Ministry of Defence staff rewrote a scientific study into whether veterans were dying as a result of Britain’s nuclear weapons tests, the Mirror can reveal.
Civil servants in the Ministry of Defence feared the original conclusions would hand “the veterans a bonanza of phrases to quote out of context”, and demanded a rewrite.
The rewritten study was later used in public statements by ministers and officials as a “full vindication” of the government's refusal to pay compensation to survivors and widows of those ordered to take part in more than 600 Cold War radiation experiments.
Last night the MoD refused to comment on whether the revelations discredited the science it had relied on for 40 years, or say whether it would allow independent experts to verify the research.
It adds to the ongoing scandal of missing medical records, in which servicemen had blood tests taken to measure how much radiation they absorbed, but have never been told the results.
Campaigning MP Rebecca Long-Bailey said: “We know that the history of veterans exposed to nuclear tests have been obfuscated for decades, and now we can see the science was rewritten as well. The government must order a fresh analysis of this data by a different group of independent researchers, to set the record straight once and for all.”
The study into nuclear test deaths was ordered in 1985 by Margaret Thatcher, when veterans first reported high rates of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects. It created an international scandal at home and abroad, with the government of the day having no alternative but to order an investigation.
When the data was due to be published three years later, the authors shared it with the MoD - which decided it was “defective in logic” and “should include mention of the MoD view”.
A 1988 letter from the head of the nuclear directorate complains: “The clear implication is given that all participants have been caused harm.” It adds most people would read only the study’s opening and conclusions, and “it is therefore necessary to couch these sections in terms which... prevent the reader reaching a distorted view”.
The letter shows he wanted to describe a 345% rise in the rate of deaths from radiogenic leukaemia as a “slight increase” compared to national rates.
He says it “at best leaves the casual reader with the impression that the excess is real, it was caused by radiation and that there is evidence of ingestion of long-lived radionuclides, and at worse gives the veterans a bonanza of phrases to quote out of context”.
He adds the figures could not “be lightly dismissed as a chance finding”, but then criticised the draft for calling it a “chance occurrence” only once. In the final version, the death rates are blamed on “chance” 22 times.
Voice of the Mirror: This report is utterly discredited
For 40 years the Mirror has campaigned for justice for the nuclear veterans, and for 40 years the Ministry of Defence has said the science doesn't support their claims of sickness and early death. Now we know the science was rewritten to suit the MoD, and as a result is utterly discredited.
Successive governments, of every party, have formulated policies based on this analysis. War pensions have been thrown out, veterans have been ignored, widows have been embittered and children left without the financial support they should have had. Further studies used the rewritten one as their foundation.
But the research was flawed from the start. It never looked at the miscarriages of wives and birth defects of descendants, nor the multitude of disease seen in survivors. It counted only cancers and deaths, and when the scientists found even this partial data may be linked to radiation, the words were rejigged. The final report conformed with the demands made by officials.
When the Mirror asked the MoD to comment on whether it still stood by the science, or would open it up to independent experts for verification, it refused to do so.
That cowardly silence speaks volumes. And it is why, after 40 years, the Mirror is still fighting for the truth.
The letter told the study authors to conclude more research was needed, asked for changes to how data was presented, and criticised the use of some phrases, which were all altered for the final version.
The same changes were used to produce press releases and “lines to take” by ministers and Mrs Thatcher if asked about the study by journalists.
The final 140-page version of the study was rewritten according to his instructions, but never published. Instead a seven page summary was reported in the British Medical Journal three weeks after the letter was sent. It makes no reference to the fact the conclusions were edited by the MoD.
A source said it was standard practice to send an early version of scientific reports to officials, but that they do not ask for changes.
A MoD spokesman refused to comment on whether the science was discredited, and would not confirm whether it still stood by the analysis.
She added: "We are grateful to all service personnel who participated in the British nuclear testing programme and contributed to keeping our nation secure and are pleased that they will now be receiving a medal in recognition. Nuclear test veterans who believe they have suffered ill health due to service have the right to apply for no-fault compensation under the War Pensions Scheme.
“It remains the case that no information is withheld from veterans and any medical records taken either before, during or after participation in the UK nuclear weapon tests are held in individual military medical records in the Government's archives, which can be accessed on request.”