Maj Gen James Crook, RAMC scientist who studied the biological impact of nuclear tests
Major General James Crook, who has died aged 101, took part in a major British nuclear test programme in the course of a distinguished career in the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC).
In 1956, Crook went to South Australia as one of a group of scientists working on the biological problems of atomic explosions. Maralinga – the name means 'Place of Thunder' – is on the edge of the Great Victoria Desert about 700 miles north-west of Adelaide. It was covered with grass, flowering shrubs and trees, and there was plenty of animal life, including lizards and snakes, rabbits, kangaroos, emus and parrots.
Scientific and recreational facilities had been established, a large runway and aerodrome built and a 100 ft tower constructed at the end of a long road leading from Maralinga village.
In this series of weapons tests, four rounds were planned – two from the tower, one from the ground and an air-drop from a Valiant bomber. Crook's task was to put out items of medical equipment at varying distances from the tower. Some were placed on the surface, while others, including foodstuffs, were buried to assess the effect of ionising radiation. A further task was to place articulated dummies in battle-dress to calculate the dynamic effects of the blast wave on human beings.
Also exposed to the bomb were trucks, light vehicles, aircraft, tanks, guns, radar and other military equipment. Blast detectors, heat detectors and gamma neutron detectors were among a large assortment of scientific instruments laid out to measure the effects of the bomb.
The area was a scene of great activity. Bulldozers, drillers, graders and mobile cranes raised clouds of dust. Several times, Crook found himself looking over his shoulder at the tower and wondering whether atomic bombs ever exploded prematurely.
The first round was to be exploded from the tower. The fireball was expected to come into contact with the ground and the radioactive fall-out, affecting the first 100 miles downwind, was expected to be high. Firing, therefore, could only be permitted when the wind was in exactly the right direction and of the right strength.
Crook and other service officers watched the explosion on a hill within a few miles of the tower. He wrote afterwards: 'A tremendously bright, white-blueish flash illuminated the area. It was like a magnesium flare and outshone the sun. An orange fireball rose extraordinarily quickly, attached to the ground by the mushroom-stalk cloud. The roar and the intensely hot pressure wave came several seconds later.'
James Cooper Crook was born at Prestatyn, north Wales, on March 19 1923. He won an open scholarship to Worksop College before going to Guy's Hospital on a junior science scholarship. His father, Francis, had served in the First World War before going to Guy's, and his grandfather, Sir Edwin Cooper Perry, was Superintendent of Guy's from 1897 to 1920 and vice-chancellor of London University.
In 1946 he was commissioned into the RAMC as a National Serviceman and was serving in North Africa during Britain's severe winter of 1947-48. A soldier's life seemed preferable to that sort of experience and he decided to make a career in the regular Army.
After three years in Cyrenaica Province, Libya, he returned to England to begin his training in pathology at the Queen Alexandra's Military Hospital at Millbank in London. It was during the period 1954 to 1957, when he was the Army medical liaison officer to the Medical Research Council in the radiobiology unit at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell in Oxfordshire that he attended the nuclear tests at Maralinga.
Early in the morning, on the day following the explosion of the first round, he drove to the health control checkpoint, where a complete decontamination centre had been established. He changed into protective clothing, including rubber boots, overalls and a respirator. He was given a personal dose-rate meter and walked to the 'dirty' car park. There he collected a 'dirty' jeep and drove towards the bomb site through a scene of devastation – with blackened earth, charred and flattened trees, and fires burning in vehicles and other target items.
As he retrieved the food targets, the needle on his dosimeter was recording several roentgens per hour. He wasted no time in completing the task and returned to the centre to undress and shower. This was followed by rigorous monitoring to confirm that he was completely free of contamination.
There followed postings to Cyprus during the EOKA Emergency, and to the David Bruce Military Hospital in Malta. He was the RAMC specialist and pathologist at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down in Wiltshire from 1960 to 1963.
After a posting to Eastern Command Laboratory, he moved to the Ministry of Defence. He hated having to wear a city suit, a bowler hat and carry an umbrella, and he jumped on the hat when he finished the appointment. After five years in command of the British Military Hospital at Munster in West Germany, he returned to the MoD – this time without a bowler hat.
It was his final appointment. He was promoted to major general and finished as director of Army Pathology. In 1981 he retired from the Army and worked as a civilian medical practitioner at the Army Blood Supply Depot in Aldershot , where he became known as 'the Bleeding General'.
In retirement in Cornwall, he loved travelling and, having loaded his family into their veteran Morris Oxford, he would drive across France to Bavaria for camping holidays. He also enjoyed researching the family history.
In 2023 he received the British Nuclear Tests Medal and wore it at the last Remembrance Service he attended.
James Crook married, in 1950, Ruth Bellamy, who was serving with Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. She died in 2015 and he is survived by two daughters and a son.
Major General James Crook, born March 19 1923, died March 16 2025
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Women shouldn't drink alcohol, say scientists. These are the facts
We cling tightly to the studies that say the odd glass of red is healthy, reminding us how it's packed with polyphenols and brings down your stress levels to boot. But in April, the World Cancer Research Fund ruled that women should be avoiding alcohol just as strenuously as cigarettes as 'any amount of alcohol increases breast cancer risk'. With the average British woman drinking nine units of alcohol each week, this is bad news. These days we cringe when we see characters in old movies pull out the cigarettes at the first hint of drama. It might have been normal decades ago, but we have come to see smoking as a habit that's uniquely bad for our health. Now, scientists believe that our favourite national pastime could be just as dangerous, for women at least. Here is what we know and how much you can get away with drinking without significantly raising your risk. It's not what any of us want to hear, but alcohol is 'a known carcinogen,' says Britta Stordal, an associate professor in cancer research at Middlesex University. When you drink alcohol, 'your body turns it into acetaldehyde, which is a compound known to cause cancer,' she explains. For this reason, 'any amount of alcohol that you drink increases your risk of cancer'. The World Cancer Research Fund has advised that to reduce our risk of bowel cancer, we should restrict alcohol; however, to reduce breast cancer risk, women should avoid alcohol entirely. The reality is that drinking alcohol is especially likely to lead to breast cancer rather than other cancers. 'Alcohol is turned into acetaldehyde primarily in your liver, but this process can also happen inside of breast tissue,' Prof Stordal says. 'We also know that drinking alcohol increases your oestrogen levels, which can also increase cancer risk in women.' There is a 'dose response' involved in breast cancer risk, says Dr Harriet Rumgay, an epidemiologist at the World Health Organization in its international agency for research on cancer. This means that 'the more alcohol you drink, the greater your risk,' she says. Though smoking is 'still much more harmful to us than alcohol when it comes to all of the consequences for your health, the evidence does say that women should try to limit their alcohol consumption as much as possible to reduce their breast cancer risk, as 8 per cent of all breast cancer cases in women are attributable to drinking [alcohol],' Dr Rumgay says. Women who drink two bottles of wine a week are at a 27 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who drink two bottles of wine every week, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. This compares with the number of non-drinking women who will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, a figure that's at 11 in 100. If you're keen on wine, you might like to have a large glass most nights with dinner, bringing you up to at least two bottles of wine drunk each week. In units, that's equivalent to nine pints of beer or cider throughout the week, or nine double-shot cocktails. According to the World Health Organization, drinking two bottles of wine a week is in 'the middle category of risk, rather than being judged as high risk,' says Dr Rumgay. For a postmenopausal woman, however, drinking in this way could lead to 'a 27 per cent higher risk of developing breast cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. Postmenopausal women are affected differently to premenopausal women when it comes to breast cancer risk. Scientists are still trying to determine why that is. 'It might just be a fact of age, because as you age, your cells have more of a chance to divide and mutate, leading to cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. 'But postmenopausal women also have different amounts of hormones in their systems. For these women, drinking alcohol could be more likely to cause breast cancer, because the increase in oestrogen that comes with drinking alcohol causes more cell proliferation, where your body's cells divide to produce more of themselves. Whenever this happens, there is the risk that one of those cells will mutate and become cancerous.' Women who drink 14 units of alcohol a week are at a 22 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who drink 14 units of alcohol every week, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. One in seven women in Britain drink more than 14 units a week, the 'low-risk' guideline set by the Government, and they are at a 22 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink. Drinking 14 units of alcohol every week, equivalent to six medium glasses of wine, would give you a 14.4 per cent chance of developing breast cancer over the course of your life, not including other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not you smoke. But what about the much-quoted government advice that 14 units a week is the safe limit on drinking for women? When it comes to breast cancer risk, 'this is quite outdated advice,' says Prof Stordal. 'I suspect that the 14-unit guideline doesn't properly take cancer risk into account. Instead it's likely based more on issues like liver damage, and is a combination of what the health research suggests is sensible and what people are already doing in a specific country.' Canada has recently introduced alcohol guidelines that explain the increased risk of cancer with the number of units that you consume. 'I'd love to see the UK bring this in instead, just so that people can be aware,' says Prof Stordal. 'I certainly didn't know about the extent of the risk for a long time.' According to Alcohol Change UK, just one drink per day (1.25 units) can increase your breast cancer risk by 7 per cent. Smoking, either regularly or occasionally, leads to a 7 per cent increased risk of breast cancer, and of 100 women that currently smoke, 12 will develop breast cancer over the course of their lives. 'Smoking is worse for your health for a huge number of reasons, however, so I wouldn't want people to think that it's safer to smoke than to drink,' says Dr Rumgay. Women who drink a small glass of wine every day, equivalent to around 10 units a week, are at a 15 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have a small glass of wine every day, around 13 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors like weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. Much alcohol risk research looks at everyday drinking. The facts are in: having a single drink a day, four times or more each week, can lead to a 20 per cent greater risk of early death. When it comes to breast cancer, the risks escalate further. A report by the American Institute for Cancer Research found in 2017 that one glass of wine a day increased the risk of cancer by 9 per cent in postmenopausal women, and by 5 per cent in premenopausal women. Studies such as this tend to use the WHO's definition of a standard drink: a drink containing 10g of pure alcohol, equivalent to a small glass of wine. So having just one tiny glass a day could be having a big impact on your health, and while it may keep you from being too tipsy, 'there's not enough evidence to say whether having food with your wine is any better for your cancer risk, though this is something that research could tell us in the future,' says Dr Rumgay. Women who drink eight double-shot cocktails or eight medium glasses of wine over the course of a weekend are at a 24 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have eight drinks of this size every weekend, around 14 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not taking into account factors such as weight, genetic risk and whether or not they smoke. Women who drink four of these drinks over the course of a weekend, meanwhile, are at a 12 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink. Of 100 women who have four drinks of this size every weekend, around 13 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives. While having alcohol-free days can improve your health, there are added dangers to drinking large amounts of alcohol in one sitting, says Dr Rumgay. One study she worked on in the past found that 'the risk of breast cancer was increased by 40 per cent in women that had had any occasion of heavy episodic drinking in the year leading up to the research,' she says. We might not think of it as such, but the WHO classes 'heavy episodic drinking' or binge drinking as consuming 60g of pure alcohol or more in a single drinking session. That's equivalent to just over two large glasses of wine. Research into the effects of weekend-only drinking is still ongoing, but 'premenopausal women who binge drink seem to be twice as likely to develop breast cancer,' says Prof Stordal. 'There is some confidence in the notion that having this carcinogenic compound in your system in high concentrations after a weekend of drinking could be more dangerous compared with having the same quantity over the course of a longer period.' Women who have one drink three times a week are at a 9 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink three times a week, around 12 would develop breast cancer over the course of their lives, not including other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. Having a break between the days that you visit the pub or have a glass of wine with your dinner is certainly good for your health, says Dr Rumgay. 'Drinking frequently can lead to systemic inflammation of the body,' she explains. 'If you cut the number of days that you drink, or spread them out, then it's possible that your body has more time to recover from this inflammatory state, which could potentially avoid increasing your risk of cancer.' Even this amount of alcohol can increase your cancer risk, however. Another study that Dr Rumgay worked on found that 'having just half a standard drink every day increases breast cancer risk by 4 per cent,' she says. Women who have one drink once a week are at a 3 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink a week, around 11 would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. The same amount of non-drinking women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives More than 40 per cent of women in Britain drink at least once a week. The effects of having one drink each week are hard to study, however, as 'most people either drink more than once a week or don't drink at all,' says Dr Rumgay. The numbers still show that even this much alcohol consumption can increase your risk of breast cancer – though you might see a 3 per cent increased risk as something you're willing to tolerate. Women who have one drink every other week are at a 2 per cent greater risk of developing breast cancer than women who don't drink, says Dr Rumgay. Of 100 women who have one drink a few times a month, around would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors such as genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. Again, there isn't a lot of research into this pattern of drinking, though 'any amount of alcohol still increases your risk of breast cancer,' says Dr Rumgay. 'The simple advice I always give is reduction,' says Prof Stordal. 'Whether that's cutting down to once a week or once every few weeks, whatever you can do will benefit you.' Women who have fewer than six drinks over the course of a whole year are 0.3 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer than women who don't drink. Of 100 women who have one drink fewer than six times a year, 11 would develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, not taking into account other factors like genetic risk, weight and whether or not they smoke. So while no amount of drinking is completely safe, you may be pleased to know that you can celebrate with a drink a few times a year and only increase your risk of breast cancer marginally, 'though the general consensus is that anything more than zero does raise your risk,' says Dr Rumgay. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
British defence giant to make satellites for Trump's missile shield
British defence giant BAE Systems is to build satellites for a new American missile-tracking system that is poised to form part of Donald Trump's 'Golden Dome'. On Thursday, the FTSE 100 company said it had secured a $1.2bn (£880m) contract from the US Space Force to provide 10 satellites for the Pentagon's missile warning and missile tracking programme. The constellation will sit in a medium Earth orbit – between 1,000 miles and 22,000 miles above the planet's surface – and track threats including intercontinental ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles. It is eventually expected to form part of the US president's broader Golden Dome, a $175bn proposal to stitch together a network of land and space-based sensors and interceptors to shoot down missiles aimed at the United States. Lt Col Brandon Castillo, of the US Space Force, said the system being provided by BAE would 'provide accurate real-time information to decision-makers'. He added: 'This allows for additional resiliency in the missile warning and tracking satellite architecture.' The satellites will use infrared sensing technology and, along with another batch commissioned under the same programme, will have 'the ability to track hypersonic missile threats anywhere on the globe', Space Force said. They are planned for delivery from 2029 onwards. Mr Trump announced the Golden Dome plans last month, reviving an idea for a global missile shield that was first mooted by former president Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – dubbed 'Star Wars' at the time. The Reagan proposals have since been credited with kicking off a fresh arms race that piled fresh financial pressures on the Soviet Union before its eventual collapse. However, experts have questioned whether, even today, it is technically and financially feasible. The Trump administration's idea has also been partly inspired by the 'Iron Dome' missile shield used by Israel to defend itself against rocket attacks, over a smaller area. Interest in the system has grown amid fears about the capabilities of new hypersonic missiles developed by China and Russia, which American defence planners fear could slip through their defences in a conflict. Mr Trump has vowed that his system will be able to block all kinds of missiles, including nuclear weapons, using 'super technology'. 'This is very important for the success and even survival of our country. It's a pretty evil world out there,' he said last month. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
What if the Big Bang wasn't the beginning? New research suggests it may have taken place inside a black hole
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe — a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. But what if this was not the beginning at all? What if our universe emerged from something else — something more familiar and radical at the same time? In a new paper, published in Physical Review D, my colleagues and I propose a striking alternative. Our calculations suggest the Big Bang was not the start of everything, but rather the outcome of a gravitational crunch or collapse that formed a very massive black hole — followed by a bounce inside it. This idea, which we call the black hole universe, offers a radically different view of cosmic origins, yet it is grounded entirely in known physics and observations. Today's standard cosmological model, based on the Big Bang and cosmic inflation (the idea that the early universe rapidly blew up in size), has been remarkably successful in explaining the structure and evolution of the universe. But it comes at a price: it leaves some of the most fundamental questions unanswered. For one, the Big Bang model begins with a singularity — a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. This is not just a technical glitch; it's a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don't really understand the beginning at all. To explain the universe's large-scale structure, physicists introduced a brief phase of rapid expansion into the early universe called cosmic inflation, powered by an unknown field with strange properties. Later, to explain the accelerating expansion observed today, they added another "mysterious" component: dark energy. Related: 5 fascinating facts about the Big Bang, the theory that defines the history of the universe In short, the standard model of cosmology works well — but only by introducing new ingredients we have never observed directly. Meanwhile, the most basic questions remain open: where did everything come from? Why did it begin this way? And why is the universe so flat, smooth, and large? Our new model tackles these questions from a different angle — by looking inward instead of outward. Instead of starting with an expanding universe and trying to trace back how it began, we consider what happens when an overly dense collection of matter collapses under gravity. This is a familiar process: stars collapse into black holes, which are among the most well-understood objects in physics. But what happens inside a black hole, beyond the event horizon from which nothing can escape, remains a mystery. In 1965, the British physicist Roger Penrose proved that under very general conditions, gravitational collapse must lead to a singularity. This result, extended by the late British physicist Stephen Hawking and others, underpins the idea that singularities — like the one at the Big Bang — are unavoidable. The idea helped win Penrose a share of the 2020 Nobel prize in physics and inspired Hawking's global bestseller A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. But there's a caveat. These "singularity theorems" rely on "classical physics" which describes ordinary macroscopic objects. If we include the effects of quantum mechanics, which rules the tiny microcosmos of atoms and particles, as we must at extreme densities, the story may change. In our new paper, we show that gravitational collapse does not have to end in a singularity. We find an exact analytical solution — a mathematical result with no approximations. Our maths show that as we approach the potential singularity, the size of the universe changes as a (hyperbolic) function of cosmic time. This simple mathematical solution describes how a collapsing cloud of matter can reach a high-density state and then bounce, rebounding outward into a new expanding phase. But how come Penrose's theorems forbid out such outcomes? It's all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or "spin"). And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible — it's inevitable under the right conditions. Crucially, this bounce occurs entirely within the framework of general relativity, which applies on large scales such as stars and galaxies, combined with the basic principles of quantum mechanics — no exotic fields, extra dimensions or speculative physics required. What emerges on the other side of the bounce is a universe remarkably like our own. Even more surprisingly, the rebound naturally produces the two separate phases of accelerated expansion — inflation and dark energy — driven not by a hypothetical fields but by the physics of the bounce itself. One of the strengths of this model is that it makes testable predictions. It predicts a small but non-zero amount of positive spatial curvature — meaning the universe is not exactly flat, but slightly curved, like the surface of the Earth. This is simply a relic of the initial small over-density that triggered the collapse. If future observations, such as the ongoing Euclid mission, confirm a small positive curvature, it would be a strong hint that our universe did indeed emerge from such a bounce. It also makes predictions about the current universe's rate of expansion, something that has already been verified. This model does more than fix technical problems with standard cosmology. It could also shed new light on other deep mysteries in our understanding of the early universe — such as the origin of supermassive black holes, the nature of dark matter, or the hierarchical formation and evolution of galaxies. These questions will be explored by future space missions such as Arrakihs, which will study diffuse features such as stellar halos (a spherical structure of stars and globular clusters surrounding galaxies) and satellite galaxies (smaller galaxies that orbit larger ones) that are difficult to detect with traditional telescopes from Earth and will help us understand dark matter and galaxy evolution. These phenomena might also be linked to relic compact objects — such as black holes — that formed during the collapsing phase and survived the bounce. RELATED STORIES —When will the universe die? —Universe may revolve once every 500 billion years — and that could solve a problem that threatened to break cosmology —Scientists may have finally found where the 'missing half' of the universe's matter is hiding The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger "parent" universe. We are not special, no more than Earth was in the geocentric worldview that led Galileo (the astronomer who suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun in the 16th and 17th centuries) to be placed under house arrest. We are not witnessing the birth of everything from nothing, but rather the continuation of a cosmic cycle — one shaped by gravity, quantum mechanics, and the deep interconnections between them. This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
