|
|
|
R M Wiseman
R M Wiseman Legal Director Shell UK Limited Shell-Mex House Strand London WC2R ODX.
Your
Ref: UKLG 5/ Dear
Mr Wiseman, Thank
you for your letter dated 2nd
0ctober l998. In my letter of the 29th September, you will recall that
I asked the following: 1.
Who, and when, authorised Shell UK Limited, to speak on behalf of Shell
Research Limited and or the Shell Group? 2.
At what level was authorisation given? 3.
Have you made the owners of Shell Research Limited (Royal Dutch Petroleum
Company) aware of the position. If
so when, and at what level? 4.
Have the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, granted you authority to speak on
their behalf concerning these matters. If so when, and at what level was
authority given? 5.
I understand that Shell UK Limited is itself a subsidiary of Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co. Can you confirm that the UK parent company-The Shell Transport and
Trading Company p.l.c.-has been informed of this matter. If so when, and at what
level? You declined to answer any of the above questions
outright. Neither did you reply to my inquiries regarding Shell International
Chemical Company Limited/Shell Chemical Company Limited and the Shell Petroleum
Company Limited. Instead of answering these questions you simply state that
Shell UK Limited acts in an advisory
capacity for the Royal Dutch/Shell group in the UK. In
the light of your failure to answer a single question, please allow me to be
candid. My contention is this; that
Shell ordered and sanctioned the ‘dumping’
of thousands of tons, let me repeat it once again so there can be no
possible misunderstanding thousands of tons of nuclear*, nuclear contaminated,
radioactive and other ‘waste’, as a deliberate act of policy. And
furthermore you employed known criminals, with a record of illegally
‘disposing’ of nuclear ‘materials’, to carry out the demolition-or to
use the more widely accepted term decommission-and subsequently, as per your
design and instructions, illegally dispose/dump the resulting ‘waste’. That
the demolition did not ‘go to plan’, I do not dispute. However, I will show
that it was planned to illegally dispose/dump nuclear and other waste from the
outset. The
‘waste’ was subsequently used in
the construction of an housing estate. Extensive medical, shops, leisure
facilities and schools have, either been built on the waste and or its
surroundings. The
requested company information stems from the nature of crimes committed. As you
are no doubt aware, in the UK, a limited liability company has a separate legal
status independent of its shareholders. Furthermore, a limited liability company
being an abstract person cannot manage itself, it requires directors. The
position is somewhat more complex than usual, due to Shell’s ownership
structure. Your
contention that you (Shell UK Limited) acts in an advisory capacity for the
Royal Dutch/Shell group in the UK, is, with respect, a red herring.
Only the directors and or the personnel involved, of the company’s
concerned can answer questions of such a serious nature. In matters of this
gravity you can act as a conduit, but no more. Unless or until you have
specific, written, authorisation at a suitable level. *The individuals from either Shell Research Limited and
or the members of the committee that constructed the letter of the 7th February
1994 appear, and that’s the kindest interpretation one can put on it, not to
understand the term nuclear. So as there can be no possible misunderstanding of
what I mean by the term nuclear, I will define it. To understand the term nuclear, in this context, one has to understand nuclear power. In order to understand nuclear power, it is, first, necessary to gain an understanding of a single atom. The word atom means indivisible. If you cut say, a lump of lead you could theoretically carry on cutting it until you got down to the atomic level. At the atomic level any (theoretical) further cuts are no longer possible, because you would no longer have lead, brass, or whatever, as you cannot cut down and past the individual atoms of lead, brass, and still have lead, brass etc. etc. An atom consists of elections and a nucleus. The
electron has a negative charge, the nucleus has a positive charge. The
electron(s) orbit the nucleus (centre) of the atom. Remove an electron from an
atom, the atom then becomes a ‘iron'
as a consequence of it being positively charged. An atom is said to be 'balanced'
when its negative charged electrons equals its positive charged nucleus.
An electron deficient atom, as a result losing one, or more, of its electrons so
leaving the atom 'unbalanced' i.e. positively charged. Any atom that is in this
condition-electron deficient-is said to be 'ironized'. Take two electrons out
and its doubly 'ironized', three it’s triply 'ironized' and so on. It is
important to realise from the outset that the atom with its inner nucleus, is
‘bonded’ very, very, powerfully. If all the electrons were removed from an atom you would
be left with its nucleus, the innermost 1heart'
of the atom. The positively charged nucleus is made up of 'protons' and
'neutrons'. A proton has a positive charge, a neutron has no electrical charge
and is said to be 'neutral'. You would expect the positively charged protons to
violently repel each other. But within the nucleus a new kind of force comes
into play, an immensely powerful short range attraction force between the
protons and neutrons; it is suffice to say that the neutrons act as 'nuclear
cement' bonding the nucleus very powerfully together. The nucleus of uranium 238 contains 92 protons plus 146
neutrons 92+146--U238, the repulsive force of the 92 protons are on the verge of
overcoming the bonding force (cement) of the 146 neutrons. Any atom which has a
nucleus containing 92 protons but a different number of neutrons is an 'isotope'
of uranium. The atomic number of Strontium is 38 (protons), so that
any nucleus having 38 protons is said to be strontium. Strontium 90 has 38
protons, the atomic number of strontium, and 52 neutrons, 38+52=90 hence Sr-90
which is an isotope of strontium. Uranium 235 with its 92 protons and 143 neutrons is very
unstable. If you bombard uranium 235, with its nuclei already under near
disruptive stress, with a neutron- especially a 'slow one'-it flies apart. A
complete rupture of a nucleus is commonly referred to as 'fission' by analogy
with the biological term for the division of a growing cell. Strontium-90 is such an horrendous by-product of nuclear
fission that it cannot, presently, be transported off site anywhere in the UK.
Strontium-90 nucleus, a 'fission product' has a disproportionate large number of
protons to its neutrons coming as it does from a much heavier nucleus which
requires more 'cement'. Sr-90 gives off gamma rays as well as beta particles. By
a carefully reading of the above you will be able not only to understand the
term nuclear, in respect to this matter, but also gain an insight of why Shell
not only actively 'used' radioactive Strontium, but actually manufactured it. You state that Shell Research Limited has provided
all of the information needed to respond to my previous 'assertions'. Can you
please forward details of the individuals that supplied this information and the
names of the Harwell personnel present at the demolition of the Cobalt-60 cell,
as per Ms Morrison' 5 letter of the 7th February 1994. I, of course, cannot speculate as to how these
individuals could possibly have mistaken the demolition of the Cobalt-60 Cell,
and the 'events of '68'. Especially as I now have obtained detailed accounts,
and statements of the 'demolition' of the Cobalt-60 cell in question. I note that you finish your letter, having failed
to answer a single question, by inviting me to submit further questions which
you assure me will be dealt with comprehensively. A phase commonly used in
Liverpool suddenly springs to mind, fortunately, good manners forbid me using
it. As previously indicated I have spent a not
inconsiderable period researching this matter. You will note that I have not as
yet 'published' my findings. The (main) reason being that this matter is,
particularly, of some importance to Merseyside and its people; therefore, I
required what I consider absolute certainty regarding the events of '68. Merseyside, my home, is a deprived area both in
social and economic terms. I have to take note of the wider likely effects
publication would have. With' this in mind, there is a small chance that I may
decide not to publish my findings. However, it is only fair that I emphasise the
word small, remote may be more appropriate. It is entirely in the interests of Shell and the
wider community that you (Shell) address this issue in a serious and responsible
manner. No bluff or bluster is involved on my part. I neither require your
assistance or have the slightest doubt as to the truth of these events. The ball
so to speak, is now in your court. In finishing, you will doubtless be aware of the fact that I am dyslexic. It is somewhat embarrassing. I trust that you will accept my apologies for any difficulties you will, and may have encountered as a result of my being dyslexic. Yours sincerely John Dyer.
|