Dear Ministry of Defence,

On the 9th June 2004 Mr R Cockerill wrote: "As previously stated, AWE have made a conservative assessment of the exposure for the film badges which were not returned, based on the known measurement of exposure for other participants identified with the same working groups and assumed to be for the same operational periods as Mr Whyte."

It is understood that the Data protection act prohibits the names of the individuals from being named .

Can you please supply me with the RADIATION FILM BADGE 'NUMBERS' which were used to assess my radiation dose for both Pennant (22 August 1958) and Burgee (23 September 1958) detonations?

Yours faithfully,
David Whyte

Dear DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your expected reply regarding my legitimate Freedom of Information request.

Once again, you use, 'Your' letter dated 24 February 2011 as a legitimate cause to deny me access to the information requested. I draw your attention to Paragraph 13 of this letter which states,
"I have concluded that your requests about Film Badges and Radiation levels of graph ES1/602 are vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act."

I now draw your attention to letter D/CIO/3/18/1/469 dated 9th May 2012 (Signed by Simon Marsh, Head of Corporate Information at the Ministry of Defence) which defines the actions taken, after the First Tier Tribunal on the 14 February 2012. The last paragraph of this letter says it all: "I sincerely regret that the Department's long-sustained position in response to your request meant that it was necessary for you to appeal to the Tribunal. This will undoubtedly have caused you considerable inconvenience and I apologise unreservedly on behalf of the Department for this. Whilst it has taken a very long time to reach a conclusion, I am pleased that finally we have been able to satisfy your request for information on this occasion."

This proves, that it was 'Your Department's' refusal to answer my request which caused the delay.

At the Court of Human Rights in 1998 during the case between McGinley and Egan vs UK, paragraph 100 of the judgement read: "The Court recalls that the Government have asserted that there was no pressing National security reason for retaining information relating to radiation levels on Christmas Island following the tests."

Indeed, they implied all one had to do was to ask for information and it would be supplied! Was the Government Lying? Are all UK Citizens being denied access to the truth? Or could it be, this special treatment is reserved for those individuals raising questions relating to the British nuclear tests?

Other Countries have shown Maturity by paying compensation to their Nuclear Veterans, the United Kingdom has shown Cowardice, by refusing to release the documents and denying the facts.

Yours sincerely,

Dave Whyte