Broken Arrow cover up in UK (31kB)

[mobbsey@gn.apc.org]

You masy have interest in the enclosed in relation to accidents at
other US military bases and subsequent cover ups. If anyone out
there has any additional information which may be relevant, please
let me know.

Thanks.

Paul <mobbsey@gn.apc.org>

=========================================================
=========================================================

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

162 Holloway Road, London N7 8DQ. Tel: 0171 700 2393. Fax: 0171
700 2357. Email: cnd@gn.apc.org CND 24 hour Membership and
Donation Hotline: 0171 700 2352 CND Home Page:
http://www.mcb.net/cnd

Summary

1.1 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has uncovered documents
which show that for over 30 years the British and American
governments have deliberately covered up a serious nuclear
accident at the US Air Force base Greenham Common, best remembered
for the controversial stationing of Cruise missiles there and the
protests which followed. The accident put at risk the lives of
hundreds of thousands of US and British service personnel,
civilians working on the base, local residents, peace campaigners,
police officers and journalists. Local land and animals were
contaminated, but no clean up operation has ever been mounted. The
radioactive dust from the accident continues to pose a serious
threat to the local environment and the health of local residents
in an area renowned for an unexplained cancer cluster.

1.2 The accident happened in 1958 when an American B-47 nuclear
bomber - loaded with its nuclear weapon - caught fire. The bomb
burnt, releasing deadly uranium and plutonium oxide powder over an
area of several miles around the base. Plutonium and uranium
particles are lethal when ingested or inhaled. The conventional
explosive in the warhead exploded, helping to scatter very fine
uranium and plutonium particles.

1.3 The accident was discovered almost by chance by a team of
scientists at the Government's atomic weapons research
establishment at Aldermaston. The discovery prompted a full
investigation by a team of up to 60 Government nuclear scientists,
whose findings were written up in a secret report, parts of which
have been obtained by CND. The report details the scientists'
findings, including a map of the spread of contamination from the
accident around West Berkshire and North Hampshire. CND has also
obtained secret letters written during the investigation, and has
learnt about other official Government investigations which have
confirmed that a nuclear accident did indeed take place at
Greenham common.

1.4 Today, the accident poses a very serious threat to people's
health and the environment. As recently as 1994 a follow-up survey
by Aldermaston scientists of the area detected contaminated
fall-out from the 1958 accident. A total of between 10-20g of
uranium was released and dispersed outside the base, yet no
clean-up operation has ever been mounted. A much greater amount of
plutonium and uranium was certainly deposited inside the base
itself on and around the runway - the warhead involved contained
about 20kg of plutonium and 30-40kg of enriched uranium - yet the
contaminated runway has been crushed and now stands in piles
blowing dust over the surrounding area, with some reports
suggesting that it will be used in the Newbury by-pass. An
industrial estate and now a night club have just opened near the
site of the accident.

1.5 Over the years, radioactive dust has been repeatedly disturbed
and blown over the area by jet aircraft taking off and landing on
the contaminated runway. Hundreds of thousands of people stood
next to the runway whilst aircraft took off and landed during the
famous Air Shows and International Air Tattoos held at Greenham
Common between 1970 and 1983. Tens of thousands of British and
American service and civilian personnel were stationed on the base
whilst it was on active service. Large amounts of contaminated
dust were then raised during major reconstruction work at Greenham
Common prior to its becoming a base for Cruise missiles and, more
recently, the demolition of the contaminated runway after the
base's closure.

1.6 Particles of alpha-emitting uranium and plutonium are
extremely dangerous if swallowed or breathed in. Plutonium, for
example, causes fatal cancer if just a tiny amount - as little as
15% of 80 5g of plutonium particles - taken into the lung remains
there. It can also kill if taken in as food. The effects of
uranium are similar, and uranium can - in addition - cause a form
of heavy metal poisoning. Plutonium has a radioactive half-life of
24,000 years, while the half life of uranium-235 is 710 million
years. To all intents and purposes, therefore, the whole area for
miles around Greenham Common has been permanently contaminated. A
report by American Government scientists from that era, which
depicts a hypothetical scenario almost identical to events at
Greenham Common, recommends permanent evacuation of the base and
nearby residential areas.

1.7 The total numbers of people potentially affected are huge.
Hundreds of thousands of people served at or visited Greenham
Common whilst it was an active airbase. The concentrations of
contamination in the surrounding area are highest in the built-up
areas of Newbury and Thatcham. A host of villages and small towns
stretching from as far apart as from Kintbury in the West,
Watership Down and Kingsclere in the South, Heath End and Stafford
Dingley in the East, and Hermitage and Welford in the North have
also been covered by radioactive dust. Many more thousands of
peace campaigners, police officers and journalists attending the
huge protests against Cruise missiles around the base's perimeter
during the 1980s may also be at risk.

1.8 There is a well-known cancer cluster in the area, and official
government studies have confirmed an unusually high incidence of
radiation-linked cancer among children living in the area. The
accusing finger has been pointed at the atomic weapons research
establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield, but detailed studies
have been unable to find a link between these establishments and
cancer among local children. However, the Government's inquiry
into the clusters, conducted by COMARE - the Committee on Medical
aspects of Radiation in the Environment - was not told by the
government about the amounts of radioactive dust known to have
been released into the area around these clusters by the accident
at Greenham Common. One local school - which has since closed -
was located at the eastern end of the runway, and is at the centre
of the highest radioactive hotspot found by Government
scientists.

1.9 Documents concerning the accident and which illustrate the
extent of contamination - including some which CND has been unable
to obtain - remain closely-guarded secrets. CND is calling for all
files relating to the accident to be opened, for a Public Inquiry
to investigate why the Government has covered up the accident, for
free health checks to be made available to anyone who believes
they may have been contaminated, for the COMARE investigation into
local cancer clusters to be re-opened, and for a clean-up
operation to dispose of the crushed runway and minimise the impact
of radiation in the local environment, including crops and animals
reared for food.

2. Part A

The Accident

2.1 In May 1960 a group of scientists working at the atomic
weapons research establishment (AWRE) at Aldermaston found highly
radioactive readings near the atomic weapons research
establishment where that could not possibly be explained by its
emissions. They used readings taken from laurel leaves, which are
highly accurate indicators of uranium contamination, and
discovered that the amount of uranium-235 to the west of
Aldermaston was one hundred times greater than could be accounted
for by AWRE's discharges.

2.2 When plotted, their readings showed hourglass-shaped contours
of radioactive contamination centring around the runway at
Greenham common, which at the time was the base for US Air Force
B-47 bombers on constant "Reflex Alert", loaded with nuclear bombs
and ready to fly to the Soviet Union at a few minutes notice.

2.3 The findings were written up in a secret report called "The
distribution of uranium-235 and plutonium-239 around the USAF
base, Greenham Common, Berkshire" and submitted in August 1961 to
Sir William Penney, the head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority
(UKAEA) and one of the architects of the British nuclear bomb
programme. around 50 to 60 scientists from both Harwell and
Aldermaston were involved in compiling this report. The research
team was led by R Morgan, a radiochemist from Aldermaston. The
report carries no AWRE or UKAEA report reference number and is not
in any of standard classified reports series produced by Harwell
and Aldermaston. however, the Government has recently confirmed
the existence of this report and told Parliament that its contents
would remain secret [ref 1].

2.4 Attached to the report is a map of the area, complete with
ordnance survey grid references, showing two regions of
radioactive contamination extending east and west of the base,
with a narrow waist at the airfield. The readings are plotted out
as far as 8 miles around the base, covering the built-up areas of
Newbury, Thatcham and Kingsclere, and including centres of
population as far apart as Kintbury in the west, Aldermaston in
the east, and stretching from Hermitage in the north down to
Watership Down in the south. Newbury and Thatcham are at the
centre of the two worst hotspots east and west of the airfield.

2.5 The report states clearly that the quantities involved and the
wide dispersal are such that "the release must have been
accidental. Further, in order to release 10-20g of finely
dispersed uranium, much larger amounts must have been involved in
the accident and it seems that the only possible way such that a
large quantity could become powdered is through the agency of
fire, or an explosion".

2.6 It blames an accident which took place at Greenham Common at
4.25pm on February 28, 1958 but which it has always been
officially denied involved a nuclear weapon. An aircraft awaiting
take-off on the runway was engulfed in a fireball when a wing-tip
tank carrying 1,700 gallons of fuel from another B-47 flying
overhead was accidentally dropped. The fuel tank landed just 65
feet behind the parked B-47 and directly in line with it, igniting
on impact and engulfing the plane. Hangar Number 1 was also
severely damaged, and other planes nearby had to be hosed down for
fear that they too might ignite. Photographs from the accident are
still classified secret.

2.7 B-47s from 3909th Combat Support Group (SAC) at Greenham
Common, which included the 310th Bomb Wing, carried Mark V and
MarkVI nuclear bombs. These had a nuclear yield of up to 60
kilotons. each warhead had a plutonium core of around 20kg,
surrounded by about 30-40kg of enriched uranium and TNT-type High
Explosive (HE). the enriched uranium was used to increase the
bomb's yield by a few tens of kilotons. In the event of fire or
explosion both the enriched uranium and plutonium would be
released in the form of a fine and deadly oxide powder.

2.8 Because of their high magnesium content both the aircraft and
its payload burnt extremely vigorously. In fact the aircraft was
simply allowed to burn out because it was impossible to extinguish
the magnesium. The fire was still smouldering five days later, the
heat reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius,
explosions could be heard for miles around, and local firemen at
first believed that there had been an atomic explosion at the
base. A man underneath the aircraft at the time - who may have
been involved in the bomb's loading procedure - was burnt to
death. A number of other service personnel were killed and injured
in the accident. A Board of officers was appointed to investigate
the accident. It's findings are still secret. It is not known what
happened to the wreckage of the plane or the bomb.

2.9 The base commander, Colonel Arthur Cresswell, denied that the
B-47 which was destroyed was carrying a nuclear weapon at the time
[ref 2] in fact, it emerged in 1979 that the British and American
governments had agreed in 1956 to deny that nuclear weapons were
present in any accident involving American nuclear bombers
stationed in the UK. The agreement surfaced after details of
another crash involving a USAF B-47 - which crashed into a nuclear
bomb storage bunker at RAF Lakenheath in 1956 - were revealed by
an American newspaper with close links to the US Air Force.
According to a former US Strategic Air Command officer, orders
came down to keep 'nukes' out of the records. Officially they did
not exist. When somebody asked why people fled the base we told
them that it was because there was live .50 calibre ammunition in
the airplane [ref 3]. It is also now known that during that month,
B-47s at Greenham Common were involved in an exercise called
'Rough Game'. A secret unit Group diary - obtained by CND -
reveals that the exercise was testing 310th Bomb Wing's emergency
war plan. American bombing exercises in Britain commonly carried
live nuclear weapons, even when they were flying over London [ref
4].

2.10 The report by Aldermaston's scientists directly disputes the
American base commander's statement: "We suggest that, in fact, a
nuclear weapon may have been carried in the aircraft and burned
with it." The UK Government's statement to the House of Commons at
the time confirmed that a parked B-47 had burned, but does not
mention whether or not a nuclear weapon was on board [ref 5].
Strangely, the Government went back on its own version of events
some years later, stating that the accident had merely involved a
parked B-47 being hit by a taxying B-47 on a training exercise,
and omitting any mention of a fire [ref 6]. The American
Government - which has published details of a few accidents
involving its nuclear weapons has never admitted that the accident
at Greenham Common involved a nuclear bomb. However, a journalist
for an investigative American magazine has been told by Pentagon
officials that there are "less than ten" nuclear weapon accidents
of which details would not be released for political and national
security reasons [ref 7].

2.11 Radioactive debris from the bomb was stuck to Greenham
Common's runway by the firefighters' foam. However, the scientists
found that the contaminated debris has been repeatedly disturbed
by vehicle and aircraft movements and jet blast wearing away the
runway surface and causing radioactive dust to be blown out of the
base into the surrounding countryside. In particular, the report
warns about the danger of continuing to use the runway because
"the high temperature of the air from the jets would cause it to
rise, carrying dust and sand particles up with it". The hourglass
shaped concentrations of radiation materialized because Greenham
Common has just one runway with two take-off directions.

2.12 The covering letter - dated August 11, 1961 - sent to Sir
William Penney and stapled to the front of the report reveals that
the British intelligence services were almost certainly aware that
an accident had taken place: "In the report, we have quoted only
official statements, but other information from Group security
officer lends credibility to the sequence postulated viz a fire in
a loaded B-47, runway contamination, dispersion by normal aircraft
movements" The 'Group security officer' referred to would have
been an intelligence officer at Aldermaston. The letter - which is
marked confidential - acknowledges the enormous political
implications of the report's contents: "Because of the sensitivity
of the report, six copies only have been prepared". Other
documents related to nuclear weapons accidents are still secret,
even though they are all over 30 years old. Files listed in the
Public Records Office under the heading Nuclear Weapons Hazards
from an aircraft crash for 1957 and 1958 are classified, as is a
file entitled Appointment of Weapon Accident Investigation Team'
(1958-64).

2.13 In 1987, after the signing of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty which scrapped Cruise missiles, Aldermaston did a
detailed follow-up survey of contamination around the site. The
new study was written up by W N Saxby, a Technical Staff Officer
from Aldermaston's Safety Division, and an experienced scientist
who had been involved in monitoring fall-out from Britain's
atmospheric atomic tests in the South Pacific. Saxby's report
confirmed that a nuclear accident had taken place at Greenham
Common and found the same hour-glass shaped deposits of
contamination around the runway that were found in the first
report of 1961. The Saxby report is classified secret, and after
its findings were made known within the Ministry of Defence the
classification status of the original 1961 report was reviewed and
significantly upgraded to "SECRET UK EYES 'A' NAMED AWE
DISTRIBUTION ONLY".

2.14 In 1994 there was yet another survey of contamination around
Greenham Common by scientists from Aldermaston. For the first
time, readings were also taken from inside the base itself. The
study detected the same radioactive contours found in both the
1961 and 1987 studies. However, like the 1961 and 1987 reports, it
is also classified secret. Shortly afterwards, the Defence
Radiological Protection Service (DRPS) carried out an 'official'
survey for the Government, which the Government then used to deny
showed that "Greenham contains any nuclear contamination
attributable to its former military use", adding that "the levels
of radioactivity present were similar to those prevailing
throughout the UK" [ref 8]. Nevertheless, the DRPS survey has also
not been made public.

2.15 More than a million tons of concrete from Greenham Common's
runway have now been dug up and crushed, and currently stand in
uncovered piles of dust. There are reports that the crushed
concrete could now be reconstituted and used in the foundations of
the controversial Newbury by-pass [ref 9]. Most of the buildings
on the base are now let as industrial units, and in June of this
year a new all-night dance club and live music venue opened just a
few hundred yards from the old Cruise missile silos. The Sports
Council also hopes to open a new leisure centre on the base with
the help of national lottery cash [ref 10].

3. Part B

The Health and Environmental Effects

3.1 Tens of thousands of American and British personnel and
civilians have served at Greenham Common since the late 1950s.
hundreds of thousands of people have visited the base and stood by
the contaminated runway watching aircraft take off and land as
spectators at the Air Shows held at Greenham Common between 1970
and 1983. There are upwards of 150,000 people now living in the
areas marked out by the 'radiation map attached to the 1961
report. There are a number of boarding schools in the area,
including Crookham Court which has now closed but which is located
almost at the end of Greenham's runway and at the centre of the
main radioactive 'hotspot to the east of Greenham. During the
1980s, Greenham Common saw protests by hundreds of thousands of
people which were policed by officers from several forces and
reported by journalists from all around the world.

3.2 There have been persistent reports of unusually high and
radiation-linked cancers in the area. These were first revealed in
letters to 'The Lancet', a medical journal, in November 1985 and
February 1986. The first letter stated that "since the
establishment of a paediatric oncology/haematology clinic at the
Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, in 1971 we have been concerned
that we were seeing more children with acute leukaemia than might
be expected in a population the size of our health district's [ref
11]. The claims also became the subject of a TV documentary. The
documentary, 'Inside Britain's Bomb' [ref 12], examined the
incidence of leukaemia in the nine rural local authority wards in
two circles of around 4km around Aldermaston and Burghfield. The
reports all suggested a link between the unusually high incidence
of leukaemia among local children and the atomic weapons research
establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield.

3.3 In 1989, the Government appointed its Committee on Medical
aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) to investigate
the claims, and specifically to establish whether there was any
link between the cancer clusters and Aldermaston and Burghfield.
COMARE concluded that there was a 'small but statistically
significant' increase in the number of cancers that would be
expected among young children in the area. However, it was unable
to find any link between its findings and emissions from either
Aldermaston or Burghfield. Greenham Common was not included in the
COMARE study, even though the Government knew that the spread of
radiation recorded in the 1961 study covered much of the area
looked into by COMARE. Other areas covered with contaminated dust
by the Greenham Common accident were excluded from the COMARE
survey. The Ministry of Defence did not tell COMARE's research
team about the accident at Greenham Common, and did not pass them
either the original 1961 report or the 1987 Saxby report.

3.4 The findings of the 1961 and 1987 Aldermaston reports could
provide the missing link COMARE was looking for. They clearly
detail the dispersal of significant amounts of uranium and
plutonium, both of which emit alpha radiation and produce
extremely toxic effects inside the body if inhaled or ingested. A
lung deposit of alpha-emitting particles can track through the
body, settling in the liver and bone structure, and destroy the
bone marrow's ability to create infection-fighting white blood
cells. the inhalation of plutonium particles can cause cancer of
the lung and in other parts of the body if carried in the
bloodstream. uranium produces very similar radiological hazards as
plutonium and can in addition cause a type of heavy-metal
poisoning.

3.5 It has now emerged that the American Government in the 1950s
was clearly aware of the potential health and environmental
hazards of an nuclear weapons accident of the type which
subsequently occurred at Greenham Common. A recently declassified
study by the US nuclear laboratory at Los Alamos in 1955 [ref 13]
concludes that "the problem of decontaminating the site of the
accident may be insurmountable and it may have to be 'written
off". It added that families living nearby would have to be
permanently evacuated and individuals forbidden from ever working
there again. In a long list of short and long-term health and
environmental hazards, it specifically expresses concerns about
the risks posed to those involved in clean-up operations and
"persons entering and working in the area, performing operations
that produce considerable dust."

3.6 There is now direct evidence that those involved in
fire-fighting or a clean-up operation following a nuclear weapons
accident are at enormous risk. Following an accident at Thule in
Greenland in 1968, when a B-52 carrying nuclear bombs crashed,
official reports claimed that radioactive contamination from the
accident was "minimal" [ref 14]. Twenty years later, however, it
was discovered that of the 800 Danes involved in the clean-up
operation, more than 500 had fallen ill, nearly 100 of whom had
cancer and "an unknown number of the same group of workers are
said to have died as a result of exposure to plutonium released in
the accident" [ref 15]. No follow-up study of those involved in
fighting the fire at Greenham Common has ever been done.

3.7 Animals grazing in the area may also have been contaminated by
the Greenham Common accident. Animals can absorb plutonium by
inhaling resuspended particles - in other words, radioactive dust
that is disturbed. The primary intake for herbivores is likely to
be through food. This can then be passed upwards through the food
chain. Plutonium can both be absorbed into soil and absorbed by
micro-organisms, and also dispersed into the air in airborne
spores. The area around Greenham Common contains a deep
groundwater system which is part of the major aquifer for South
East England, and it is possible that contamination will have
reached the shallow groundwater system and the chalk aquifer.

4. Conclusions

4.1 In January 1958, the Daily Telegraph reported that the
American Government had confirmed that a plane carrying an atomic
bomb had crashed in the US and that radioactive material had been
scattered in the countryside by the fire which followed. The
newspaper called for information about the accident to be passed
onto British scientists to help them understand the effects of
oxidised plutonium and uranium, adding that "naturally such a
crash would be more dangerous here than in the US, for a greater
proportion of our surface area either produces crops or is densely
populated" [ref 16]. There was considerable concern in the late
1950s about the possible consequences of an accident of precisely
the kind which actually took place at Greenham Common. With
increasing public concern about the nuclear threat, the launching
of CND and the recent arrival of US nuclear bombers in Britain,
the publicity which would have accompanied knowledge of the
Greenham Common accident would have threatened the US presence in
the UK altogether. It would also have threatened the development
of the British bomb, still in its relative infancy.

4.2 The Government has previously stated that 'there has never
been an accident involving damage to, or release of radioactivity
from a nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom" [ref 17]. This report
shows that this is patently untrue, and that the Government knows
this to be untrue. The Government must publicly admit this. The US
government has been similarly dishonest. When the British
government was asked by an MP whether there had been "any
accidents involving US Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons
in the UK and whether any such accident had resulted in the
release into the atmosphere, into water or into the ground of
radioactive materials", the House of Commons was told: "The US
authorities have confirmed that there have been no such accidents
involving US Air Force aircraft [ref 18].

4.3 Plutonium has a radioactive half-life of 24,000 years, and
uranium 235 of 710 million years. The contamination of Greenham
Common and of the air, soil, food and water of the surrounding
area will be in evidence for generations to come. The potentially
devastating effects of alpha-emitting plutonium and uranium on
humans, animals and the environment are well known. A now
declassified US Government report from 1955 shows that the
American government's own nuclear experts believed that in an
accident like this the base should have been closed down and the
area cordoned off forever. The repeated disturbance of the runway
through its continuous use, reconstruction work in 1980s and the
demolition work of recent months has raised and spread more
radioactive dust over the area time and time again, and placed
those in closest contact with the dust at particular risk. The
runway now stands in piles of dust - known locally as 'the Alps of
Berkshire' blowing yet more dust over Newbury and nearby areas.

4.4 It is extraordinary and nothing short of scandalous that
evidence about the accident and local contamination in the
possession of the Government should not have been passed to those
appointed by it to explore links between radiation and cancer
suffered by young children in the area. It is hardly surprising
that the COMARE report was inconclusive when vital evidence was
withheld from it and which could have provided the missing link
between local radiation emissions and leukaemia clusters in the
area.

5. Recommendations

5.1 All readings ever taken by Aldermaston and the Defence
Radiological Protection Service must be made public without delay,
and all files relating to nuclear weapons accidents and
investigations - including Board of Inquiry reports - should be
released for publication.

5.2 The British Government must demand from the American
Government all evidence and information about the fires and
accidents of 1957 and 1958, including base logbooks and readings
taken for uranium and plutonium inside the base, and place it in
the public domain.

5.3 There must be a full and open Public Inquiry into the
accident, the circumstances surrounding it and the effects on the
local area and local populations, including an investigation into
the Government's repeated failure to pass on evidence about
contamination to Parliament and the Government's own Committee on
the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.

5.4 The immediate area of Greenham Common should be vacated and
secured pending a full radiological survey undertaken by an agency
independent of the Government, using detailed soil sampling
techniques at regular intervals on and around the runway.

5.5 The Government must make available facilities for free health
checks to all service personnel and civilians who have visited the
base, or who have worked, lived or received education in the area,
who currently work, live and receive education in the area, and
who are concerned that they may have been contaminated by
radioactive dust.

5.6 The crushed concrete from the runway must be covered, removed
and disposed of immediately in order to prevent the continued
dispersal of dust.

5.7 The Government must begin a clean-up operation to minimise the
impact of radiation on local water tables, crops and animals
reared for food. Any contaminated soil, vegetation or concrete
must be removed and disposed of in a proper store for nuclear
waste.

5.8 The COMARE report into cancer clusters in West Berkshire and
North Hampshire should be reopened, and COMARE researchers should
have access to all records and data on the Greenham Common
accident.

References [ref 1] written answers, col 93, 3/7/95 [ref 2] Newbury
Weekly News, 6/3/58 [ref 3] Evening Standard, 5/11/79, and The
Guardian 6/11/79 [ref 4] see Chapter 2, "The Unsinkable Aircraft
Carrier", D. Campbell, Paladin Grafton Books, 1984 (especially
p.50) [ref 5] written answers, col 133, 5/3/58 [ref 6] written
answers, col 875, 26/7/85 [ref 7] The Nation, 7/2/81 [ref 8]
written answers, 3/11/94 [ref 9] Daily Telegraph, 24/2/96 [ref 10]
The Guardian, 22/7/95 [ref 11] The Lancet, 30/11/85) [ref
12] broadcast on December 3, 1985, produced by Yorkshire TV
[ref 13] "Plutonium dispersal by accidental or experimental
low-order of atomic weapons", Langham, Harris & Shipman; classmark
LA-1985; December 1955 [ref 14] The Observer, 28/1/68 [ref
15] The Guardian, 11/12/86 [ref 16] Daily Telegraph,
14/1/58 [ref 17] written answers, col 134, 23/2/88 [ref 18]
written answers, col 875, 26/7/85

END OF REPORT