was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on the 20th of November 2021.
The objective of the study was to highlight the potential for psychological effects in British nuclear test veterans and to explore the potential psychological impact through a qualitative study.
The cohort was small, only 91 veterans consented to be part of the study, and only 29 veterans were subsequently invited. Only 19 veterans agreed to take part, with fifteen giving face-to-face interviews and four via telephone.
It is not made clear in the report why these were chosen from the 91 or why only 19 were interviewed. (20.8% of the respondents) No analysis on why these particular respondents were chosen is available, or what criteria was used to determine who took part.
It is also not made clear from the report which operations were covered by these respondents, it does mention the test locations, but not the operations they were present at, so no analysis of different tests can be found at present. (For instance, it is unclear if any personnel were at the Minor Trials or were at Operation Dominic)
The study used the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory to measure the anxiety levels faced by the veterans, with participants encouraged to have photographs or other documentation related to the test participation at hand during the interviews.
Out of the 89 valid responses, 30 (33.7%) participants met the criteria for clinically relevant anxiety. A mean GAI-SF score of 1.66 (SD = 1.88) was obtained. Figure 2 shows the distribution of scores for the 89 responses (taken from the report)
Generally, the veterans reported not being worried about their own health. One reason for the limited worry about their own health is their chronological age. Interestingly, there was also limited worry about their children’s future health. Rather, any worry tended to be directed to the participants’ grandchildren, which was evident in four veterans. Of course, not all participants had grandchildren. (The actual percentage without grandchildren was not recorded in the report)
Power Dynamic
In cases where descendants had a serious physical health condition, there appeared considerable psychological effects in the participants who perceived themselves as being responsible. This notion of responsibility was further evident in participants who had descendants surviving with serious health conditions, but also applied to their wives with health conditions
Many veterans perceived themselves to be victims of experimentation or concealed information by the authorities regarding the risks of nuclear weapons. For example, the label “guinea pig” was used by seven veterans and seemed to constitute an identity:
“My view of a nuclear test veteran is that we’re all members of the mushroom club, kept in the dark, shovelled shit from time to time.
And that plaque up there tells you what else we are. Guinea pigs. Guinea pigs.
That’s what we are. That’s my view of what nuclear test veterans are.
A bunch of people who haven’t a clue what they are doing who were sent out there as guinea pigs to work on tests.
They would never have sent us to the forward area where there’s nothing to pick up, to pick up bits, if that hadn’t been part of being guinea pigs and being part of the mushroom club.” (Veteran F).
The notion of being a “victim”, that is, the risks of radiation being imposed on veterans with little choice may also form a significant component of the test-veteran identity:
“And if you say how do I identify with them, I identify as one of the 160 victims.
Because we weren’t given a choice.” (Veteran A).
Recognition
Seven veterans expressed disappointment towards the government and the perceived lack of recognition and, in some cases, they felt “forgotten” or “erased”. In fact, the issue of recognition was the most widely reported topic across the interviews and even featured in participants who did not perceive themselves to be adversely affected by ionizing radiation exposure.
The need for recognition was always discussed in relation to the government, but what specifically was to be recognised varied between the veterans. For some, recognition meant acknowledgement for their service, while for others it meant admitting negligence and, in some cases, deception.
One way in which recognition might be gained is through the provision of a medal. It appeared that the tangible aspect of a medal was not significant to most of the veterans, but what was important was what the medal symbolised, which is gratitude for participating in the testing programme. Furthermore, it was important to veterans that the UK government acknowledges and accepts that the nuclear testing programme occurred, and for some, that veterans were adversely affected by ionizing radiation exposure.
The issue of recognition appeared inextricably linked to compensation. When the veterans were asked why the government had not recognised or admitted that some veterans were adversely affected by the testing programme, the consensus was that recognition is inextricably linked to compensation, which would be a financial burden for the government.
Moreover, the veterans believed that compensation would therefore symbolise that the government have inflicted harm on the veterans through negligence (e.g., perceived inadequate protective clothing). Three veterans would comment on the fact that they are an aged cohort and as a result there are not many surviving, alluding to the idiom “running down the clock”. Specifically, it was sometimes perceived that the government was waiting for the veterans to die so that a reduced pay-out for compensation might be given; or that the issue of admission became less relevant to the government if there are no test veterans alive.
The Tests
Most of the participants had generally positive experiences at the time of the testing programme. The veterans suggested their age at the time as an explanation of why they had no initial worry for any potential consequence.
Participants also described the relatively limited availability of (and access to) knowledge about radiation. Some participants described how there were very few reports in the media about any risks regarding ionizing radiation, nor were any reports accessible to participants during the tests.
Many of the veterans recalled that their limited concern persisted over approximately the next 20 years after the programme, but subsequent life events appeared to influence the development of the potential psychological impact about perceived ionizing radiation exposure.
After the Tests
Generally, the veterans stated that they had not encountered health conditions during the first decade or so after the tests, and what appeared more relevant to any psychological impact was their children that they had during the 1960s and 1970s, about which they commented in relation to the media reports emerging later.
Importantly, while the psychological impact was generally limited in those who believed their descendants had not been adversely affected, there was a perceived self-responsibility accompanied with guilt in those who perceived a descendant or wife to have been affected by their exposure
Limitations of the Study
There are possible sample self-selection biases which may skew the prevalence of clinically relevant anxiety in this population. It should be noted that the samples were not randomly selected, but participants interested in a study about worry are more likely to consent to the study following invitation, despite it being made clear that we were also keen to recruit participants who were not worried/anxious.
Future Work
While this study focuses on the psychological impact in the veterans themselves, there remains the question of whether their descendants are at risk of any psychological impact of (perceived or actual) paternal ionizing radiation exposure.
Conclusion
This study does provide and quantitative indicator of the anxiety-related mental health issues in British nuclear test veterans, but it was carried out on a very small number of people, who were selected from a cohort of people who were already involved in the nuclear community, it is not clear from the report how the 19 were chosen or the selection process involved.
It also shows that a study on the descendants is needed.
It does provide an insight into the issues that the veterans are facing every day, it also shows that the need for recognition is stronger than ever and that the veterans need some form of official recognition and acknowledgement from the UK government relating to their service.
The recognition of other countries of their nuclear test veterans is something which the British nuclear veterans find very disappointing which adds to their anxiety and anger and needs addressing by the UK Government as soon as possible.
We would like to see more detailed findings in the report, specifically in the following areas:
- Detailed analysis of the Operations these men were present at
- Where there report states 'several' or 'many', exactly how many veterans this refers to
- How the 19 were chosen, was it purely on geographical clusters for the convenience of interviews?
We would like to thank George Collett and the other researchers for these findings and the extremely valuable research that they have carried out, which provide an insight into the British nuclear veterans and proves that the continued fight for recognition is what is required by the veterans.
This statement from a nuclear veteran is why we continue to campaign for truth and justice:
“No one has had the decency to say “yes, we did fail in that respect.” No one said that. And that really is the cause that I feel is really, really bad for a modern nation like this and our government still looked back on the old paperwork and says oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
But they’re reading lies.
They’re reading lies that the scientists have told them. Scientists know what’s going off. They’re the ones that pulled all the strings in Australia.
Everything that happened in Australia, don’t know about Christmas Island, I wasn’t involved with that.
But Maralinga was solely controlled by those people. And the Australian government was controlled to them. If they could lie to them then they certainly could lie to us. To this day no one has owned up.”
(Veteran I)
Information is taken from https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12188 as an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).
Citation
Collett, G.; Young, W.R.; Martin, W.; Anderson, R.M. Exposure Worry: The Psychological Impact of Perceived Ionizing Radiation Exposure in British Nuclear Test Veterans. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12188. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212188 Academic Editors: Christoph Buck and Paul B. Tchounwou Received: 1 October 2021 Accepted: 17 November 2021 Published: 20 November 2021
Comments