Uranium Weapons Residues in UK Air Samples Have Been Measured Since the Ukraine War, Why is Google Suppressing the Evidence?

Photograph Source: The Pancake of Heaven! – CC BY-SA 4.0

Since Fukushima in 2011 there has been a revolution in the scientific understanding of the relation between radiation exposures and subsequent cancer and leukemia. But you would be hard put to find anything about this on Google, which has, over the same period of time as it has increasingly excluded any real news about what is going on in the real world, systematically erased, excluded, airbrushed and spun the news in a way that was common the Soviet Union from Stalin to Brezhnev. This is the era of “fake news”. Much of the work on the radiation risk model has been carried out by me and my colleagues in the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR).

By 2023, last year, my increasing personal scientific credibility had enabled me to publish in the scientific peer-review literature 5 papers which showed clearly that the legally defined exposure levels, based on the risk model of the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) was in error by a factor of upwards of 10,000-fold. In the latest 2023 paper this means that owing to the power of the nuclear military complex more than 300 million people have died from  cancer caused by the fallout from the 1960s atmospheric testing. This is the cancer epidemic which began in the 1980s, and which every one of you reading this article will have experienced. You might have thought that this was news, since it was based on scientific peer-reviewed publications.

What is Truth? asks Google—waits for no answer.

The perception of the truth nowadays rests on Wikipedia and Google. I will focus on Google and the exclusion machine, the Soviet air-brush; here there is a simple test. If you type “Chris Busby” into Google on a laptop, you will get about 2.7 million pages cited. But what you see is Chris Busby, the Irish Rugby Referee, in a little box with a picture. Also, some other Chris Busbys. The Google laptop first page has 9 hits, only 1 of me. If you bother to look at the first 5 pages, there are 45 Chris Busby’s but hardly any are me or refer to anything important. So, then we type in “Dr Chris Busby”. On the laptop you get 2,150,000. No box or picture. You then type in “Chris Busby referee”. You get 214,000. We conclude from this little test that anyone looking for me will not find me on Google even though, by subtraction, I represent 80% or more of the Chris Busby’s on the media planet. On cellphone Google it is worse. The Irish referee dominates the first page and I am pretty much non-existent.

OK, Boo Hoo, but this article is not about me. It is about how the scientifically provable truth is being systematically excluded in an area which is arguably the most important area for humans in the history of the race. The nuclear military complex and their tame governments continue to pursue the policies of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy by ignoring scientific evidence. I have been doing this for 30 years and have now won the scientific argument. The Risk Model underpinning all USA legal protection is totally false and its basis is dishonest. Between 2004 and 2022 I was winning these arguments as an expert witness and representative in Courts in the USA and the UK. The cases, in which I worked with the late Stuart Smith, the famous New Orleans attorney, were routinely settled for considerable sums so as to not allow them to be won the Courts, thus creating dangerous precedents.

In 2022 I was working with Smith and his team of attorneys on a challenge to the US Environmental Protection Agency legal framework on the basis of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. The argument was that the risk model assumptions about safe doses to the public were “an Arbitrary and Capricious standard as applied to rulemaking” and thus challengeable in US law. This is a powerful attack, and one that might have succeeded, as the new information in the peer review literature shows just this, and clear dishonesty and cover up as well. Shortly after we began this, Smith suddenly fell seriously ill in Paris, and was on life support for 3 weeks. He survived this episode for several months and we went ahead with the discussions. Then he suddenly died of a heart attack (age 60). The rest of the lawyers in the cases that we were taking against radioactive sites in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois stopped talking to me. So, I am assuming they have been bought off. After all, these are Big Dogs we are up against.

There are now only three arenas where these arguments can be successful and the world changed. These are (1) the internet (2) the courts and (3) the peer-review scientific literature. Those paid to protect the risk model and the status quo have their people (firemen) in all three, also in political parties like the Green Party where I was once nuclear expert and Speaker on Science and Technology. Now I am now pretty much alone as a scientist in this war. My colleagues in the ECRR are all old, and three of the original ones, Alexey Yablokov, Alice Stewart and Rosalie Bertell are dead. Since the death of my friend Stuart Smith (a key clever, powerful and rich opponent of the risk model) there is no money to support the ECRR work. But I soldier on as you will see below.

Weapons Uranium dust from Ukraine

Putting all these Google shenanigans to one side, I do have some new and interesting news for you all, indeed the purpose of this article. From 2010 I studied the effects of Uranium weapons in Iraq and published 3 papers showing the appalling genetic effects which followed the exposure to the Uranium particles: cancer, leukemia and birth defects. I subsequently presented the results to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Gulf War veterans in USA and UK have suffered a range of effects (Gulf War syndrome) and their children have a high rate of birth defects. Naturally, the cover-up machine was put in place.

In 2006, I obtained air filter data from the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, near London, to look and see if the Uranium dust that was generated in Iraq might blow about and end up in Europe. It turns out that it did [1]. So recently, I made a similar Freedom on Information (FoI) request to AWE to see if Uranium weapons were being used in Ukraine, asking for all their data from the end of 2017 to the latest, Nov 17th 2022. It seems that Uranium particles have come to England (and therefore also Europe). In the graph below we see the sudden increase in Uranium in the 5 offsite air samplers near Aldermaston beginning as soon as the war began in February 2022 (point 55 on the graph).

The Iraq war in 1991 was the first conflict where Depleted Uranium weapons were used on the battlefield. They were critical to the destruction of Saddam’s tanks. I visited Iraq with Al Jazeera in 2000 and toured the southern tank graveyards with radiation measuring equipment. Later I was in Kosovo surveying areas where NATO used similar weapons. I collected and measured samples of DU from puddles where the airborne aerosol dust had been precipitated in rain: areas far from the impact sites. So, the ability of the Uranium particles to travel huge distances is clear. Now they turn up in England with the Ukraine war. It is, in passing, inconceivable that given the focus on tanks and anti-tank weapons in the Ukraine war, that missiles donated by the West, do not employ Uranium penetrators. The Russians say they do not employ DU, but who knows? This finding is no about any blame. It is a major public health issue. A major story, we might think.

A test of the “War Uranium” levels versus the “Non-War Uranium” levels shows a highly statistically significant doubling of Uranium in the filters, similar to those seen during the Iraq war in 2003. Of course, Ukraine is closer to London than Iraq, but the Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Hungarians, Roumanians, Austrians, Bulgarians, Czechs, French, Italians, Danes and those in the Baltics are closer to Ukraine still. A simple calculation shows that dividing the British between the Uranium particles gives an inhalation of 250 million particles per person. Not Good. And as to those who think it is too far, just remember that Chernobyl (also in Ukraine) delivered its radioactivity to England, Wales and Scotland with effects that are all too measurable in ill-health and cancer, as my recent paper, still with the referees, but accepted by the “preprints” website, makes clear.

I wrote this Uranium from Ukraine paper up and submitted it to a journal, the same one that published my Fallujah paper. It was instantly rejected with no explanation and without being sent to any reviewers. I put it up on their “preprints” site. That also rejected it. I have now sent it to another journal and also its “preprint” site. It has vanished into a black hole. I uploaded it to Research Gate, and for the moment it is still there. We shall see. [1543]


1) Birth defects after Chernobyl https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26791091/

2) Failure of the Hiroshima basis of the risk model due to dishonesty


3) Hiroshima radiation epidemiology model was dishonest and unsafe as a basis for radiation protection


4) Ionising radiation and cancer: the failure of the risk model


5) High cancer risk in US Sailors serving in nuclear powered ships


6) Childhood leukemia increased in Wales and Scotland after Chernobyl


7) Ukraine weapons Uranium found in air filters in the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369170067_Uranium_weapons_being_employed_in_Ukraine_have_significantly_increased_Uranium_levels_in_the_air_in_the_UK


Dr Chris Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Riskand the author of Uranium and Health – The Health Effects of Exposure to Uranium and Uranium Weapons Fallout (Documents of the ECRR 2010 No 2, Brussels, 2010). For details and current CV see chrisbusbyexposed.org. For accounts of his work see greenaudit.orgllrc.org and nuclearjustice.org.