Shell Nuclear Waste

Since 1983, I, John Alfred Dyer, have researched the 1968 decommissioning of Shell's clandestine Thornton Research Centre's (TRC) nuclear reactor and Shell’s 1994 claim, in the face of ITV1 exposure, that there was no 'TRC nuclear reactor ’; Thornton’s decommissioning workers were mistaken: they had (only) decommissioned TRC's Cobalt-60 labyrinth.

1994, Shell’s instructed defence committee fabricated the Group's no-reactor, Co-60 narrative, keeping Shell’s legal head at arm's length. 1998, Shell's legal head, QC Wiseman, no longer at arm's length, confronted by four years of additional evidence, relentless questions, and growing demands for answers, feared he was being pulled ever deeper into Shell’s Cobalt-60 conspiracy. Unwilling to be part of the conspiracy, Wiseman phoned to withdraw Shell’s Co-60 narrative, claiming Shell had made an "Honest Mistake" .

Shell's nuclear reactor decommissioning facts: In 1968, unforeseen events, events beyond Shell’s control led to the (panic) decommissioning of its Thornton nuclear reactor. As Shell’s Thornton reactor never officially existed, the unlawful decommissioning plan involved dumping the reactor, excluding only its high- and medium-level waste. In consequence, Shell sought out and hired a criminal who had ‘just’ been arrested for illegal nuclear ‘waste' disposal to decommission its top-secret Thornton reactor.

Briefly: TRC 1968, following instructions from Harwell, Shell and a small group of on-site (nuclear) physicists, the decommissioning team directed the Shell-funded ‘giant’ crane's 5-plus tonne demolition wrecking ball into the reactor; contrary to expectations, the reactor didn't crack; however, much to Shell’s consternation, the wrecking ball was generating increasing volumes of dust—nuclear dust. Panic ensued as the dust settled across Shell’s TRC/Stanlow complex. Depleted of ideas. Shell and Harwell held a bad-tempered, contentious on-site meeting within earshot of the decommissioning team. At the meeting's conclusion, the decommissioning team's head man was asked whether separation was feasible. After he said no, Shell directed the decommissioning team to "dump the lot".

1993, my research led to the commissioning of a Shell nuclear-dumping exposure program for Carlton Communications, a mainstream UK broadcaster. Shell responded by setting up a no-admittance committee. After obtaining an illegal copy of the television script, the committee fabricated Shell’s Cobalt-60, no-nuclear-reactor narrative, approved at director level. The fabrication succeeded; the Carlton nuclear-dumping exposure programme, killed.

· 7^th February 1994, a matter of days before the program's proposed transmission date (10^th February 1994), Shell produced its Cobalt-60 Narrative to set out the Group's official defence/position.

· Shell's Narrative (along with Shell's media contacts and its campaign of personal abuse and vilification) resulted in the cancellation of the television program. The program would have exposed Shell's nuclear dumping crimes; hence Shell's defense committee constructed the Group's criminal 'no reactor' narrative.

· Consequently, Shell concealed the disposal and dumping of its Thornton reactor.

. . By 1988, I had established that Shell, aware the allegations were true, fabricated, at director level, the Group's sham Narrative, of 7 February 1994, to cover up its nuclear reactor dumping.

· The Shell Group's cover-up of its nuclear dumping continues to this day. Within days of this website's launch, Shell instructed D J Freeman, the Group’s media lawyers in this matter, to contact my (former) Web host 'Easyspace'. Refusing to issue proceedings against me personally, Shell, in a quite outrageous act of censorship, succeeded in pressurising my (former) ISP into removing this entire website from their server. It thus disappeared from the Internet. I am pleased to say that I now have a more ethical and robust host. However, Shell immediately instructed the Group’s lawyers, D J Freeman, to shut down this ('new') site. In a letter signed by Sajjad Nabi, Shell's lawyers have now written a warning letter to my present (ethical) web host (Shell Challenge). Unable to censor the site by issuing a writ against me, Shell's lawyers are attempting to apply legal threats and pressure to my web host's connectivity suppliers. If Shell were to succeed in this unprecedented campaign of intimidation, the entire server would be closed down, leading to an outage of hundreds of sites - to stop the contents of this website becoming public knowledge! To 'jeopardise' innocent third parties while refusing to sue me is truly outrageous, unethical, the act of a coward. Shell’s policy of censorship and cover-up of its nuclear crimes is not going to succeed indefinitely.

1. It hired known criminals, in 1968, with a history of illegal disposal of nuclear materials/waste, to decommission its 'Thornton' nuclear reactor.

2. These individuals received cash payments totalling at least £500,000 in today's money to decommission (dump) Thornton's nuclear reactor.

3. Shell ordered the wholesale mass dumping of Thornton's reactor and 'other waste' dumping.

4. That Shell fabricated a fraudulent sham Narrative to 'kill' a Carlton Communications ITV1 program and hence cover up its nuclear dumping(s) and other crimes.

‘They (Shell) 'would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacts'

'If you believe Shell to have been guilty of a cover up of the events in 1968, you are free to make the allegation public subject to the warning that Shell will take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks. However, the mere existence of a does not of itself give rise to any legitimate cause of action by you*." *John Dyer.

Shell's threats, panic and desperation arise precisely because the Group is aware that the allegations are true. Hence, it will not risk its 'files' (the truth). Consequently, Shell and its 'associates' have not issued any legal proceedings, nor will they. Despite clear prior notice of this website and its contents, Shell's specific threats - that it 'would not hesitate' to issue 'writs' should I publish the allegations - proved empty, worthless. Issuing of 'writs' involves revealing, or at least risking the revelation of, Shell's own documents via "discovery" (legal process). Accordingly, Shell will not sue, and thereby risk exposing/defeating the Group's 'brazen it out'- admit nothing strategy.

From the early 1950s, Shell ran a serious, extensive, secret programme of nuclear research in the United Kingdom (and elsewhere). This research was primarily military-based. The programmes required building a nuclear research reactor at Shell's Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire (part of the Group's Stanlow oil refinery complex). The programmes, and the reactor/testing cell's construction, location and operation, were all carried out under the highest level of security. In 1968, for reasons set out in the full video, the reactor had to be decommissioned (i.e., dumped).

A relatively small proportion of the most hazardous waste, measured by tonnage, was initially designated for retrieval and safe reprocessing. ‘Scientists’ from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) Harwell were assigned to Shell's Thornton Research Centre site to collect and remove the most highly toxic elements, classified as high/medium-level waste, in accordance with the decommissioning plan. The remaining waste was intended to be, and ultimately was, disposed of illegally (dumped). To facilitate this, the company deliberately selected and engaged a contractor with a documented history of unlawful nuclear material disposal to decommission Shell's nuclear reactor and testing cell, and to dispose of the residual nuclear materials and waste. The selected contractors, who possessed known criminal records, received a six-figure payment adjusted to current value (£500,000 min), paid in cash.

In fact, the reactor's decommissioning did not go to plan. It proved impossible to separate, and consequently retrieve, the most toxic high-level waste from its 'vast' biological shield. In short, it was a disaster. As Shell's and Harwell’s ‘scientists’ became increasingly desperate to obtain the (mandatory) nuclear ‘materials’, the situation grew increasingly frantic. Because they failed to separate and retrieve the nuclear waste, Harwell left empty-handed. After Harwell's departure, along with its remote retrieval equipment and protective gear, Shell ordered the wholesale dumping of its nuclear material, involving many thousands of tonnes. This ’waste’ included the nuclear isotope Strontium-90. Shell's nuclear waste/materials are to be found dumped in sectors of the United Kingdom. The implications of this waste disposal for those who reside - or have resided - in areas where the materials/waste is dumped are potentially devastating.

The demolished reactors’ 'waste' included the nuclear isotope Strontium-90. Radioisotopes such as Sr-90 and Cesium-137 occur in irradiated fuel elements in nuclear reactors. The nuclear isotope Sr-90 (half-life 28 years) is one of the most dangerous of all nuclear products. Strontium-90 remains hazardous for centuries!

It has been further established that the wives of both the subcontractor and his foreman, who were employed to decommission Shell's Thornton nuclear facilities, gave birth to multiple children with congenital deformities. These births occurred shortly after the completion of the decommissioning process. Doctors independently informed both families that the newborns would not survive and advised against viewing the infants due to the severity of their conditions. Following several such incidents, the subcontractor insisted on seeing his newborn child and was deeply distressed to find that the infant’s head was not fully formed. The child, like the others, died within hours of birth. Shell did not provide advice or protective measures to the decommissioning workers or other personnel involved in the confidential nuclear decommissioning project.

After Shell succeeded in having 'my' television programme dropped, and given the seriousness of the allegations, I continued my research.

Given my Shell experience, the Group’s demonstrated willingness to lie, its extensive media contacts- a BBC national TV presenter/journalist fronted — played a major role in Shell’s 1994 no-reactor, Carlton Communications TV programme killing Cobalt-60 Narrative; its ability to threaten, frighten, and use legal means to silence critics demanded evidence far beyond what would be considered reasonable. Consequently, the required evidence and research had to be overwhelming. First, I needed to establish whether Shell's Cobalt-60 labyrinth was the facility Shell claimed to have decommissioned in 1968. If not, I needed to determine precisely what was decommissioned in 1968, its history and purpose. Establish why Shell sorted out a known criminal with a pre-nuclear dumping ‘waste’ arrest, handing out phenomenal sums of cash to carry out the decommissioning and premeditated dumping of its‘waste’.

In late 1998, I contacted Shell again, hoping they would respond responsibly to my research findings. Initially, Shell did not acknowledge my outreach. However, after I began presenting sections of my evidence, their response shifted significantly. Confronted with the facts, Shell recognised that its 1994 Cobalt-60 narrative was untenable. Consequently, Shell's legal director, Richard Max Wiseman, called me (J Dyer) and withdrew Shell’s 1994 television killing narrative, claiming it was an 'Honest Mistake.'

Since re-establishing contact with Shell, I have repeatedly offered to hand over my evidence. However, the decommissioning workers, with their Shell experience, were not happy to meet with Shell, to put it mildly. After declining all opportunities to review my evidence, Shell, believing it now had a PR excuse, demanded access to the decommissioning workers, my witnesses. Shell Thornton's Managing Director (Dr Graeme Sweeney), its safety officer (Dr Hugh Dorans), the Group's Legal Head (Richard Max Wiseman), and its Chairman (Mark Moody-Stuart) wrote insisting that I had to disclose my witnesses if progress was to be made. Initially, I declined; Shell then used this (sole) refusal to justify its public relations 'we need to see the witnesses' line. When I persuaded the reluctant decommissioning crew, Shell declined to contact or interview them! This episode illustrates Shell's cynicism and disregard for victims. Therefore, I am compelled to conclude, as I pre-informed Shell's legal head, that I have no alternative but to publish my evidence as an initial step:

"I have endeavoured to behave most responsibly. Consequently, I have tried to treat all parties equally and fairly, only to find I am confronted with a deeply cynical and corrupt multinational corporation. Despite this, you will recall in my very first letter to you, I once again offered to hand over my evidence; this was contemptuously rejected, without concern expressed or otherwise, for Shell’s victims." Letter to Shell's media; lawyers D J Freeman.

'Evidence', 'Statement of Claim', 'Shell 'Challenge' and 'John Dyer' button(s) give a more detailed account of events.