Iraq war veteran Andy Tosh points to his nose where he was treated for skin cancer and shows the red marks on his hand.
His health has been permanently damaged – not by the baking heat of the Iraqi desert, he says, but by a toxic chemical at the industrial site he was ordered to guard.
“It’s clear British troops were knowingly exposed,” the 58-year-old former RAF sergeant says.
Sky News can reveal that nearly 100 British troops may have been exposed to sodium dichromate while guarding the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in 2003.
Ten British veterans who guarded the plant have now spoken publicly about their ordeal – and say they feel “betrayed” by the UK government after struggling with a range of health problems, including daily nosebleeds, a brain tumour and three who have been diagnosed with cancer.
Described as a “deadly poison”, sodium dichromate is a known carcinogen. The ground at Qarmat Ali was covered in it, according to the former servicemen.
The Ministry of Defence says it is willing to meet the veterans to work with them going forward – but the former troops say they want answers and accountability.
‘It was like a scrapyard’
In the opening months of the Iraq war, around 88 British troops were deployed to Qarmat Ali, providing an armed guard detail round the clock.
Advertisement
Located near Basra, Qarmat Ali was built in the 1970s to pump water through a network of pipes in order to flush out oil nearby.
Wearing heavy combat gear, British soldiers endured baking 50C heat in the day and listened to rocket fire from insurgents at night as they patrolled the industrial facility.
What they didn’t know was that the place was contaminated with sodium dichromate, a chemical used to prevent corrosion.
Before the US took over the site, the water was filtered and treated with sodium dichromate to increase the life of pipelines, pumps, and other equipment.
It’s a type of hexavalent chromium, a group of compounds made famous by the 2000 film Erin Brockovich, which dramatised the contamination of water around a California town.
Members of the military described how thousands of bags of the orange powder were kept in a building with no roof, some of them ripped open, exposing their contents to the wind. Others were spread throughout the facility.
So why were British soldiers there at all?
Qarmat Ali was considered critical to getting Iraq’s oil production up and running after Saddam Hussein was defeated, and the US government appointed contractors KBR to run the site.
US soldiers would escort a convoy of KBR workers to Qarmat Ali on day trips, where they worked under the protection of British RAF troops.
“It was like a scrapyard,” says Jim Garth, a former corporal who was deployed to Iraq after serving in Northern Ireland.
Amid the chaos of the invasion, much of the site had been looted for metal. Leaking chlorine gas canisters lay on the ground.
But what could not be explained were the nosebleeds, rashes and lesions suffered by UK troops stationed there, say the former servicemen, and among the US soldiers who visited the site.
“I noticed a rash on my forearms,” Mr Tosh said. “I’d operated in other hot tropical countries, I’ve never had a rash like I had on my forearms.
“Other members of our teams had different symptoms but at the time we had no idea why.”
It was a mystery.
That is, until two workers in hazmat suits and respirator masks turned up in August 2003 and put up a sign with a skull and crossbones on it.
“Warning. Chemical hazard. Full protective equipment and chemical respirator required. Sodium dichromate exposure” the sign read.
“We were shocked,” Mr Tosh added. “We’d already been on that site for months, being exposed.
“It was a different type of threat that none of us could really understand.”
And the yellowy orange powder wasn’t just on the ground, it was blown around in the wind, Mr Garth says.
“So unbeknownst to us it was all around us all the time,” he added.
An investigation by the US defence department found service members and civilians were “unintentionally exposed” to toxic chemicals.
The report also pointed blame at KBR for a delay in recognising and responding to the hazard posed by sodium dichromate.
It said KBR became aware of the use of sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali as early as 31 May 2003, when the company reviewed an Iraqi operating manual describing the use of the chemical at the facility.
According to the report, both KBR and Task Force Restore Iraqi Oil, the military group responsible for restoring Iraqi oil production, reported in June 2003 that the site was potentially contaminated with sodium dichromate, which they recognised as a carcinogen.
US commander’s death linked to sodium dichromate
The plight of US troops who were exposed to sodium dichromate at Qarmat Ali is far better documented than their UK counterparts.
National guardsmen who visited the site have become ill, leading to a formal inquiry and government support for veterans across the pond.
“While I was at Qarmat Ali, I began suffering from severe nosebleeds,” Russell Powell, an American former medic, told a Senate inquiry.
Within three days of arriving at the plant in April 2003 he developed rashes on his knuckles, hands and forearms, he said.
Others in his platoon suffered similar ailments, he added.
Mr Powell said he had questioned a KBR worker about the powder, who said his supervisors had told him not to worry about it.
Speaking at a hearing in 2009 held as part of the inquiry, Mr Powell added: “My symptoms have not changed since my service in Iraq… I cannot take a full breath.”
Lieutenant-Colonel James Gentry, of the Indiana National Guard, was stationed at Qarmat Ali in 2003.
“They had this information and didn’t share it,” he said in a deposition video, his face pale as he struggled to breathe. He was referring to contractors KBR.
“I’m dying now because of it.”
Lt Col Gentry died from cancer in 2009. The US Army deemed that his death was “in line of duty for exposure to sodium dichromate”, according to court documents.
In a high profile court case, 12 US servicemen were awarded $85m (£66.4m) after a jury found KBR failed to protect them from exposure to cancer-causing chemicals.
Each soldier was awarded $7.1m for “reckless and outrageous indifference” to their health in the trial in Oregon.
However, the case was overturned after KBR argued the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction and it should be transferred to Texas.
Ultimately, an appeals court decided in favour of KBR, affirming a previous ruling that the Qarmat Ali veterans had not provided sufficient evidence that any health issues were caused by sodium dichromate.
‘My nose just started gushing with blood’
In the UK, there has been no dedicated ongoing support for Qarmat Ali veterans, and silence from the government, the former British servicemen say.
They say they feel let down and worry they could develop cancer at any time as a result of their exposure two decades ago.
Mr Tosh, who left the RAF in 2006 after nearly 24 years’ service, says he’s had skin cancer on his nose and marks on his right hand.
“That’s the hand for holding my weapon which would have had more dust or toxic chemical potentially on it,” he told Sky News from his home in Lincoln, where he lives with his wife.
Fellow veteran Tim Harrison says he has experienced worsening nose bleeds in recent years years, which he believes are the result of his exposure to sodium dichromate.
Now working as a paramedic and living in Doncaster, he told Sky News: “Last year, I was at work and all of a sudden my nose just started gushing with blood.
“[I] couldn’t stop it for two to three hours and I had to get admitted to A&E and stay overnight.”
Since then, Mr Harrison says he has daily nosebleeds as well as skin lesions on his legs.
“What’s going to happen in 10 years’ time? What else is going on?” he asks.
Mr Garth has had skin cancer, including a lesion on his neck and spots on his head – both areas less likely to have been covered by his combat gear in the heat.
Another Qarmat Ali veteran, Craig Warner, was medically discharged from the RAF after he was found to have a brain tumour, a condition his surgeon attributed to chemical exposure.
Other veterans who say they have long-term health problems after being exposed at Qarmat Ali include Eric Page, who has been treated for testicular cancer that had spread to his stomach lymph nodes and severe headaches, Ben Evans, whose nose had to be cauterised to stop nosebleeds, Tony Watters, whose arms itch until they bleed, Andrew Day, who has regular nosebleeds and lesions on his arms, and Darren Waters, who has a rash on his shin.
And they’re not the only ones from their squadron who have become unwell, they say. Two others are reported to have died – although it’s not been confirmed if their deaths are related to health problems linked to Qarmat Ali.
Just one of the Qarmat Ali veterans to have spoken to Sky News is without ongoing symptoms, but he said he worries about what could happen in the future.
Some who served there may still be unaware of the exposure at all, the veterans say.
What does the science say about sodium dichromate?
A 2019 analysis of existing studies found that hexavalent chromium (of which sodium dichromate is a type) may cause cancers of the respiratory system, buccal cavity and pharynx, prostate, and stomach in humans, and it is related to increased risk of overall mortality owing to lung, larynx, bladder, kidney, testicular, bone, and thyroid cancer.
During the Senate inquiry, epidemiologist Herman Gibb said symptoms reported by soldiers during their time at the site were consistent with significant exposure to sodium dichromate.
He said it was “possible” that chromium could cause continuing symptoms after leaving the body given its “highly irritative nature”.
Asked by Sky News whether skin cancers developed by veterans years later could be linked to Qarmat Ali, he said it was “more likely than not” caused by sun exposure rather than the chemical.
But he added that it was possible that damage to the skin caused by chromium could have been exacerbated by sunlight to the point of developing a skin tumour. This was difficult to know without further research, he said.
UK veterans want answers – and an apology
Now discharged from the military, and two decades after they were posted to Qarmat Ali, the British veterans say they want the Ministry of Defence to take responsibility.
“Is it a cover up? I don’t want to believe it, but it’s true,” Mr Garth says.
Mr Tosh adds: “I’d hate to think, nowadays, out of the number of people who went there, how many people are ill or maybe have passed away.”
They want a public inquiry into what happened and for the Ministry of Defence to ensure that everyone who served at Qarmat Ali has been contacted and offered ongoing medical support.
“We shouldn’t have been there in the first place. But even when the warning signs went up, why did they make us stay?” asks Mr Tosh.
“Because we’re expendable. Because it was pumping oil, that site was much more important than any of our lives.”
In a statement to Sky News, the Ministry of Defence said: “We value the service of our personnel and all operations have health and safety policies in place to mitigate against risk.
“As soon as we were alerted to the possible exposure of sodium dichromate, an environmental survey was conducted to evaluate typical exposure at Qarmat Ali. Results showed that the levels at the time were significantly below UK government guidance levels.
“Anyone who requires medical treatment can receive it through the Defence Medical Services and other appropriate services.
“Veterans who believe they have suffered ill health due to service can apply for no-fault compensation under the War Pensions Scheme.”
In a statement to Sky News, KBR said: “The company was performing work at the direction of the US Army under the extreme and continually-evolving conditions of wartime Iraq.
“KBR abided by the war zone chain of command. KBR reasonably, timely, and repeatedly notified the US Army of sodium dichromate at the facility upon discovering it, and acted promptly to address it. All of the claims made against KBR were dismissed by US courts.
“KBR is a proud supporter of US and Allied forces and serve these nations with integrity and honour.”
The fires that have been raging in Los Angeles County this week may be the “most destructive” in modern US history.
In just three days, the blazes have covered tens of thousands of acres of land and could potentially have an economic impact of up to $150bn (£123bn), according to private forecaster Accuweather.
Sky News has used a combination of open-source techniques, data analysis, satellite imagery and social media footage to analyse how and why the fires started, and work out the estimated economic and environmental cost.
More than 1,000 structures have been damaged so far, local officials have estimated. The real figure is likely to be much higher.
“In fact, it’s likely that perhaps 15,000 or even more structures have been destroyed,” said Jonathan Porter, chief meteorologist at Accuweather.
These include some of the country’s most expensive real estate, as well as critical infrastructure.
Accuweather has estimated the fires could have a total damage and economic loss of between $135bn and $150bn.
“It’s clear this is going to be the most destructive wildfire in California history, and likely the most destructive wildfire in modern US history,” said Mr Porter.
“That is our estimate based upon what has occurred thus far, plus some considerations for the near-term impacts of the fires,” he added.
The calculations were made using a wide variety of data inputs, from property damage and evacuation efforts, to the longer-term negative impacts from job and wage losses as well as a decline in tourism to the area.
The Palisades fire, which has burned at least 20,000 acres of land, has been the biggest so far.
Satellite imagery and social media videos indicate the fire was first visible in the area around Skull Rock, part of a 4.5 mile hiking trail, northeast of the upscale Pacific Palisades neighbourhood.
These videos were taken by hikers on the route at around 10.30am on Tuesday 7 January, when the fire began spreading.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
At about the same time, this footage of a plane landing at Los Angeles International Airport was captured. A growing cloud of smoke is visible in the hills in the background – the same area where the hikers filmed their videos.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
The area’s high winds and dry weather accelerated the speed that the fire has spread. By Tuesday night, Eaton fire sparked in a forested area north of downtown LA, and Hurst fire broke out in Sylmar, a suburban neighbourhood north of San Fernando, after a brush fire.
These images from NASA’s Black Marble tool that detects light sources on the ground show how much the Palisades and Eaton fires grew in less than 24 hours.
Â
On Tuesday, the Palisades fire had covered 772 acres. At the time of publication of Friday, the fire had grown to cover nearly 20,500 acres, some 26.5 times its initial size.
The Palisades fire was the first to spark, but others erupted over the following days.
At around 1pm on Wednesday afternoon, the Lidia fire was first reported in Acton, next to the Angeles National Forest north of LA. Smaller than the others, firefighters managed to contain the blaze by 75% on Friday.
On Thursday, the Kenneth fire was reported at 2.40pm local time, according to Ventura County Fire Department, near a place called Victory Trailhead at the border of Ventura and Los Angeles counties.
This footage from a fire-monitoring camera in Simi Valley shows plumes of smoke billowing from the Kenneth fire.
Sky News analysed infrared satellite imagery to show how these fires grew all across LA.
The largest fires are still far from being contained, and have prompted thousands of residents to flee their homes as officials continued to keep large areas under evacuation orders. It’s unclear when they’ll be able to return.
“This is a tremendous loss that is going to result in many people and businesses needing a lot of help, as they begin the very slow process of putting their lives back together and rebuilding,” said Mr Porter.
“This is going to be an event that is going to likely take some people and businesses, perhaps a decade to recover from this fully.”
The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Given gilt yields are rising, the pound is falling and, all things considered, markets look pretty hairy back in the UK, it’s quite likely Rachel Reeves’s trip to China gets overshadowed by noises off.
There’s a chance the dominant narrative is not about China itself, but about why she didn’t cancel the trip.
But make no mistake: this visit is a big deal. A very big deal – potentially one of the single most interesting moments in recent British economic policy.
Why? Because the UK is doing something very interesting and quite counterintuitive here. It is taking a gamble. For even as nearly every other country in the developed world cuts ties and imposes tariffs on China, this new Labour government is doing the opposite – trying to get closer to the world’s second-biggest economy.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:45
How much do we trade with China?
The chancellor‘s three-day visit to Beijing and Shanghai marks the first time a UK finance minister has travelled to China since Philip Hammond‘s 2017 trip, which in turn followed a very grand mission from George Osborne in 2015.
Back then, the UK was attempting to double down on its economic relationship with China. It was encouraging Chinese companies to invest in this country, helping to build our next generation of nuclear power plants and our telephone infrastructure.
But since then the relationship has soured. Huawei has been banned from providing that telecoms infrastructure and China is no longer building our next power plants. There has been no “economic and financial dialogue” – the name for these missions – since 2019, when Chinese officials came to the UK. And the story has been much the same elsewhere in the developed world.
More on China
Related Topics:
In the intervening period, G7 nations, led by the US, have imposed various tariffs on Chinese goods, sparking a slow-burn trade war between East and West. The latest of these tariffs were on Chinese electric vehicles. The US and Canada imposed 100% tariffs, while the EU and a swathe of other nations, from India to Turkey, introduced their own, slightly lower tariffs.
But (save for Japan, whose consumers tend not to buy many Chinese cars anyway) there is one developed nation which has, so far at least, stood alone, refusing to impose these extra tariffs on China: the UK.
The UK sticks out then – diplomatically (especially as the new US president comes into office, threatening even higher and wider tariffs on China) and economically. Right now no other developed market in the world looks as attractive to Chinese car companies as the UK does. Chinese producers, able thanks to expertise and a host of subsidies to produce cars far cheaper than those made domestically, have targeted the UK as an incredibly attractive prospect in the coming years.
And while the European strategy is to impose tariffs designed to taper down if Chinese car companies commit to building factories in the EU, there is less incentive, as far as anyone can make out, for Chinese firms to do likewise in the UK. The upshot is that domestic producers, who have already seen China leapfrog every other nation save for Germany, will struggle even more in the coming year to contend with cheap Chinese imports.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Whether this is a price the chancellor is willing to pay for greater access to the Chinese market is unclear. Certainly, while the UK imports more than twice as many goods from China as it sends there, the country is an attractive market for British financial services firms. Indeed, there are a host of bank executives travelling out with the chancellor for the dialogue. They are hoping to boost British exports of financial services in the coming years.
Still – many questions remain unanswered:
• Is the chancellor getting closer to China with half an eye on future trade negotiations with the US?
• Is she ready to reverse on this relationship if it helps procure a deal with Donald Trump?
• Is she comfortable with the impending influx of cheap Chinese electric vehicles in the coming months and years?
• Is she prepared for the potential impact on the domestic car industry, which is already struggling in the face of a host of other challenges?
• Is that a price worth paying for more financial access to China?
• What, in short, is the grand strategy here?
These are all important questions. Unfortunately, unlike in 2015 or 2017, the Treasury has decided not to bring any press with it. So our opportunities to find answers are far more limited than usual. Given the significance of this economic moment, and of this trip itself, that is desperately disappointing.