Lancashire. Risley, Thornton, and the wider Shell Group, were to have an involvement stretching over many years.

The 'decommissioning'.

The actual allegation(s), concerning the mass dumping of nuclear waste, at Shell Thornton Research Centre, were first made to me, in 1971 by the man whose ‘firm’ carried out Shell’s decommissioning. In as far as, I gave it any thought, I dismissed it as ‘pub talk’. However, the allegations were consistently, and independently repeated by a number of individuals, over a number of years. All told the same uniform story. The ‘individual's’ included the contractor, the sub-contractor, his foreman and fellow workers employed to carry out the alleged nuclear decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre in 1968. The said individuals made the most serious wholesale nuclear dumping allegations, which (allegedly) included the nuclear isotope- Strontium-90. It was only in 1988, that I began to comprehend the significance of these allegations.

Once the significance of the allegations had been realised, the consequences of publishing or alleging unfounded allegations (of the nature alleged), were all to apparant. Consequently, I set out to interview the demolition/decommission workers, contractor, sub-contractor, and others separately, critically, and at length. Furthermore, I undertook my research without informing (virtually) any of the individuals making the allegations, of my intention and purpose in pursuing the truth, or otherwise of the (alleged) nuclear dumping(s). Furthermore, at all time, I have ensured, as far as humanly possible, that my objectivity had/has not been compromised. Therefore, I have endeavoured to maintain an equal distance from both ‘Shell’ and ‘other’ personnel. Therefore, years have passed without my contacting or informing the decommissioning personnel and ‘others’, of my research findings.

Following 'the' interviews, I had no doubts concerning the sincerity of the various accounts of what had occurred at Thornton Research Centre in 1968. However, the interviewee’s detailed accounts and recollections required critical examination. After I had conducted a series of further interviews (running into double figures), with former employees of Thornton Research Centre, and others (some of whom had never even heard of each other, and/or met for years, if ever), I was satisfied as to the substantial truth of the allegations. The individual recollections of the events of ‘1968’ were uniform, given the usual (minor) disagreements time, and perception affords. One may test a particular hypothesis is by independent verifiable repetition. This criterion was satisfactorily met.

By 1993/4/, I was able to substantiate the following:

That Shell had selected and sought out particular individual to carry out the nuclear decommissioning at its -Thornton Research Centre.

That the said individual and his partner utilised a limited liability Company for the said decommissioning contract.

That the owners of the selected demolition company had known criminal backgrounds.

That the head of the chosen demolition company has a ‘record’ for illegally disposing of nuclear material/waste.

That Shell, and or its agents and or associates exclusively conducted their preliminary ‘high level’ confidential dealing with this particular individual

That Shell had paid its chosen contractor in cash (a six-figure sum at today’s prices) for which no signed or other receipt's were requested or required.

That the decommissioned reactor/testing cell was hexagon-shaped and measured approximately 50-60 feet in diameter, by approximately 18-20 feet in height. The reactor’s construction utilised a 'very dense concrete' (biological shield), with ‘vast’ numbers of lead pellets/stamping encased throughout the concrete. So dense and 'strong' was the reactors structure, that all the existing, known demolition ‘equipment’ in and around Merseyside, was inadequate as a means of demolishing it. The reactor had a ‘cellar’, which was many, many times greater volume than the reactor itself, and that the said cellar was very deep and extensive, consisting of ‘concrete’ wall inter-connecting structures, in which an extensive interconnecting network of piping had been employed.

That literally ‘wagon loads’ of ‘shielded’ copper cable was salvaged from the decommissioning of the said reactor. The salvaged cable was all sold as scrap.

That Shell’s chosen contractor and/or his limited liability company did not own any wagons, plant, crane, bulldozer, and or any other demolition equipment of any significance.

That the chosen contractors office (which Shell’s personnel visited several times prior to the decommissioning, in order to secure his services), could reasonably be described as a ‘pig sty’. The actual office/building was demolished under a slum clearance scheme several years later!

That the contractors limited liability company was insolvent, at the time Shell selected them. Furthermore, the said company had a ‘winding up’ petition issued against it, while Shell’s nuclear decommissioning was in progress. In fact, within a matter of months after the end of the decommissioning contract the said company was compulsorily wound-up, in the High Court of Justice.

That Shell continued paying out enormous cash sums -direct to the individual's; they had chosen to carry out its nuclear decommissioning, despite the fact that the ‘criminals’ limited liability Company was officially carrying out the contract. Hence, the creditors of the said company were being, and were, defrauded by this illegal action.

That Shell had paid for most of the hired plant.

That Shell’s chosen contractor himself, in fact (sub) contracted out the actual nuclear decommissioning.

That the contractor’s, sub-contractor, was a bankrupt, unemployed, domestic TV aerial installer, with absolutely no knowledge, understanding or experience of the process and/or requirements as to the decommissioning of a nuclear facility. Furthermore, the said sub-contractor and his crew had limited actual demolition experience, this being one of the very first jobs they had ever undertaken.

That the wives of both the sub-contractor and his foreman employed at the First Defendants-Thornton Research Centre site to decommission its nuclear facilities, gave birth to several ‘deformed’ children, following the nuclear decommissioning. In addition, there were a further number of other such births and miscarriages experienced (post Thornton) by the said wives.

The condition of the said newborn was such that both sets of parents were independently informed that not only would their newborn not survive, they were further advised that viewing would only prove distressing. Following a number of such births the sub-contractor demanded to see his newborn child. He was distraught beyond words to discover that the newborn child’s head had not ‘properly formed’. The child, as per the others, was allowed to die within hours of the birth.

That none of the said parents ever experienced any such difficulties before working at/on the Shell's nuclear decommissioning. Before working at Thornton, the two women had six healthy children between them. I have established, as far as possible, that none of the said wives/husbands families had/has either a history or experience of such birth ‘difficulties’.

Following Shell’s nuclear decommissioning, in 1968, the sub-contractor, went on to make his living as a demolition contractor.

The said sub-contractor, in order to obtain his own demolition contracts, gave as a reference, Shell Thornton’s nuclear decommissioning to numerous councils and others up and until at least 1972. To tender successfully for (especially), council demolition work, contractors have to forward references, usually council, to support any tender application. However, a reference from a company the size of Shell would most certainly suffice.

The sub-contractor, and his foreman, has stated that the sub-contractors firm continually used the Thornton nuclear decommissioning as his first reference, and he further states that the wording of ‘his’ reference was always (that had carried out the); ‘Demolition of a Strontium-90 Radioactive Testing Cell.’

I, (John Dyer), have obtained a Local Authority document (from the said Authority) by which Shell confirmed the reference given by the sub-contractor. The said local authority document is dated 10 August 1972. According to the document, Shell replied/informed the Local Authority that the said sub-contractor ‘had carried out the work in a competent and careful manner, complying with all Shell-Mex regulations’.



The (Decommissioning) 'Events'

I have established that Shell had 'arranged' for ‘scientists’ from United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) Harwell, to be present, at Thornton's site in 1968, to retrieve and remove the most highly toxic/dangerous nuclear materials/waste, for transportation to 'Harwell', and hence, reprocessing and ‘safe’ disposal.

Furthermore, the Harwell ‘scientists’ had specialised remote control equipment to retrieve the most highly toxic/dangerous elements of the nuclear materials. On Shell's site, Harwell’s said ‘scientists’ were on occasion dressed from head to foot in specialist protective ‘clothing’, complete with breathing apparatus, and Geiger counters. And that the said Geiger counters ‘went like the clappers’, whenever the 'scientists' approached the reactor/testing cell.

Harwell’s ‘scientists’ would set their Geiger counters on the floor, at some distance from the reactor/testing cell to record the radiation levels.

That the ‘scientists’ had one, or more, lorry loads of ‘nuclear bins/barrels’* bearing the international nuclear logo on and off site, to facilitate the removal and transportation of the (to be) retrieved high-level nuclear materials/waste. (A lorry load of ‘nuclear bins’ in this instance equals approximately 40 bins).

*A specialised lined re-sealable container utilised for the containment and transportation of nuclear materials. Once sufficient nuclear material, by volume, weight or radiation, was placed inside, the said container could then have concrete poured into it, to seal it off. (In fact, when the Harwell team left the Thornton site all the said bins/barrels were taken away- completely empty!

The decommissioning personnel (demolition ‘Lads’) were instructed that it was absolutely imperative/vital to ‘break open’ the reactor and expose the most highly toxic/dangerous element of the nuclear materials (a relatively small amount in tonnage terms). The plan was to ‘expose’ the identified materials/waste, in order for Harwell’s ‘scientists’ to collect it, with the said specialised remote control equipment, and deposit the retrieved ‘waste’ in the ‘nuclear deposit bins’ for transportation, and subsequent reprocessing. The rest of the ‘materials/waste’ was to have been, and was, illegally dumped. That the said ‘waste’ was, mainly, but not exclusively, in the form of ‘Strontium-90 pipes’, which the sub-contractor and his foreman were informed that it was imperative to separated the 'pipes'from the reactor’s structure.

That the said Strontium-90 ‘pipes’ ran from the reactors/testing cell’s outer circumference to its centre. That the said pipes were arranged in a circular manner, with each pipe successively staggered, one ‘up’ the following ‘down’, next ‘up’, and so on, in a sort of wave formation. The sub-contractor and his foreman estimate that the said ‘pipes’ numbered in the fifty plus region. The reactor/testing cell had a number of experimental ‘holes’, along with a removable ‘roof plug’ and resulting gantry crane.

That in fact it proved impossible to separate and retrieve the 'pipes' and the other required nuclear materials/waste. As the retrieval position deteriorated, discussions between Shell’s employees and the Harwell ‘scientists’ became heated. In fact it proved impossible to obtain the required materials/waste.

After Harwell left, empty handed, but only after they left, Shell (for reasons, I now understand), ordered and sanctioned the wholesale dumping of vast amounts of nuclear material/’waste’, including all the ‘pipes’ and other ‘waste’, which was planned to have been retrieved and reprocessed.



'Aftermath'

A major obstacle remained/remains- the location of the nuclear ‘waste’ site/tip(s). For the contractor and sub-contractor, one of the great ‘bonuses’ of the decommissioning, was that the haulage contractor as part of his hire price supplied the ‘tip(s)’. The (then) almost universal practice of tip owners demanding cash payments before any tipping was allowed, was in this instance absent, as Shell were paying the plant contractors hire charges, hence the tipping fees.

By 1994, I had located several tipping locations (dump sites), utilised for Shell’s nuclear ‘waste’. That part of the said ‘materials/waste’ was subsequently utilised in the manner outlined and stated, to Shell and its directors on numerous occasions. Furthermore, the quantities of the dumped nuclear ‘materials/waste’ has been stated (and/or passed on) to Shell and its directors, on numerous occasions.

My evidence, is that part of the said ‘waste’ was stored and later sold on as ‘hardcore’ by the haulage contractor engaged to remove the ‘waste’ off-site. The ‘sold on’ portion, almost certainly the bulk of the nuclear ‘waste’, has proved impossible to locate.



Shell's criminal acts.

Shell and it or its employees or agents, did plan, order and sanction the illegal dumping of nuclear materials/waste in 1968, in contravention of existing legislation, by way of example:

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962.

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Irradiated Materials.

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Lead.

Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Storage in Transit.

Atomic Energy Act, 1946.

Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954.

Nuclear Installations (Amendment) Act, March 1965.

Nuclear Installations (Licensing & Insurance) Act 1959.

Nuclear Installations Act, August 1965.

Radioactive Substances Act 1948.

Radioactive Substances Act 1960

Transfer of Functions (Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances) Order, 1953.

Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.

In 1993, my research findings resulted in the commissioning of a television programme for Carlton Television. On being informed of the proposed programme, Shell reacted in a wholly unreasonable and unjustified manner. Hysterical, is the phrase that most readily comes to mind. Shell immediately engaged in a campaign of abuse and vilification against the programme producer, my research findings, and myself. This action was engaged, to divert attention away from the truth of Shell’s nuclear dumping(s) crimes. In order to achieve this end, Shell fabricated a series of the most outrageous lies, against (primly) myself and the television programmes producer.

In particular, Frances (Fran) Margaret Morrison, Shell’s (then) Media manager made, and/or allowed her name to be forwarded/used to the most scandalous, shameless serious of allegations to the Independent Television Commission (ITC), Carlton Television, and others, questioning my integrity, and research methods. Such was the depth of Shell’s panic to get the said television programme ‘killed’, that Shell alleged, that I had actually harassment and mistreated elderly ‘Shell pensioners’.

In addition:-

1.

Shell and/or their agents did directly or indirectly employ personnel to keep me under surveillance.
2.

Shell and/or their agents did either directly or indirectly employ personnel to ‘tap’ my telephone.
3.

Shell and/or their agents did either directly or indirectly employ personnel to intercept my mail and on occasion kept and or destroyed the said mail.
4.

Shell and/or their agents did either directly or indirectly either engage and or employ personnel who posed as debt collectors. That the said ‘debt collectors’ tried to gain access to my home.
5.

Shell and or their agents, did either directly or indirectly engage and or employ personnel that posed as a representative of the Royal Mail. That the said ‘Royal Mail’ representative tried to gain access to my home.

That on 7 February 1994, (three days before the proposed television programmes transmission date, 10 February), Shell’s said Narrative, utilising Shell UK Limited’s letterhead, bearing ‘Fran’ Morrison’s signature, was produced.

The said Narrative was to claim (in effect) that:

‘Yes, the said contractor had in 1968 demolished a nuclear laboratory/building at Shell’s Thornton Research Centre. However, Shell's Narrative claimed, it was a comparatively ‘harmless’ Cobalt-60 nuclear labyrinth. The decommissioned laboratory/labyrinth, Shell claimed, had utilised the nuclear isotope-Cobalt-60. It was not, in short, the Strontium-90/maze/reactor/testing cell I had alleged. In terms of posing an (especially long-term) hazard, they are not comparable, Strontium-90, in particular, being one of the most hazardous nuclear isotopes known. The Narrative asserted, as a fact, that the building that had been decommissioned at Thornton Research Centre in 1968, was Thornton’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth. Shell’s said Narrative unambiguously stated that its-Thornton Research Centre: ‘…… did not and never has housed a (nuclear) pile or reactor.’

That Shell’s Narrative along with the campaign of personal/professional abuse and vilification against my research and myself resulted in the television programme being ‘cancelled’.

In view of Shell’s fabricated ‘stories’, lies, but much more importantly the seriousness of the matters alleged, I continued with my research. Shell’s shameless and effortless ability to lie, combined with its media contacts, influence, and its power and ability to threaten and pursue legal means to silence ‘critics’, demanded, I realised, a level of evidence far beyond that which could be considered reasonable. After consideration, I believed it was inappropriate to reveal to the decommissioning personnel, Shell’s Cobalt-60 Narrative of the 7 February 1994. For there could conceivably be the inadvertent possibility of the decommissioning personnel 'framing answers', perhaps on a subconscious level, with the Cobalt-60 Narrative in mind.



Aftermath.

I had to establish whether, or not, the Cobalt-60 labyrinth was the ‘building’ that had been decommissioned in 1968, as Shell claimed. If it was not the Cobalt-60, I needed to uncover what had been decommissioned, at Thornton in 1968, its history, its purpose and the reasons for selecting and employing known criminals, paying them enormous cash sums to carry out the nuclear decommissioning and (pre-planned) the wholesale dumping of the resulting nuclear materials/waste’.

By 1998 I had established:

· That there were no ‘tubes/pipes’ problems in the demolition of Shell’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth. In fact there were no ‘tubes/pipes’ as such, the said Narrative of 7 February 1994 was so constructed ‘There were some dozen service pipes running through the walls’, to deliberately and misleadingly fit the Cobalt-60 labyrinth in with the ‘lads’ actual experiences regarding the Strontium-90 ‘pipes/tubes’ decommissioning/retrieval difficulties.

· The Cobalt-60 labyrinth was not a ‘huge’ concrete structure, as per the said reactor. In fact, the Cobalt-60 labyrinth only had the one single (small) concrete block, in which three one-inch diameter stainless steel pipes were embedded. Two of the pipes were sealed off with blanking caps, at the point that they came out of the said concrete block. The purpose of the ‘spare’ pipes was in the event of the winding mechanism, utilised to wind the six pellet-240 curie Cobalt-60 source, in and out of its ‘concrete resting block’, fouling/jamming or otherwise becoming unreliable; another pipe could be utilised. This was a sensible design precaution.

· Shell’s Narrative stated: ‘Inside, the laboratory consisted of a small control room, separated by thick inner concrete walls from an irradiation chamber where the oil samples were exposed by remote control to Gamma rays from the Cobalt 60 sources. The three sources themselves consisted of Cobalt 60 pellets in sealed aluminum capsules, contained in small cylindrical stainless steel holders approximately 5 inches long and three-quarters of an inch diameter. These were housed inside an extra-dense concrete block 8 feet.’

· In fact, there were never ‘three (Co-60) sources’! There was only ever one Co-60 source, complete with two spare pipes. Shell’s Narrative’s claim that the Cobalt-60 (had) ‘thick inner concrete walls’, is deliberately misleading, to enable the Cobalt-60 labyrinth (Narrative) to fit in with the actual nuclear decommissioning. The Cobalt-60’s inner ‘walls’ were constructed using 18" X 9" x 6", concrete bricks/blocks (which contained cadmium stampings), laid on top of one another, as per a common brick wall. In truth, the ‘Cobalt-60 inner (and outer) walls’ bore no resemblance to the ‘huge/massive’ concrete structure the ‘Lads’ encountered in decommissioning the First Defendants said reactor/testing cell.

Shell's said Narrative stated:

· ‘The laboratory was designed and built to advanced safety standards, far in excess of anything required at the time. It would be more than acceptable to the standards of 1994 if it were in place today.’

· The reason for the Co-60 labyrinth’s design, structure was not as the Narrative asurted/stated, but rather that the labyrinth was designed, because Shell planned from the outset (1953), to introduce and use when they became available, ‘killer-curies’ of Cobalt-60. For a 240-curie cobalt source (the only source ever used) is/was virtually useless, as a serious research tool. However, ‘killer-curies’ were never introduced because much more serious nuclear ‘tools’ were available!

Evidence now shows that Thornton Research Centre-Cobalt-60 labyrinth was designed/planned (1953) to be temporary, until Shell Thornton’s ‘radiochemical laboratory’ came on stream.

Shell’s assertions that Harwell scientists were present at the Cobalt-60 labyrinth’s demolition, as claimed and set-out in the said Narrative, was, and is, a lie.

No Geiger counter readings were recorded, taken or involved in/at the Cobalt-60 demolition, contrary to the said Narrative, which was constructed in full knowledge of this fact.

That no UK Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell staff were present at the demolition of the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, contrary to the said Narrative claims (lies).

Post the proposed television programmes cancellation a film Shell’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth was ‘uncovered’. Consequently, it was arranged to show the footage to the sub-contractor. I specifically informed the sub-contractor that he should view the footage very carefully, and be completely open and honest as to whether, or not, he recognised the ‘building’. Matters were more complex than usual. Following Shell’s Narrative (which the sub-contractor was unaware of), the television programme was wrongly assumed by the sub-contractor to have only been shelved. The sub-contractor, an intuitive, intelligent and complex man, had incorrectly concluded that a film of the reactor/testing cell, he had decommissioned in 1968, had been uncovered. Why else, he reasoned, would I be requesting him to view this film, if it was not the ‘reactor’? Consequently, the sub-contractor had come to believe that footage of the ‘reactor/testing cell’ had been secured, which he believed would enable the ‘postponed’ television program to be reinstated. As a result, the sub-contractor was strongly predisposed to viewing the film with a view to accepting it as the said reactor. I, purposely decided not accompany the sub-contractor to/at the viewing. Furthermore, I did not communicate with the sub-contractor until the following day, so that a proper unhurried appraisal might be given. The sub-contractor was adamant and unhappy that the footage he had viewed (Shell’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth) was not the ‘building’ he had decommissioned in 1968. He informed (that I had); ‘ definitely got it wrong’.

I have established that the sub-contractors team involved 16 personnel in total, eight Ford D1000 tipper wagons, a Drott 995K (extremely powerful tracked shovel ‘bulldozer’), and an industrial/demolition crane with, supposedly, the biggest and heaviest known demolition ball/tup in the UK

Returning to Shell's (Thornton) nuclear history.

Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild, more commonly known as Lord (Victor) Rothschild, played a significant and important role in the development of the UK’s nuclear, and other programmes. Lord (Victor) Rothschild, played a (the) central role in Shell’s-Thornton Research Centre’s nuclear programmes, culminating in the 1968 decommissioning of its reactor/testing cell/nuclear facilities. To gain an understanding of Rothschild’s role, one needs first to view his/the wider historic background. The following quote is as good a starting point as any:
‘Another fission product abundantly’ produced in atomic explosions is Strontium-90. It has a half-life of 28 years and (like calcium) is deposited in bone if taken into the body through the food chain; then, by irradiating neighboring bone marrow, it can cause leukemia or aplastic anemia, or may in the long term give rise to bone tumors. Strontium-90 was causing increasing concern in the United States. Canadian and British scientists, and its significance was underlined in June 1956 by both Bronk and Himsworth reports on nuclear hazards. The US research program on Strontium-90 was known as Sunshine. In October 56, US, UK and Canadian scientists meet in Washington to arrange collaboration on Project Sunshine. . ..’

In the 1950/60’s the United States was politically sensitive to worldwide concerns of the effects of nuclear fallout, especially Strontium-90. Public opinion in Japan was particularly conscious and alarmed by Strontium-90 fall out. The USA was particularly concerned that Communists (and others) would ‘exploit’ this issue to their advantage. The ‘West’s/US’s fears that Asia could fall to the Communists meant that an impartial appraisal of the effects of nuclear fallout was all but impossible. It was, in part, this concern -the so-called ‘domino effect’ –that ‘required’ the authorities forever play down the effects of nuclear fallout.

Responding to public pressure, in order to be at least ‘seen’ to be addressing the issue, the US government set-up an enquiry into nuclear fallout, with particular reference into the effects of Strontium-90. The Bronk Committee report was a whitewash! The UK was also (very) concerned about the effects Strontium-90, but its determination to develop its own nuclear weapons, and nuclear industry, meant that the effects of nuclear fallout, were put to one side.

In pursuit of its own nuclear weapons, the UK, undertook a series of (nuclear) weapon trials/experiments in Australia, Malden and Christmas Islands from 1952-58. My evidence now reveals that Lord Rothschild played a central and crucial role in the (effect of/on) blast, animal(s), and Strontium-90 fall-out experiments in the UK’s ‘Australia’ 1952-8 nuclear weapons/explosion test programs. Rothschild had extensive connections with/into the UK (military) nuclear establishment, and furthermore he personally set-up and headed the UK (military) Strontium-90 research establishments/programmes, in the mid/late 1950’s.

Rothschild selected (usually Cambridge), the personnel to head the Radio-Strontium (Sr-90) research bodies/units. In 1958, the ‘head’ of the UK’s Strontium-90 (secret military research), Lord Rothschild, left Cambridge to join Shell Research Limited (Thornton). The UK’s Strontium-90 research, far from diminishing during this period, greatly increased in both manpower and scope. Rothschild’s interest in Strontium-90 research programmes continued until its demise, on or around 1968. Following his appointment, as research head of Shell Research, Rothschild made Shell’s -Thornton Research Centre, his base/ place of operation. Thus, the head of the UK’s military Strontium-90 research programmes was now installed at Shell’s Thornton Research Centre.

Shell/Thornton had further direct connections into the very heart of the UK (military) Strontium-90 research establishments (other than Victor Rothschild), and at the highest possible level. My evidence is now that all three ‘branches’ of the military Strontium-90 research units/programmes were connected to Shell/Thornton, at the highest levels.

Following, Rothschild's appointment, one of the world’s foremost researchers on the effects of nuclear radiation on the immune system was brought in from overseas, to join Shell. This individual’s specialised research field, on the effects of ionizing radiation, on the immune system involved experimenting on animals, especially primates. The research programmes involved, for instance, primates being subjected to radiation exposure along with a controlled (experimental) ‘diet’, then studying the differing, if any, effects on the animals. The said ‘researcher’ had direct connections into/with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority’s Harwell Research Establishment. The research was, of course, military.

A (Defence funded) document (with this said ‘Shell’ primate radiation researcher’s address clearly shown (Shell), dated three years (1961) after he joined Shell) makes the staggering claim, with regards to the research (that): ‘The possibility of radioresistance was suggested.’ In light of the, then, military and political establishments preparations for, and expectations of, nuclear war, this claim would be taken most seriously.

A former head of the UKAEA, Amersham- Radio Chemical Centre, has informed, that Shell’s-Thornton Research Centre’s said Strontium-90 rods/pipes were (‘all most certainly’) prepared and supplied by Harwell’s 220 Labs. Furthermore, he (and others) confirmed the ‘lads’ exhaustive description of the said Strontium-90 ‘pipes’, and the fact that Thornton’s (intended) retrieved Strontium-90 ‘rods/pipes’ were destined for reprocessing and/or re-use (due to Strontium-90’s extreme long radioactive-life) at the Harwell’s 220 labs, and/or Amersham.

My evidence now shows that Shell’s ‘involvement’ with Radio-Strontium, was wide, and extensive, involving detailed, complex research programmes, which bore fruit to such an extent, that patents were filed to protect Shell’s research findings/interests. Research has established that numerous other nuclear research programmes have been carried out at Shell’s -Thornton Research Centre.

That Shell and their employees and/or agents, and/or other members of the Shell Group, were conducting research into nuclear Organic Moderators and Coolants at Thornton Research Centre.

That ‘Thornton’, in particular, had carried out research with regard to the Royal Navy’s requirement to perfect a Organic Moderated Reactor(s)-OMRE (Organic-Moderated Reactor Experimental). Such a reactor would have significant advantages (pressure, corrosion and efficiency) and was believed to be especially advantageous/suitable for submarine propulsion, and bulk sea transportation. Crude oil transportation was viewed to be the most suitable, as the ‘bulk’, economics/reactor cost criteria are met and further crude oil acts as an effective radiation shield.

The UK military’s urgent requirement to perfect a Organic Nuclear Reactor dates from the British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, having to concede, to secure the Polaris missile/submarine deal with President Kennedy*, to the United States that only the USA was allowed to produce and supply the highly enriched ‘Polaris’ (submarine) reactor fuel. This proved to be very problematic, as the United States controlled the UK’s Polaris fleet fuel supply, hence it effectively determined the UK’s nuclear fleets operational parameters. However, a OMRE reactor does not require its nuclear fuel to be so highly enriched.

*The so named ’Statement on Nuclear Defence Systems’ / ‘Polaris Sales Agreement’

Within walking distance of Shell’s -Thornton Research Centre, is the UKAEA’ s Capenhurst, nuclear (gaseous diffusion) enrichment plant. This plant would supply the expertise and fuel for the OMRE reactor. My evidence now reveals that a Naval Officer was put ‘in charge’ of this research, at Shell’s- Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire. Furthermore, I have ‘discovered’ the said Officer’s name, rank, position, and Naval history.

That Shell’s ‘OMRE’, nuclear reactor research utilised polyphenyls, diphenyls, terphenyls*, and combinations of organics as nuclear moderator/coolants.

*A polyphenyl molecule is simply several benzene rings joined; diphenyl consists of two rings, terphenyl three.

A major problem with polyphenyls, is that they are practically solid at room temperature. Consequently, the whole OMRE reactor/system has to be preheated before loading the hydrocarbons, and maintained at a given temperature during all the pre-operational and low power tests. Thus, the firing up of a ‘OMRE’ reactor is fraught with difficulties, for the reactor cannot be operated without a ‘full’ and unrestricted flow of its moderator, coolant.

The ‘OMRE’ reactor, would. in operation, require constant refreshment of its organic moderator, coolants. Irrefutable evidence reveals that the research utilised/proposed a method of ‘efficiently’ disposing, and reusing, the damaged/contaminated organic coolant/ moderator. I have now ‘obtained’ a document, by which by Shell Thornton personnel, ran the reactor and that the said method did increased the nuclear reactors generated output by more than double.

That ‘Thornton’s OMRE’ nuclear research was extensive, complex and reached a very high level of operation.

That the said ‘OMRE’ nuclear reactor research had great commercial possibilities, particularly to a petro-chemical Multinational.

Evidence now shows that a former senior Thornton Research Centre, director, was on national Nuclear Oil Panel, along with the Admiralty, Vickers, Rolls Royce, and Head Wrightson, all of whom were contractors to the Polaris nuclear submarine programmes. The same director was also a member of a joint National Defence/Petroleum industry panel; it was the very same Thornton director who replied (on or about October 1993), as to whether or not Shell Thornton had a nuclear reactor (that he) ‘couldn’t remember’! When questioned about the near impossibility of not being able to ‘remember’ (if Thornton had a nuclear reactor), he somewhat taken aback, conceded Thornton employed Strontium-90, but maintained he ‘couldn’t remember’ whether or not Shell Thornton had a nuclear reactor! I was to discover that he was far from being the only former Thornton employee that could not ‘remember’ if Thornton had a nuclear reactor.

A (former) senior ‘Manager’ of Shell-Thornton Research Centre, with a ‘better’ memory, I interviewed, not only recalled the demolition in 1968, he correctly identified its location in/on Shell’s ‘Thornton’ site. Furthermore, the said Manager stated that the demolished ‘building’ was a nuclear reactor/atomic pile, and he outlined (part of) the said reactors, research programmes. At all time during the interview my resolve not to ask leading questions, was maintained. Hence, I deliberately asked about the ‘demolition’, and at no time did I mention a nuclear reactor/pile.

Self evidently, this was a major breakthrough. However, in view of the importance of this matter, I was not simply prepared to take what I had been told at face value. Hence, I spent several years tracking down the required documentation, in order to be able to either stand Shell Thornton’s technical manager first hand accounts up or down.

My research now shows that Shell’s former technical ‘Manager’ told the truth. My offers, to hand over, to Shell, a transcript of my interview with Shell’s former senior technical Manager, together with irrefutable document evidences that Shell Thornton and its employees were carrying out precisely the nuclear research programs as per the Managers account, were rejected. The only condition being that should Shell, 'find' the supplied evidence not 'conclusive', it will undertake to interview jointly its (former) Thornton 'nuclear' personnel, I have tracked down, in order to 'establish the truth'. The offer was rejected , on the grounds of 'costs'!

Shell's nuclear interest/background,

The Shell Group (and the other oil Multinationals) believed that ‘nuclear’ research was vital to their future development. An historic perspective is instructive. Post Second World War; European oil corporations (Shell in particular) urgently undertook to develop the ‘chemical’ component of its oil. Pre 1939, Europe obtained and refined its oil, in the main, from underdeveloped colonial countries, hence the required chemical, cultural expertise, and infrastructure, to develop the oils (chemical) possibilities, was not readily available. Unlike the USA, which, of course, has its own indigenous oil ‘fields’ in abundance, hence chemical producers were at hand to exploit the oils possibilities. As a consequence of these historic/geographical facts, Shell and other European oil concerns had ‘neglected’ the chemical qualities/possibilities of their raw product. As the post-war industrial expansion gathered pace, along with its resulting scientific ‘progress’, Shell’s chemical expertise and capacity needed to be, and was, quickly expanded. However, the said ‘chemical oil problems’ were greatly exacerbated for the multinationals, by one of the generally unrealised aspects of ‘nuclear power’, that is, its ability to ‘rearrange’ the electrons field, of the atom. For it was believed and feared by the oil/chemical multinationals that the ‘alchemists dream’ could come about, i.e., that an endless and unique number of chemicals could be created, by/with the aid of nuclear chemistry/physics. Thus, the oil multinationals, who are essentially energy/chemical providers, were alarmed at the development and resulting prospects of nuclear power/research, hence, their requirement to be directly involved in nuclear research. It was impossible in the 1950/60’s to obtain nuclear knowledge without being part of military nuclear research, and its programmes. The Oil Corporation’s frantic desire to be at the forefront of nuclear physics/chemistry/research was driven by the fear that not only could they be replaced or supplemented as energy providers, but also that the lucrative and expanding chemicals from oil market would/could be under serious threat. Each multinational viewed the others progress with alarm and suspicion. Shell were at a distinct disadvantage with regards to its American oil/chemical rivals in that it had, as a none US Multinational Corporation, limited access to the US’s nuclear research (compared to its US rivals). The McMahon (Atomic Energy) Act of 1946, 1954, and the fact that Shell was at the centre of, possibly, America’s most damaging ‘Atomic’ spy scandal meant that Europe’s leading Oil Multinational was forced to seek even closer nuclear ties with the British Establishment. An establishment that viewed Shell with some suspicion. It was a ‘partnership’ borne out of necessity, as the best-applied chemists, and others, were to be found in private industry, rather than the universities- hence the so named military industrial complex thesis.

Evidence reveals that Shell undertook such nuclear/chemical research. Consequently, Shell obtained the required nuclear/ chemical expertise at its Thornton Research Centre.

Furthermore, my research findings now establishes that Shell Thornton and its employees were involved and or carried out nuclear and other research for amongst others:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)

United Kingdom military and others

United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC)

United States of America Air Force (USAAF)

United States of America Army (USAA)

United States of America Navy (USAN)

Westcott Rocket Propulsion Laboratory.

The (my) claims concerning Shell’s nuclear research/work/involvement as set-out are supported by extensive, detailed documentation. The said documentation includes scientific, and other papers, contracts, patents, transcripts, correspondence, interviews, tapes, including details of the said contracts and contract numbers.



Lying for (the) Company.

In the face of my (supplied) evidence, Shell’s Legal Head, Richard Max Wiseman, has conceded/informed, from November 1998, that Shell’s said Narrative of the 7 February 1994, signed by former BBC Television presenter, ‘Fran’ Morrison, was and is ‘a mistake’. Shell’s legal head, and others, have repeatedly restated the Group’s ‘honest mistake’ position.

That by way of ‘explanation’, Shell's legal head, claims that (in 1994) Shell's, only record of a nuclear building/facility was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, so Shell ‘assumed’ the Cobalt-60 must have been the ‘building’ that had been decommissioned in 1968. The group’s legal head further asserts, that when Carlton Television failed to respond/write back, following the submission of the Narrative, it was ‘assumed that Shell must have got it right’, otherwise Carlton would have corrected them. I kid you not, I was told this in all seriousness, and with an, apparent, straight face!

Furthermore, Shell’s legal head has informed that he is authorised to speak on behalf of the Shell Group of Companies. Hence, the ‘mistake’ defence concerning the Cobalt-60 labyrinth Narrative is the authorised and official position of the Shell Group.

Shell has, however, failed to think though its present position (lie) as I informed Shell’s legal head, Richard Max Wise, in my letter of the 27 June 2000:

‘It logically follows that if your people have not been lying, as per your repeated claims, then the Narrative was only incorrect because, as you claimed, they had assumed, wrongly, that the building in question was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth. It follows that the (rest of) information in your Narrative must be, and is ‘factual’ i.e. you have records or were informed, presumably by former employees, as to the contents of your Narrative, otherwise you would have made it up i.e. lied.

Now going back to your repeated demands for- ‘concrete evidence’, if your ‘assertions’ that Shell personnel did not lie is correct then your own Narrative of 7 February 1994, provides the ‘concrete evidence’. For at virtually every point your Narrative vindicates the 'Boys' account of events. For example:

1. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, fully confirms the ‘Boys’ account that Harwell scientists were dressed, from head to foot in protective gear. Seeing they were not ‘dressed, from head to foot in protective gear’ for the demolition of the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, what other possible Shell Thornton ‘demolition/ job’ were the Harwell scientists dressed in the said manner, for?

2. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, fully confirms the ‘Boys’ account that the ‘scientists’ had Geiger counters. Seeing the Geiger counters were not for the Cobalt-60, may one enquire, what were they for? What other possible Shell Thornton ‘demolition/job’ were Harwell scientists armed with Geiger counters for?

3. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, fully confirms that the Geiger counters went like the ‘clappers’. Seeing as they did not ‘go like the clappers’ at the Cobalt-60 demolition. What other Shell Thornton ‘job’ did the Geiger counters ‘go like the clappers’ for?

4. Your Narrative of 7 February 1994, confirms the ‘Boys’ account that there were ‘problems’ with the pipes. What other Shell Thornton ‘job’ were Harwell scientists present at, dressed from head to foot in protective gear, when problems of retrieving ‘pipes’ were uncounted?

Please directly answer the above questions, do not ignore them. As you can see, if your assertions that Shell personnel told the truth are maintained, it seems all along that you had the ‘proof’ yourselves.’

Shell have either been unable, or have chosen not, to supply ‘answers’.

--

After forwarding the outline of my evidence, I have repeatedly, requested that Shell reaffirm, it’s 'we had no nuclear reactor at Shell Thornton' as per its Narrative of 7 February 1994. For instance, my letter of the 7 September:

'For I have supplied your clients (Shell) with detailed evidence regarding ‘Shell Thornton’s’ secret military nuclear research, see for instance paragraphs 51-79 of my draft statement of claim. Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell? Please answer.'

Shell refused to even offer the 'pretence' of an answer. Hence, I replied:

'You will recall that in my letter of the 7 September I wrote:

‘Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell? Please answer.’

Despite this request you have, once again, declined to supply answers. However, if Shell stands by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative:

‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’

‘(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility"…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’

‘(c) We do not understand what you mean by "atomic research for military purposes". We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research (page 2).’

Then Shell will want, no, need to, confirm that it disputes it carried out the secret military nuclear research programmes, that it ‘housed’ a nuclear reactor/testing cell- as set out in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft claim. I believe that in view of the consequences for countless thousands and incidentally Shell, you will see that a ‘We note the contents’ reply will be deemed most unsuitable and irresponsible. Furthermore, in the absence of Shell’s specific rejection that it had a nuclear reactor/testing cell and it carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 (for self-evidently any organisation that did not would offer immediate rejection), that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim.'

The Shell Group lawyers forwarded a pretence answer.

'You are, of course, perfectly aware of Shell's position in relation to your allegations......'

I replied:

'I find your claim that I ‘am perfectly aware of Shell’s position’, perplexing. May I ask how, when, who or where Shell or anyone else has ever disclosed to me Shell’s position regarding paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim? Consequently, please substantiate or withdraw. In light of your expected failure to forward details of Shell’s disclosure of its said position, I once again ask:
Does Shell stands by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative

‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’

‘(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility"…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’

‘(c) We do not understand what you mean by "atomic research for military purposes". We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research (page 2).’

I would be most grateful if you would now supply direct straightforward answers, instead of needless prevarication. However, I repeat, in the absence of Shell’s specific rejection that it had a nuclear reactor/testing cell and that it carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 (for self-evidently any organisation that did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell would offer immediate straightforward rejection), then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim.' --

In response, yet another letter from Shell's solicitors was dispatched, with another point-blank refusal to reaffirm, the Group's previous 'we had/housed no nuclear reactor, at Shell Thornton'.

I replied:

'I once again ask how, when, who or where Shell or anyone else has ever disclosed to me Shell’s position regarding paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim? All that is required is direct straightforward answers, to each specific point, as per my own replies to Shell’s questions.

I repeat, for I have not yet received answers, does Shell stand by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative:

‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in 'atomic research' (page 1).’

‘(b) Thornton did not house a 'nuclear facility'…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’

‘(c) We do not understand what you mean by 'atomic research for military purposes'. We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research (page 2).’

Please answer the above in a non-ambiguous, clear 'no bull' manner. Specifically does Shell deny they had, and/or Thornton had/housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at your clients Thornton Research Centre in the 1960’s, as set out in my Statement of Claim, Yes or No? Please directly confirm whether or not your client denies that it and/or its employees/agents carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79. I repeat it is entirely reasonable, in the absence of specific rejection, to conclude that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim.

Apparently, unwilling to repeat its lies concerning its 'we did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell', Shell failed to even offer the pretence of a response. Instead, another, rather curt, acknowledgment letter was dispatched:

I responded:

As per my informing Shell, its legal head and yourself, that I reserve the right to publish my findings via the WEB. Consequently, I confirm that I have a WEB site. ................'

'Following your acknowledgement of the 20 September 2000, your client Shell has now specifically refused, on at least four separate occasions, to re-state that Shell did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell at its Thornton Research Centre in the 1960’s, as per Shell’s Narrative of 7 February 1994*. Furthermore, your client Shell has now declined to (re)state** that they did NOT carry out the secret, primarily military, nuclear research programmes as set out in paragraphs 51-78 of my draft Statement of Claim, and elsewhere.

*‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in 'atomic research' (page 1).’

‘(b) Thornton did not house a 'nuclear facility'…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’

**‘(c) We do not understand what you mean by 'atomic research for military purposes'. We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research (page 2).

As per my informing Shell, its legal head and yourself, that I reserve the right to publish my findings via the WEB. Consequently, I confirm that I have a WEB site. My WEB site is presently ‘empty’. However, I enclose a CD containing its proposed contents. ................

You will see that my WEB site will contain the most shocking allegations ever made against any multinational, or other, corporation. Of course, if Shell believes any of the allegations are untrue it will to quote your letter of the 11 August 2000:

‘…. take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks.’

‘They (Shell) would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks.’

I await your ‘writs’, if Shell maintains that it did not hire known criminals to decommission its nuclear reactor/testing cell in 1968 and order as per Shell’s prior plan, the illegal mass dumping of its nuclear materials/waste, if Shell did not carry out the extensive military, and other, nuclear programmes, as set-out in paragraphs 51-71 of my Statement of Claim, if Shell disputes that it did construct a knowingly fraudulent Narrative in 1994, in order to cover-up its nuclear dumping crimes.

Your clients, Shell have seven days to either commence legal proceedings, or forward their proposals. Should Shell fail to do either, then I shall ‘publish’ via my WEB site, the enclosed CD contents, with immediate effect.'

--

On the 26 June 2000, I John Dyer, informed Shell’s former media head, Frances ‘Fran’ Morrison, (she headed/signed the Narrative) that:

‘Shell had dumped a nuclear reactor in 1968, and you employed known criminals and paid them extensive cash payments in order to carry it out. it was under Rothschild’s.’

Ms. Morrison replied that she recalled the ‘issue’ but stated that Shell did not support this view. Responding, to this evasion, I informed Ms. Morrison (that):

‘you (she) made a total lie up, a piece of fiction. Shell have since told me that it was a mistake, you said it was the Cobalt-60’.

It may appear surprising that Shell’s former Media Head's response to my informing (accusing) her that- ‘you (Fran Morrison) made a total lie up, a piece of fiction..’ (the Cobalt-60 Narrative), was not disbelief, outrage, and shock, she declined to even threaten to counter sue me, rather she replied: ‘I can’t really be accountable for that, I expressed the Company’s view’!