The Chief of the Defence Force has pledged the organisation will investigate whether a large number of veterans exposed to potentially lethal jet fuel — but ignored, until now, by the Defence hierarchy — should be compensated for their illnesses.

Key points: Army, RAAF, Navvy veterans seek compensation for jet fuel exposure

Army, RAAF, Navvy veterans seek compensation for jet fuel exposure Fatal blood cancers among side effects

Fatal blood cancers among side effects Repatriation Medical Authority says benzene exposure not cause of blood cancers for those not serving in "operational environment"

The ABC revealed last year that current and former Defence personnel have been exposed to toxic jet fuel over decades, and that many of them have gone on to develop serious health problems, including fatal blood cancers, depression, skin conditions and sexual dysfunction.

Although some of the comparatively small number of Defence staff who were exposed to fuel on the infamous F-111 deseal/reseal project have received compensation for illnesses they developed as a result, the far larger number of Army, RAAF and Navy personnel who also worked with fuel have received little recognition of the toll it took on their bodies.

The ABC also revealed that Defence allowed its personnel to handle fuel in unsafe ways, despite being aware of the potential dangers of exposure for many years.

In a recent letter to an Air Force veteran, seen by the ABC, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin described the issue as "complex", but said it was important that Defence consider "all fuel-exposed workers, not just former F-111 deseal/reseal maintenance personnel".

"Defence and [Department of Veterans Affairs] are also working closely on options to examine the compensation assessment process and identify any gaps that impact fuel-exposed workers," the letter goes on to say.

Do you know more about this story? Email investigations@abc.net.au

Air Chief Marshal Binskin revealed that there had been a number of meetings between staff from Defence, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Repatriation Medical Authority — the body that sets the medical guidelines by which veterans claim compensation for conditions arising from their service — in order to plot a way forward.

"More information on this process should be available in the coming months, and we will ensure that our jet fuel-exposed personnel are kept informed of developments through the Air Force Association, the RAAF website and the Air Force News," the letter says.

Evidence of link to blood cancers 'generally of poor quality'

In a separate development, the Repatriation Medical Authority announced recently that it was altering its guidelines for a number of blood cancers to acknowledge the potential toxicity of benzene, a component of jet fuel known to cause those cancers.

The guidelines — or "statements of principle" — by which veterans can claim that their lymphoblastic leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, myeloma and non-Hodgkins lymphoma were caused by Defence service, previously defined "benzene exposure" as veterans having been exposed to liquids (such as fuel) containing 5 per cent or more benzene.

That benzene volume has now been slashed to 1 per cent, a seeming acknowledgement of some scientific opinion that there is no safe level of exposure to benzene.

The 1 per cent figure is also significant because the benzene component of any fuel or other liquid Defence personnel were exposed to is likely to be far closer to 1 per cent than 5 per cent.

But in a blow to many veterans, the Repatriation Medical Authority continues to refuse to accept benzene exposure as a possible cause of most blood cancers in former Defence personnel who did not serve in an "operational environment", despite the fact that many veterans who served only in Australia were heavily exposed to fuel and other chemicals.

This creates the seemingly absurd scenario in which the authority acknowledges that benzene is potentially dangerous at lower levels than previously thought, but that it is somehow not dangerous if the veteran was exposed to it in Australia.

A spokesman for the authority described the "sound medical-scientific evidence" linking benzene with the blood cancers as "limited, and generally of poor quality", but went on to say where benzene is accepted as having a causal effect, that it is "likely to be at a lower level than previously specified".

He said despite that conclusion, the evidence is still too weak to suggest that people who served only in Australia might have contracted blood cancers from exposure to benzene in fuel.