[ RadSafe ] FW: [srp] Man loses depleted uranium action

John R Johnson idias at interchange.ubc.ca
Fri Mar 3 09:06:53 CST 2006




-----Original Message-----
From: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com [mailto:srp-uk at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Dawson, Fred Mr
Sent: March 2, 2006 11:37 PM
To: srp-uk at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [srp] Man loses depleted uranium action

BBC reports Man loses depleted uranium action


Mr David's claim has been found to be unjustified 
A former defence worker who claimed that his life was made a "living
hell" by exposure to depleted uranium at a factory has lost his High
Court action. 
Richard David, 51, of Seaton, Devon, sued Normalair Garrett - now owned
by Honeywell Aerospace - for compensation. 
The company denied depleted uranium was ever used at the plant in
Mr Justice Walker sitting in London said that Mr David had not shown
that he was exposed to depleted uranium at the time he was employed by
the firm. 
Mr David, who left work through ill health in July 1995, claimed that
medical tests had revealed mutations to his DNA and damage to his
chromosomes which could only have been caused by ionising radiation. 

My conclusion that the claimant's case fails does not involve any
aspersion upon his honesty 

Mr Justice Walker
The former component fitter on fighter planes and bombers said he now
suffered from respiratory problems, kidney defects, bowel conditions and
painful joints. 
He alleged that radiation from the uranium isotope had ruined his
health, robbed him of the ability to earn a living and caused the
collapse of his marriage and family life. 
"The last nine years has been a living hell hand-to-mouth existence
marked by many GP and hospital consultations for unusual and even very
serious health problems," he said in court. 
Mr Justice Walker however said he had failed to establish that there was
or had been any depleted uranium in his body, and had been unable to
demonstrate that his illness must have been caused by exposure to it. 
"That being so, he has no basis on which to assert that the defendant
used DU in his workplace," he said. 
"My conclusion that the claimant's case fails does not involve any
aspersion upon his honesty. 
"It must also be recognised that the defendant, and its senior
management, have over a period of years had hanging over them a charge
that they allowed a highly dangerous material to contaminate one of
their workers. 
"For the reasons I have given, after examining all that can reasonably
be said on behalf of the claimant, I conclude that on the basis of the
evidence before me the charge made by the claimant against the defendant
is unjustified," he said. 

Fred Dawson

Fwp_dawson at hotmail.com

List Rules and Guidelines are at http://www.srp-uk.org
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: srp-uk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    srp-uk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list