Update Video Update-Video

Since 1983, I, John Alfred Dyer, have researched the 1968 decommissioning of Shell's Thornton Research Centre (Shell/military) nuclear reactor and Shell’s claimed TRC Cobalt-60 labyrinth decommissioning fabrication. Shell’s nuclear reactor decommissioning, initially a premeditated criminal act, escalated into a criminal catastrophically. Despite repeated urgent efforts to separate and retrieve the required high-level and other nuclear materials and waste from the reactor's biological shield, Shell authorised the wholesale disposal of its secret nuclear reactor and testing cell materials and waste. Shell then dumped or otherwise disposed of these nuclear materials and waste in areas of the United Kingdom.

In 1993, my research led to the commissioning of a r Carlton Communications, UK national ITV1 broadcaster, Shell nuclear dumping exposure programme. In response, Shell's no-reactor defence committee fabricated the Group's 2,900-word narrative, sanctioned at director level. Shell’s criminal fabrication succeeded, as the Carlton Television-commissioned ITV1 programme on Shell's nuclear dumping was cancelled.

Briefly:

·       I 1983 I came to comprehend the significance of the nuclear dumping allegation(s), Allegations, that had first been relayed to me, in 1969.  The personnel making the allegations had, allegedly, been employed in 1968 to decommission a ‘nuclear reactor and other 'facilities’ at Shell Research Limited’s-Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire, England.

·        The participants in the decommissioning made the most shocking series of allegations concerning wholesale nuclear dumping(s).  The dumping(s), it was alleged, included the nuclear isotope Strontium-90.  

·        In 1993, following five years of research, my findings resulted in the commissioning of a television program for 'Carlton Television'.  Shell quickly responded.  Investigators kept me under surveillance. My telephone was tapped. My mail was intercepted, and destroyed and/or kept.  At the same time, Shell filed a seemingly endless line of complaints about my own alleged conduct, to the  Independent Television Commission (UK regulatory authority), Carlton, and others.   

·        On the 7 February 1994, a matter of days before the programme 's proposed transmission date (10 February 1994), Shell, produced its 2900 word ‘Narrative’ to set out the Groups official defence/position.  Briefly, Shell's Narrative asserted that:

‘Yes, a nuclear facility had been demolished at Shell Thornton in 1968.  However, it was, Shell claimed, a low-level (radiation) Cobalt-60 labyrinth. It wasn't a nuclear reactor..  In short, I and my informants, had got it wrong!

·         Shell's Narrative (along with Shell's media contacts and its campaign of personal abuse and vilification) resulted in the cancellation of the television programme. The programme would have exposed Shell's nuclear dumping(s) crimes, hence the construction of the Narrative.  

·        In consequence, the illegal mass-disposal of Shell's nuclear materials/waste in some of the most densely populated sectors of the United Kingdom was successfully covered up. 

·       I have now established that Shell aware of the truth of the allegations knowingly fabricated, at director level, the Group's fraudulent sham Narrative, of the 7 February 1994, to cover up its nuclear dumping(s) crimes.   

·       The Shell Group's cover-up of its nuclear dumping continues today. Within days of this website's launch, Shell instructed D J Freeman, the Group’s 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 web site 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 get 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 (see Shell Challenge).  Unable to censor the site directly, Shell's lawyers are further attempting to apply 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 - simply to stop the contents of this web-site becoming public knowledge!  To 'jeapordise' innocent third parties while refusing to sue me is truly outrageous, unethical, the act of the coward. Shell’s policy of censorship and cover-up of its nuclear crimes is not going to succeed indefinitely. 

If Shell denies that;

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

2.      It paid these criminals a six-figure CASH sum (at today's prices), to covertly and illegally decommission its secret nuclear reactor/testing cell.

3.      It ordered and/or otherwise sanctioned the wholesale illegal mass dumping of 'Thornton’s' nuclear materials waste.

4.  That the  nuclear materials/waste was disposed of in some of the most densely populated sectors of the United Kingdom.

5.      That Shell, knowingly fabricated a fraudulent sham Narrative to 'kill' the said television programme and hence cover up its nuclear dumping(s) (and other crimes).

6.  That Shell Thornton and its employees carried out (secret) nuclear research, as set out.

7.   Furthermore, if Shell disputes the other enclosed allegations, as set out.

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

'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 cover up does not of itself give rise to any legitimate cause of action by you'

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) being exposed.   Consequently, no legal proceedings have been issued by Shell and 'associates', nor will they.  Despite clear prior notice of this web-site and its contents, Shell's specific threats - that it 'would not hesitate' to issue 'writs' should I publish the allegations - proved empty, worthless.  For the issuing of 'writs' involves the revealing, or at least the risk of revealing, 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.  

 Background

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 programs, and the reactor/testing cell's construction, location and operation, were all carried out under the highest level of security.  In 1968, for reasons not appropriate to disclose at this juncture, the reactor was decommissioned (i.e., demolished).

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) at Harwell were assigned to Shell's Thornton 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, as well as 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.  As a result of the total failure to separate and retrieve the nuclear waste, Harwell's staff 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.

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

It has been further established that the wives of both the subcontractor and his foreman employed to decommission Shell's nuclear facilities resulted in the birth of several children with congenital deformities. These children with congenital deformities were born shortly after the decommissioning process. The condition of the newborns was such that both sets of parents were independently advised that their babies would not survive. Furthermore, they were informed that viewing their offspring would only prove distressing. Following a number of such births, the sub-contractor demanded to see his newborn child. He was profoundly distressed to discover that the newborn child’s head was not fully formed. The child, like the others, died within hours of birth. The decommissioning workers and other personnel involved in the process were provided neither advice nor protection by Shell during the secret nuclear decommissioning.

Following Shell's success in having 'my' television programme dropped, and in view of the seriousness of the allegations, I continued my research.

In light of my experience with Shell, its shameless ability to lie combined with its media contacts, influence, power, and ability to threaten and use legal means to silence critics demanded a level of evidence far beyond what could be considered reasonable. Consequently, the volume of evidence and research required had to be overwhelming. I had to establish whether Shell's Cobalt-60 labyrinth was the building decommissioned in 1968, as Shell claimed. If not, I needed to determine what had been decommissioned at Thornton in 1968, its history and purpose, and Shell's reasons for selecting known criminals and paying them large sums to carry out the nuclear decommissioning and premeditated dumping of nuclear materials and waste. 

I had established, by 1998, that Shell's Cobalt-60 Narrative of the 7 February 1994, was 'a tissue of lies from start to finish'.

In late 1998, I contacted Shell again, hoping they would respond to my research findings responsibly. Initially, Shell did not acknowledge my outreach. However, after I began presenting portions 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 in 1988, I have consistently sought to provide the Group with my evidence. However, Shell has systematically rejected my offers. After declining all opportunities to review my evidence, Shell instead demanded access to 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, but Shell used this (sole) refusal to justify its public relations 'we need evidence' line. When I later agreed to Shell's request for access to my witnesses, Shell declined to contact or interview them! This episode illustrates Shell's cynicism and disregard for victims. Therefore, I am compelled to conclude that I have no alternative but to publish my evidence as an initial step, as I informed the company's legal head.

"I have endeavoured to behave in the most responsible manner. 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 ;awyers  D J Freeman.

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

johndyer@nuclearcrimes.com

(C) 2000 The contents of this Web site are the sole property of John Alfred Dyer and cannot or may not be communicated, copied or transmitted, for commercial gain, without my expressed prior agreement.