|
|
|
'(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research".' LIE! '(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility".' LIE! (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.' LIE! '(d) The demolition to which you refer in 1968 was the demolition of a shed-type building, the Cobalt 60 laboratory, and some lean-to buildings. These were demolished following completion of the work for which they were required. The Cobalt 60 sources themselves had been removed in April 1967 by experts from the Isotope Production Unit of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell in Berkshire in accordance with all the statutory requirements.' LIE! '(a) In 1967 after the removal of the sources, tests with sensitive instrumentation were carried out inside the laboratory, to check whether any trace of Cobalt 60 remained in the guide tubing where the sources had been housed. A minute trace of radioactivity was detected inside one of the three stainless steel guide tubes, which was embedded inside the concrete block which had housed and shielded the sources. This was the tubing along which one of the sources had been manoeuvred in and out of its concrete block housing.' LIE! 'The
trace measured was 0.054 uCi (microcuries), namely 2Bq (2 kilobequerels) of
activity. In accordance with the regulations, this was recorded. The open end of
the tube embedded in the block was sealed. '(e)
At the time of the demolition of the Cobalt 60 laboratory Thornton was
authorised to dispose of radioactive waste under the Radioactive Substances Act
1960. This permitted the removal as refuse, by contractors, of very low level
material such as this minute trace of Cobalt 60, subject to the following
relevant conditions: ·
At the time of its removal the
radioactive material had to be together with refuse which was not radioactive ·
In any 1 cubic foot of the
whole mass of refuse, the sum total of radioactivity from any radioactive
material together with it could not exceed 3 microcuries · In any one article, the sum total of radioactivity could not exceed I micro curie. Taking the sealed guide tube embedded in the concrete block as one article, it can be seen that the trace (less than 0.054 microcuries) was less than 5 per cent of the permitted level for disposal as refuse.' LIE! 'However
as an additional good measure, Harwell had been asked whether they could take
away the embedded tubes if they could be separated from the extremely thick
steel and concrete shielding block.' 'Drums bearing the British Standard Safety sign were stored on site.' LIE! '(b)
Any members of Harwell's staff working as "radiation workers",
that is, people whose occupation regularly involves exposure to radiation, were
then and are now required to wear protective clothing. It is a standard Harwell
procedure even in safe situations and cannot be taken as an indication of risk (c) A clicking sound from instrumentation such as Geiger counters is not a reliable guide to the degree of any radioactivity it is detecting. The activity of any instrumentation depends on its sensitivity setting and calibration. Low radioactivity at high sensitivity will produce a noticeable clicking sound which is meaningless in itself Taking sound as an indication of radioactivity is rather like assuming a car is traveling fast because its engine is noisy.' LIE! 'No protective clothing was either required or necessary' LIE! '(a) If you refer to the guide tubing in its high density concrete shielding, in view of the above, we suggest that it is of no relevance whether they could be separated or not. There was no danger to the contractors in carrying out the demolition and disposal. LIE! (b)
Mr XXXXX advises us, and has advised your representatives, that he was not
present at nor involved in any discussions on these matters. He recalls that any
site discussions would have been conducted by a Mr XXXX.' '9.
You state: "Demolition
and disposal took place over a
matter of months. The drums which were laid aside to take away the radioactive
tubes were removed empty from the site." In view of the information above, we suggest that neither of these matters is relevant.' LIE!
'In view of the facts as stated above, any broadcast suggesting that residents of a housing estate have in any way been exposed to hazard would be untrue, alarmist, and grossly irresponsible. None of the material taken to tips posed or can now pose any hazard.' LIE! 'No
"nuclear facility" was either present at or demolished at Thornton.
The demolition of a laboratory which took place was conducted in all respects in
accordance with the law. No individuals were placed at risk nor have they
subsequently been. We therefore suggest that the facts must lead to the
conclusion that you do not have a story at all.'
Following the setting out of my evidence, Shell has now specifically refused, on at least four separate occasions, to re-state that Shell did not house a nuclear reactor/testing cell at its Thornton Research Centre, as per the Group's Narrative of 7 February 1994:
'Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor.' 'Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility".' '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.'
Shell has further refused to re-state, as per its Narrative, that they did not
carry out the secret, primarily military, nuclear research programmes as set out
in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim, and elsewhere. “You told me in our telephone conversation that you will be making a personal claim against the Company. You implied (but later withdrew the suggestion) that settlement of your claim might be a pre-condition to your making your "evidence" available.." LIE! ‘You
(Dyer) assert that
Shell employed personnel to keep you under surveillance, to tap your telephones,
intercept your mail, posing as debt collectors or postal workers (paras
33-37).
You were invited to complain to the relevant regulatory bodies, but have
failed to do so.’ ‘Our clients have made no attempt to stop you
publishing fair and accurate facts and have encouraged you to report your
concerns to the relevant authorities. They
would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory
attacks.’ “To this point we have been
unable to find anything to collaborate your allegations…..” 'Your
assertion that in the past people on our side have been untruthful is completely
denied...’ Shell Transport & Trading's chairman 'Please (John Dyer) rest assured that Shell UK will, as in the past, follow up with diligence any information supplied.' LIE!
|