|Prior to publication of the enclosed
allegations, I John Alfred Dyer, gave specific clear (prior) notice to the
Royal Dutch Shell Group, following the dispatch of CD copies of this site, its
contents and allegations to Shell's appointed lawyers in this matter-D
J Freeman, the Group's legal head Richard
Max Wiseman, Shell Transport & Trading's chairman Mark
Moody-Stuart, Royal Dutch Shell's chairman Jeroen
van der Veer. All have declined to commence/issue proceedings, despite their
specific (legal) threats.
For the past thirteen years, I, John Alfred Dyer, have been researching the decommissioning, in 1968, of Shell's Thornton Research Centre’s (Shell/military) nuclear reactor/testing cell. Shell’s nuclear decommissioning turned from a pre-planned criminal act, into a criminal disaster (this is an understatement, of some proportions). For the decommissioning went disastrously wrong. Unable, despite repeated, and increasingly desperate attempts, to separate and retrieve its mandatory high-level (and other) nuclear materials/waste from the reactor's biological shield, Shell authorised/ordered the wholesale disposal/dumping of its (secret) nuclear reactor/testing cell’s materials/waste. The nuclear materials/waste was dumped, or otherwise disposed of, in some of the most densely populated sectors of the United Kingdom.
In 1993, my research resulted in the commissioning of a programme for Carlton Television (UK national broadcaster). Shell responded by fabricating at the highest level a fraudulent, 2900 word sham Narrative. Shell’s sham Narrative resulted in the 'killing' of the Carlton television programme.
· I 1988 I came to comprehend the significance of the nuclear dumping allegation(s), Allegations, that had first been relayed to me, in 1971. The personnel making the allegations had, allegedly, been employed in 1968 to decommission ‘nuclear 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 nuclear labyrinth/building. It wasn't the nuclear reactor/testing cell that I had alleged. In short, I and all 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.
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.
Shell Group's cover-up of
its nuclear dumping continues
to the present. Within days of this web site'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 this ('new') site closed down. 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). Failing to get the site
censored 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. I now give Shell clear notice
that if they do not desist from harassing innocent, decent people in the course
of their attempt to stop the exposure the Group's nuclear dumping crimes, I
shall have no other option but to distribute leaflets in those sectors of the UK
most directly affected by Shell’s mass nuclear dumping(s). This will
entail the leafleting of hundreds of thousands of households. Shell’s policy
of censorship and cover-up of its nuclear crimes is not going to succeed
· 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.
then Shell will now issue legal proceedings - in accordance with its issued threats:
‘They (Shell) would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks.’
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.
From the early 1950's, Shell was engaged in a serious, extensive, secret programme of nuclear research in the United Kingdom (and elsewhere). This research was primarily military-based. The research programmes necessitated the construction of a nuclear research reactor/testing cell 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 for disclosure at this juncture, the reactor was decommissioned, i.e. demolished.
A relatively small amount (in tonnage terms) of the most dangerous elements of the waste were originally intended to have been retrieved and safely reprocessed. Scientists from the United Kingdom's 'Atomic Energy Authority' (UKAEA), Harwell, were stationed at Shell's Thornton site to in order to ‘collect’ and remove the most highly toxic elements (high-level waste), as per the decommissioning plan. The residue of the 'waste was planned, and was, to have been illegally dumped. To achieve this, a contractor with a history of illegal disposal of nuclear material, was specifically sought and engaged to decommission Shell's nuclear reactor/testing cell, and, dump the remainder of the nuclear materials/waste. The chosen contractor(s), who had/have known criminal records, were paid a six-figure sum (at today’s prices), and 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 mass dumping, involving many thousands of tonnes, of its nuclear material. This ’waste’ included, the nuclear isotope Strontium-90. Almost unbelievably, some of this waste was subsequently utilised in the construction of a housing estate, medical facilities, shops, schools and leisure facilities. These buildings were constructed either on the waste or in the surrounding areas. Furthermore, part of the nuclear materials/waste was 'stored', and later sold on by the haulage contractor engaged to transport/remove the waste off Shell's Thornton site. Shell's nuclear waste/materials are to be found dumped in some of the most densely populated sectors of the United Kingdom. The implications of this waste disposal for whose 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!
I have further established that the wives of both the sub-contractor and his foreman employed to decommission Shell's nuclear facilities gave birth to a number of ‘deformed’ children. These deformed children were born, shortly, after the decommissioning. 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 distraught beyond words to discover that the newborn child’s head had not 'properly' formed. The child, as with the others, was allowed to die within hours of its birth. The decommissioning workers, and others involved in the process, were offered neither advice nor protection by Shell when it instructed 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 the light of my experience with Shell - its shameless, effortless ability to lie, combined with its media contacts, influence, power and ability to threaten and pursue legal means to silence ‘critics’ - demanded a level of evidence far beyond that which could be considered reasonable. Consequently, the volume of evidence (and hence research) required would need to be overwhelming. I had to establish whether, or not, Shell's Cobalt-60 labyrinth was the ‘building’ that had been decommissioned in 1968 - as Shell claimed. If not, I needed to establish what had been decommissioned at Thornton in 1968; its history and purpose; and Shell's reasons for selecting and employing known criminals and paying them enormous cash sums to carry out the nuclear decommissioning and premeditated wholesale dumping of the nuclear materials/waste’.
I had established, by 1988, that Shell's (Cobalt-60) Narrative of the 7 February 1994, was 'a tissue of lies from start to finish'.
In late 1998, I re-contacted Shell with the hope they would now react to my research findings/disclosures with, at least, a degree of responsibility. Initially, Shell's policy was to ignore me. When I started to reveal (parts of) my evidence, the strategy quickly changed. In the face of my revelations, Shell's 1994 Cobalt-60 Narrative became untenable. As a consequence, Shell's legal head/director (Richard Max Wiseman) informed/conceded that Shell's 1994 narrative was ‘a mistake’.
Since re-contacting Shell, in 1988, I have repeatedly endeavored to hand Shell my evidence. However, my numinous offers have all been systematically rejected. Having refused all offers to hand over my evidence, Shell demand access to my witnesses, Shell Thornton's MD (Dr Graeme Sweeney) its safety officer (Dr Hugh Dorans), the Group's Legal Head (Richard Max Wiseman) and its Chairman (Mark Moody-Stuart) all wrote demanding, that 'I had to reveal my witnesses if progress was to be made' (following my initial refusal-the Group believed it had found a viable PR excuse) - once I wrote accepting Shell's said demands, Shell immediately refused to contact/interview the 'witnesses', despite its Legal Head/Chairman/Director/Thornton demands! The cynicism, and disregard for its victims, that predominates Shell, is amply revealed by this little episode, consequently I am now forced me to conclude that I have no other alternative than to publish, as a first step (for, as I informed the multinationals heads):
'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 company policy. Furthermore, you (Shell) 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, in accordance with Shell's design and instructions, illegally dispose/dump the resulting ‘waste’.’ Letter to Shell' s legal head
'Tens of thousands of our fellow citizens are about to receive just about the most devastating news possible, and in the most improper manner, without any warning or counselling. Mindful of this, 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 'newly' appointed lawyers.
of Claim', 'Shell 'Challenge' and 'John Dyer' button(s) give
a more detailed account of events.
the Shell's lawyer’s ‘button(s)’ is instructive.
Alfred Dyer is
solely and entirely responsible for the research findings and consequent
allegations against the Shell Group, contained in this/my Web site.
It appears, for some unknown reason, that I have not received a number of e-mails. Consequently, I am, presently, personally responding to all e-mails. Should you have either sent, or are sending an e-mail and did/do not receive a response, please note it is either because I have not received it, and/or my return mail is not being delivered. If you do/have not received a reply, by the following day, please re-send your e-mail(s) until you do.
(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.