PFD report

Peter Edwin Spencer GURNEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 May 2026•West Sussex, Brighton and Hove

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Failure to warn employees exposed to Nitrobenzene and other explosives to get tested
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The MOD will not promote bladder cancer testing without strong evidence, because screening may cause false results, unnecessary interventions, anxiety or false reassurance.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to warn employees exposed to Nitrobenzene and other explosives to get tested

Wider context from the report

“The MOD is aware that there are current concerns around the possible link between exposure to Nitrobenzene and other explosives and bladder cancer. The MOD has been aware of this for some time. Evidence heard at the Inquest was that neither active or past employees, who have been subject to this exposure through their work , have been warned to get tested. Unfortunately by the time Mr Gurney realised he had bladder cancer the disease had taken hold and it had become inoperable. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The MOD will not promote bladder cancer testing without strong evidence, because screening may cause false results, unnecessary interventions, anxiety or false reassurance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In line with established national screening guidance, the MOD does not consider it appropriate to indirectly or directly promote medical testing for bladder cancer in EOD personnel, in the absence of clear supporting evidence. Screening for cancer can carry risks including false positives leading to unnecessary interventions, or false negatives providing a false sense of”

Source location

Response from Secretary of State for Defence
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 2026

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Occupational causation and future action have been referred to IMEG, with decisions dependent on its advice and emerging medical evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The question of occupational causation has been referred to the Independent Medical Expert Group (IMEG) which is currently developing its expert medical advice. It is expected to identify areas where further research is required.”

Source location

Response from Secretary of State for Defence
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

There is insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between bladder cancer and occupational nitrobenzene exposure in EOD personnel.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Ministry of Defence (MOD) takes the welfare of our veterans extremely seriously and closely monitors any emerging issues that may be of consequence to this community. Any actions taken by the MOD must be based on robust evidence.”

Source location

Response from Secretary of State for Defence
Page 1 · response
Published 10 July 2026

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Refer occupational causation questions to the Independent Medical Expert Group for expert medical advice.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 July 2026.
  2. 2

    Continue monitoring emerging evidence and review the MOD’s position in light of new findings.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 July 2026.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Established hazardous-substance policies, reduced nitrobenzene use and longstanding warnings are considered sufficient protection and awareness for EOD personnel.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Refer occupational causation questions to the Independent Medical Expert Group for expert medical advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The question of occupational causation has been referred to the Independent Medical Expert Group (IMEG) which is currently developing its expert medical advice. It is expected to identify areas where further research is required.”

Source location

Response from Secretary of State for Defence
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue monitoring emerging evidence and review the MOD’s position in light of new findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MOD will continue to monitor emerging evidence and will keep its position under review in light of any new findings.”

Source location

Response from Secretary of State for Defence
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Established hazardous-substance policies, reduced nitrobenzene use and longstanding warnings are considered sufficient protection and awareness for EOD personnel.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am assured that current EOD personnel are protected by established policies designed to mitigate against exposure to hazardous substances. This includes nitrobenzene, which is no longer widely used in this field. I have also been assured by EOD leaders that there is widespread awareness of this issue among the veteran community and that personnel have been warned of nitrobenzene’s toxic nature since at least 1993. While the MOD does not confirm any risk of cancer, the 2025 study has raised the issue to over 2,000 EOD veterans. EOD seniors remain in close contact with the author of this study and are alert to any further developments in this field.”

Source location

Response from Secretary of State for Defence
Page 2 · response
Published 10 July 2026

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026