An 83-year-old man has lost his bid for compensation after developing health complications working at Maralinga in the late 1950s, the remote South Australian base for British nuclear tests. 
Reginald Elborough claims he was exposed to ionising radiation while stationed at the site as a postal clerk, developing prostate cancer, bowel and urinary tract, osteoporosis and 26 other health conditions.
He also sought compensation for skin cancers, impotence, high cholesterol, arthritis, lung scarring, muscle cramps, mouth ulcers, tinnitus, skeletal hyperostosis and an overactive immune system.
Comcare denied liability in 2010 despite accepting he suffered from the illnesses. Mr Elborough unsuccessfully challenged the decision at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia.
Maralinga, about 1000 kilometres north-west of Adelaide, was contaminated with radioactive waste in the 1950s and early 1960s after testing of fission bombs, including one dropped from an aircraft.
Mr Elborough was stationed in Maralinga village between   February and   September 1957 when two major nuclear tests were conducted.
The McClelland Royal Commission in 1984-85 found residual contamination at the site with British and Australian personnel deliberately exposed to the blasts to study radiological effects.
In 1994, the Australian government settled a $13.5 million compensation deal with the Maralinga Tjarutja, the corporation representing traditional owners of the land, who claim they were poisoned by the tests.
Tribunal deputy president Katherine Bean said there was no dispute over Mr Elborough's exposure to ionising radiation while working with the Postmaster-General's Department.
The tribunal heard Mr Elborough also visited the detonation sites about 40 kilometres from the village and reported seeing "glazing".
But medical evidence presented by a consultant physician found only certain types of skin cancers, hypertension, cataracts, and mouth ulcers had a known association with exposure to ionising radiation.
The physician was "very confident" there was no connection between Mr Elborough's conditions and his exposure to relatively low levels of ionising radiation.
"There is simply no evidence before me that they are linked with exposure to radiation ... and therefore no basis for a conclusion that any of the remaining conditions are related to Mr Elborough's employment with the PMG," Ms Bean said.
Dr Philip Crouch, an associate at the University of Adelaide's occupational and environmental health laboratory, said Mr Elborough would have been exposed to a small dose of ionising radiation while visiting the test site.
Dr Crouch said he was satisfied Mr Elborough's exposure to ionising radiation had not made any contribution to any of his claimed conditions.
"I accept that Mr Elborough has multiple comorbidities which he believes were caused by his exposure to radiation at Maralinga," he said.
"However, the medical and expert evidence before me is to the effect that the low level of radiation he was exposed to did not make any contribution to those conditions."