To understand Shell’s nuclear decommission (and ‘events’), at Thornton Research Centre, in 1968, one must
first understand the historic background.
with a brief history of Thornton Research Centre, ‘owner’ Shell Research
Thornton was originally
known as Aero Engine Laboratory (AEL).
Built in 1940, at the outset of the Second World War, while the decision to build was taken
early in 1939. The AEL (Thornton)
was built on land southeast of the existing Stanlow Refinery, established in
1922. The Military connection was
direct from the start:- quote 'the scientists and engineers who moved to Thornton came to
develop better fuels and lubricants for the RAF....'
Because of the Second World War, the Lubricating Oil Laboratory
(LOL), and the Bataafsche Petroleum Maatshappij
(BPM), moved to Thornton. Shell's
fuel and lubricants research for markets outside North America had previously
been carried out in Holland.
Lubricating Oil Laboratory (LOL) and the Bataafsche Petroleum Maatshappij
Laboratory (BPML), responsible for research, followed the Aero-Engine Laboratory
(1940) over the next four years into ‘chemicals from oil’.
A number of academics were recruited from Cambridge to AEL in 1940,
including, T.P. Hughes (chief chemist) C. B.
(Cyril) Davies, Roy Baldwin and Sidney Daniel.
Norman Kendal arrived as senior research engineer along with Harold Slade
and Maurice O'Farrel with John Richards and Cohn Mackenzie.
The laboratory was working 24 hours a day seven days a week, so vital was the research that some of the academics
actually lived on the
premises. The Laboratory continued
to extend its areas of expertise throughout the war.
1942, it was ‘officially’ agreed that a Ministry Committee, on which Shell
was represented, would decide the laboratory work.
It was agreed that Shell would manage the laboratory and pay the bills;
in return, the Ministry would obtain priorities for staff and equipment.
1946, the Ministry 'handed back' AEL to Shell.
In the same year, Brigadier R. A. Bagnold, elected fellow of the Royal
Society for his work on the movements of sediments by wind and water (famous as
the leader of the Long-Range Desert Reconnaissance Group), was appointed
Director of research for Shell UK. On
January 1st, 1947, Bagnold was appointed the first ‘Director’ at
Thornton; his main task was to ‘reorganise’ Thornton. One of his symbolic acts of unification was to drop the
familiar names, Aero-Engine Laboratory, Lubrication Oils laboratory, etc. etc.
and replace them with numbers and letters preceded by the word ‘Block’.
Buildings were named ‘Number 1 Bloc’’,
'Number 2 Block’ etc. The
senior dining room became ‘Number
I Mess’. This after the end of the war, supposedly after Thornton had
become a civilian research centre, owned and controlled by Shell.
It demonstrates the military ethos that surrounded (surrounds?)
involvement in the development (and production), of nuclear weapons and power
dates from the outset:
In April 1940 James Chadwick, George Thompson, Mark
Oliphant, John Cockcroft, and Professor P. B. Moon were asked to form a
sub-committee (code-named the Maud Committee).
In the July of 1941, the Maud Committee produced
its two reports-’Use of Uranium for a Bomb’, and ‘Use of Uranium as a
Source of Power’. Professor Lindemann, impressed by the reports, recommend that the atomic
bomb project should be given the
highest priority. Churchill,
subsequently appointed Sir John Anderson, Lord President of the Council and a
former physical chemist with some knowledge of the properties of uranium, as the
Cabinet Minister responsible for the nuclear energy programme.
The Defence Services Panel, of the government’s ‘Scientific Advisory
Committee’ delivered, on September 25, 1941, their opinions of the Maud
reports to Anderson. In view of the
possibility that Germany could develop the Bomb first, it recommended that work
on the atomic bomb should be of the highest national importance.
However, by the autumn of 1941, the nuclear programme was too large for
the Maud Committee, to manage. A
new organisation known, for security reasons, as the ‘Directorate of Tube
Alloys’, was set up within the Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research, with Wallace Akers as its Chief Executive.
site for Britain's Nuclear Weapon(s) programmes was entrusted to an
‘insider’; hence, Shell’s headquarters, on the 4th Floor, Shell Mex House,
London WC2, telephone Gerrard 6933, was chosen for housing the said Tube Alloys,
and later the Directorate of Atomic Energy.
Shell likes to portray this as a patriotic, wartime, act. Whatever the reason(s), my research shows that Shell’s
involvement in the UK’s nuclear weapon, and other, supplies/programmes had
little to do with ‘patriotism’.
During, and especially after the end of the war, the UK’s nuclear
weapons/industry was centered and planned from Shell's headquarters:
(reactor design centre) devised and planned from Shell's headquarters.
(weapons enrichment plant); devised and planned from Shell's headquarters.
devised and planned from Shell's headquarters etc., etc.
Shell Group’s involvement, in the development and production of the UK’s
nuclear weapons, was such that Shell, actually manufactured, and supplied,
calcined electrode coke (nuclear graphite), heavy water (deuterium oxide, D2O), and other essential ‘products’.
1953, Shell Thornton undertook a research project in collaboration with Harwell,
to study the effects on the properties, of hydrocarbon oils, greases, and
synthetic fluids, by nuclear radiation (this was but one of ‘Thornton’s
early nuclear research programmes) . Nuclear
reactors and associated items require lubricants that will not only withstand
huge and prolonged doses of radiation, but must withstand the effects of
radiation for very long periods, as the said lubricants, once installed, are
installed for the life of the reactor.
major problem, regarding the use of oil/lubricants ‘in’ nuclear
reactors/Piles is that the oil hydrocarbons would be polymerised after being
subjected to radiation. This means,
in 'layman's' terms, that the oil is no longer ‘liquid’, hence, the oil/grease
largely loses its lubrication properties. The
contract to develop suitable lubricants was ‘awarded’ to Shell.
The Group utilised its Thornton Research Centre, to carry out this vital
research. The research continued
throughout the 1950's into the 1960's. Shell
would market its atomic lubricants under the banner of APL (Atomic Power
Lubricants), and claim/boast it (Thornton) had developed the world’s first
atomic/nuclear range of lubricants. The
research was carried out in conjunction with Leeds University and Harwell.
Thornton Research Centre could hardly be more appropriate for the undertaking of
nuclear research. For within
walking distance of Thornton, is the (UKAEA) Capenhurst Gaseous Diffusion, nuclear
enrichment plant. This is no
accident, for Gaseous Diffusion, requires technology and expertise not
dissimilar to that utilised by the petroleum/chemical industry.
The first objective of the United Kingdoms nuclear programmes was the
production of its nuclear weapons. Three
main factories were set up:
devoted to the purification of uranium feed elements and subsequently of uranium
for the production of plutonium in two air-cooled reactors and its separation in
an active chemical plant.
for the manufacture of enriched uranium 235.
To these were added the four plutonium
(and power) producing reactors at Calder Hall immediately adjacent to Windscale
site, and four more at Chaplecross in Scotland.
The planning of these factories (Windscale, Springfields and Capenhurst) has been the responsibility of the (UKAEA) Group’s headquarters at Risley,
Risley, Thornton, and the wider Shell Group, were to have an
involvement stretching over many years.
The actual allegation(s),
concerning the mass dumping of nuclear waste, at Shell Thornton Research Centre,
were first made to me, in 1971 by the man whose ‘firm’ carried out
Shell’s decommissioning. In as
far as, I gave it any thought, I dismissed it as ‘pub talk’.
However, the allegations were consistently, and independently repeated by a number of
individuals, over a number of years. All told the same uniform story.
The ‘individual's’ included the contractor, the sub-contractor, his
foreman and fellow workers employed to carry out the alleged nuclear
decommissioning at Thornton Research Centre in 1968. The said individuals made the most serious wholesale nuclear
dumping allegations, which (allegedly) included the nuclear isotope-
Strontium-90. It was only in 1988,
that I began to comprehend the significance of these allegations.
Once the significance of the allegations
had been realised, the consequences of publishing or
alleging unfounded allegations (of the nature alleged), were all to apparant. Consequently, I set out
to interview the demolition/decommission workers, contractor, sub-contractor,
and others separately, critically, and at length.
Furthermore, I undertook my research without informing (virtually) any of
the individuals making the allegations, of my intention and purpose in pursuing
the truth, or otherwise of the (alleged) nuclear dumping(s).
Furthermore, at all time, I have ensured, as far as humanly possible,
that my objectivity had/has not been compromised.
Therefore, I have endeavoured to maintain an equal distance from both
‘Shell’ and ‘other’ personnel. Therefore,
years have passed without my contacting or informing the decommissioning
personnel and ‘others’, of my research findings.
Following 'the' interviews, I had
no doubts concerning the sincerity of the various accounts of what had occurred
at Thornton Research Centre in 1968. However, the
interviewee’s detailed accounts and recollections required critical
examination. After I had conducted
a series of further interviews (running into double figures), with former employees of
Thornton Research Centre, and others (some of whom had never even heard of each
other, and/or met for years, if ever), I was satisfied as to the substantial
truth of the allegations. The
individual recollections of the events of ‘1968’ were uniform, given the
usual (minor) disagreements time, and perception affords. One may test a particular hypothesis is by independent verifiable
repetition. This criterion was
One may test a particular hypothesis is by independent verifiable
repetition. This criterion was
By 1993/4/, I was able to
substantiate the following:
Shell’s nuclear decommissioning, in 1968, the sub-contractor, went on to make his living as a demolition contractor.
sub-contractor, in order to obtain his own demolition contracts, gave as a
reference, Shell Thornton’s nuclear decommissioning to numerous councils and
others up and until at least 1972. To
tender successfully for (especially), council demolition work, contractors
have to forward references, usually council, to support any tender
application. However, a reference
from a company the size of Shell would most certainly suffice.
sub-contractor, and his foreman, has stated that the sub-contractors firm continually used the
Thornton nuclear decommissioning as his first reference, and he further
states that the wording of ‘his’ reference was always (that had carried out
the); ‘Demolition of a Strontium-90 Radioactive Testing Cell.’
I, (John Dyer),
have obtained a Local Authority document (from the said Authority) by which
Shell confirmed the reference given by the sub-contractor.
The said local authority document is dated 10 August 1972. According to the document, Shell replied/informed the Local
Authority that the said sub-contractor ‘had
carried out the work in a competent and careful manner, complying with all
The (Decommissioning) 'Events'
established that Shell had 'arranged' for ‘scientists’ from United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority (UKAEA) Harwell, to be present, at Thornton's site in 1968, to retrieve and remove the most
highly toxic/dangerous nuclear materials/waste, for transportation to 'Harwell',
and hence, reprocessing and
the Harwell ‘scientists’ had specialised remote control equipment to retrieve the most highly toxic/dangerous elements of the nuclear materials.
On Shell's site, Harwell’s said ‘scientists’ were on occasion dressed from head to
foot in specialist protective ‘clothing’, complete with breathing apparatus,
and Geiger counters. And that the
said Geiger counters ‘went like the clappers’, whenever the 'scientists'
approached the reactor/testing cell.
‘scientists’ would set their Geiger counters on the floor, at some distance
from the reactor/testing cell to record the radiation levels.
That the ‘scientists’ had one, or more, lorry loads of ‘nuclear bins/barrels’* bearing the international nuclear logo on and off site, to facilitate the removal and transportation of the (to be) retrieved high-level nuclear materials/waste. (A lorry load of ‘nuclear bins’ in this instance equals approximately 40 bins).
*A specialised lined re-sealable container utilised for the
containment and transportation of nuclear materials. Once sufficient nuclear
material, by volume, weight or radiation, was placed inside, the said container
could then have concrete poured into it, to seal it off. (In fact, when the
Harwell team left the Thornton site all the said bins/barrels were taken away-
decommissioning personnel (demolition ‘Lads’) were instructed that it was
absolutely imperative/vital to ‘break open’ the reactor and expose the most
highly toxic/dangerous element of the nuclear materials (a relatively small
amount in tonnage terms). The plan was to ‘expose’ the identified
materials/waste, in order for Harwell’s ‘scientists’ to collect it, with
the said specialised remote control equipment, and deposit the retrieved
‘waste’ in the ‘nuclear deposit bins’ for transportation, and subsequent
reprocessing. The rest of the ‘materials/waste’ was
to have been, and was, illegally dumped. That
the said ‘waste’ was, mainly, but not exclusively, in the form of
‘Strontium-90 pipes’, which the sub-contractor and his foreman were informed
that it was imperative to separated the 'pipes'from the reactor’s structure.
That the said
Strontium-90 ‘pipes’ ran from the reactors/testing cell’s outer
circumference to its centre.
That the said pipes were arranged in a circular manner, with each pipe
successively staggered, one ‘up’ the following ‘down’, next ‘up’,
and so on, in a sort of wave formation. The
sub-contractor and his foreman estimate that the said ‘pipes’ numbered in
the fifty plus region. The reactor/testing cell had a number of experimental
‘holes’, along with a removable ‘roof plug’ and resulting gantry crane.
That in fact it proved impossible to separate and retrieve the 'pipes' and the other required nuclear materials/waste. As the retrieval position deteriorated, discussions between Shell’s employees and the Harwell ‘scientists’ became heated. In fact it proved impossible to obtain the required materials/waste.
left, empty handed, but only after they left, Shell (for
reasons, I now understand), ordered and sanctioned the wholesale dumping of vast
amounts of nuclear material/’waste’, including all the ‘pipes’ and
other ‘waste’, which was planned to have been retrieved and reprocessed.
A major obstacle remained/remains- the
location of the nuclear ‘waste’ site/tip(s).
For the contractor and sub-contractor, one of the great ‘bonuses’ of
the decommissioning, was that the haulage contractor as part of his hire price
supplied the ‘tip(s)’. The
(then) almost universal practice of tip owners demanding cash payments before any
tipping was allowed, was in this instance absent, as Shell were paying the plant
contractors hire charges, hence the tipping fees.
By 1994, I had located several tipping
locations (dump sites), utilised for Shell’s nuclear ‘waste’. That part of the said
‘materials/waste’ was subsequently utilised in the manner outlined and
stated, to Shell and its directors on numerous occasions.
Furthermore, the quantities of the dumped nuclear ‘materials/waste’
has been stated (and/or passed on) to Shell and its directors, on numerous
evidence, is that part of the said ‘waste’ was stored and later sold
on as ‘hardcore’ by the haulage contractor engaged to remove the ‘waste’
off-site. The ‘sold on’ portion, almost certainly the bulk of the nuclear
‘waste’, has proved impossible to locate.
Shell's criminal acts.
Shell and it or its
employees or agents, did plan, order and sanction the illegal dumping of nuclear
materials/waste in 1968, in
contravention of existing legislation, by way of example:
Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962.
Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Irradiated Materials.
Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Lead.
Energy & Radioactive Substances Exception Order 1962. Storage in Transit.
Energy Act, 1946.
Energy Authority Act, 1954.
Installations (Amendment) Act, March 1965.
Installations (Licensing & Insurance) Act 1959.
Installations Act, August 1965.
Substances Act 1948.
Substances Act 1960
of Functions (Atomic Energy & Radioactive Substances) Order, 1953.
Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.
In 1993, my research findings resulted in the commissioning of a television programme for Carlton Television. On being informed of the proposed programme, Shell reacted in a wholly unreasonable and unjustified manner. Hysterical, is the phrase that most readily comes to mind. Shell immediately engaged in a campaign of abuse and vilification against the programme producer, my research findings, and myself. This action was engaged, to divert attention away from the truth of Shell’s nuclear dumping(s) crimes. In order to achieve this end, Shell fabricated a series of the most outrageous lies, against (primly) myself and the television programmes producer.
Frances (Fran) Margaret Morrison, Shell’s (then) Media manager made, and/or
allowed her name to be forwarded/used to the most scandalous, shameless serious
of allegations to the Independent Television Commission (ITC), Carlton
Television, and others, questioning my integrity, and research methods.
Such was the depth of Shell’s panic to get the said television
programme ‘killed’, that Shell alleged, that I had actually harassment and
mistreated elderly ‘Shell pensioners’.
That on 7
February 1994, (three days before the proposed television programmes
transmission date, 10 February), Shell’s said Narrative, utilising Shell UK
Limited’s letterhead, bearing ‘Fran’ Morrison’s signature, was produced.
Narrative was to claim (in effect) that:
‘Yes, the said contractor had in 1968 demolished a
nuclear laboratory/building at Shell’s Thornton Research Centre.
However, Shell's Narrative claimed, it was a comparatively ‘harmless’
Cobalt-60 nuclear labyrinth. The decommissioned laboratory/labyrinth, Shell claimed, had utilised the nuclear isotope-Cobalt-60. It was not, in short, the
Strontium-90/maze/reactor/testing cell I had alleged.
In terms of posing an (especially long-term) hazard, they are not
comparable, Strontium-90, in particular, being
one of the most hazardous nuclear isotopes known.
asserted, as a fact, that the building that had been decommissioned at Thornton
Research Centre in 1968, was Thornton’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth.
Shell’s said Narrative unambiguously stated that its-Thornton Research
Centre: ‘…… did not and never has housed a (nuclear) pile or reactor.’
Narrative along with the campaign of personal/professional abuse and
vilification against my research and myself resulted in the television programme
In view of
Shell’s fabricated ‘stories’, lies, but much more importantly the
seriousness of the matters alleged, I continued with my research. Shell’s shameless and effortless ability
to lie, combined with its media contacts, influence, and its power and ability
to threaten and pursue legal means to silence ‘critics’, demanded, I
realised, a level of
evidence far beyond that which could be considered reasonable. After
consideration, I believed it was inappropriate to reveal to the decommissioning
personnel, Shell’s Cobalt-60 Narrative of the 7 February 1994. For there could conceivably be the inadvertent possibility of
the decommissioning personnel 'framing answers', perhaps on a subconscious level,
with the Cobalt-60 Narrative in mind.
I had to
establish whether, or not, the Cobalt-60 labyrinth was the ‘building’ that had been
decommissioned in 1968, as Shell claimed. If it was
not the Cobalt-60, I needed to uncover what had been decommissioned, at Thornton
in 1968, its history, its purpose and the reasons for selecting and employing
known criminals, paying them enormous cash sums to carry out the nuclear
decommissioning and (pre-planned) the wholesale dumping of the resulting nuclear
1998 I had established:
there were no ‘tubes/pipes’ problems in the demolition of Shell’s
Cobalt-60 labyrinth. In fact there
were no ‘tubes/pipes’ as such, the said Narrative of 7 February 1994 was so
constructed ‘There were
some dozen service pipes running through the walls’, to
deliberately and misleadingly fit the Cobalt-60 labyrinth in with the ‘lads’
actual experiences regarding the Strontium-90 ‘pipes/tubes’
Cobalt-60 labyrinth was not a ‘huge’ concrete structure, as per the said
reactor. In fact, the Cobalt-60
labyrinth only had the one single (small) concrete block, in which three one-inch
diameter stainless steel pipes were embedded.
Two of the pipes were sealed off with blanking caps, at the point that
they came out of the said concrete block. The
purpose of the ‘spare’ pipes was in the event of the winding mechanism,
utilised to wind the six pellet-240 curie Cobalt-60 source, in and out of its
‘concrete resting block’, fouling/jamming or otherwise becoming unreliable;
another pipe could be utilised. This was a sensible design precaution.
Narrative stated: ‘Inside, the
laboratory consisted of a small control room, separated by thick inner concrete
walls from an irradiation chamber where the oil samples were exposed by remote
control to Gamma rays from the Cobalt 60 sources. The three sources themselves consisted of Cobalt 60 pellets
in sealed aluminum capsules, contained in small cylindrical stainless steel
holders approximately 5 inches long and three-quarters of an inch diameter.
These were housed inside an extra-dense concrete block 8 feet.’
In fact, there were
never ‘three (Co-60) sources’!
There was only ever one Co-60 source, complete with two spare pipes.
Shell’s Narrative’s claim that the Cobalt-60 (had)
‘thick inner concrete walls’, is deliberately
misleading, to enable the Cobalt-60 labyrinth (Narrative) to fit in with the
actual nuclear decommissioning. The
Cobalt-60’s inner ‘walls’ were constructed using 18" X 9" x 6",
concrete bricks/blocks (which contained cadmium stampings), laid on top of one
another, as per a common brick wall. In
truth, the ‘Cobalt-60 inner (and outer) walls’ bore no resemblance to the
‘huge/massive’ concrete structure the ‘Lads’ encountered in
decommissioning the First Defendants said reactor/testing cell.
laboratory was designed and built to advanced safety standards, far in excess of
anything required at the time. It would be more than acceptable to the standards
of 1994 if it were in place today.’
The reason for the
Co-60 labyrinth’s design, structure was not as the Narrative asurted/stated, but
rather that the labyrinth was designed, because Shell planned from the outset
(1953), to introduce and use when they became available, ‘killer-curies’ of Cobalt-60.
For a 240-curie cobalt source (the only source ever used) is/was virtually useless, as a serious
research tool. However,
‘killer-curies’ were never introduced because much more serious nuclear
‘tools’ were available!
Evidence now shows
that Thornton Research Centre-Cobalt-60 labyrinth was designed/planned (1953) to
be temporary, until Shell Thornton’s ‘radiochemical laboratory’ came on
Shell’s assertions that Harwell scientists were
present at the Cobalt-60 labyrinth’s demolition, as claimed and set-out in the
said Narrative, was, and is, a lie.
No Geiger counter readings were recorded, taken or
involved in/at the Cobalt-60 demolition, contrary to the said Narrative, which
was constructed in full knowledge of this fact.
no UK Atomic Energy Authority, Harwell staff were present at the demolition of
the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, contrary to the said Narrative claims (lies).
Post the proposed
television programmes cancellation a
film Shell’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth was ‘uncovered’. Consequently, it was arranged to show the footage to the
sub-contractor. I specifically
informed the sub-contractor that he should view the footage very carefully, and
be completely open and honest as to whether, or not, he recognised the
‘building’. Matters were more
complex than usual. Following
Shell’s Narrative (which the sub-contractor was unaware of), the television
programme was wrongly assumed by the sub-contractor to have only been shelved.
The sub-contractor, an intuitive, intelligent and complex man, had
incorrectly concluded that a film of the reactor/testing cell, he had
decommissioned in 1968, had been uncovered.
Why else, he reasoned, would I be requesting him to view this film, if it
was not the ‘reactor’? Consequently, the sub-contractor had come to believe that
footage of the ‘reactor/testing cell’ had been secured, which he believed
would enable the ‘postponed’ television program to be reinstated. As a result, the sub-contractor was strongly predisposed to
viewing the film with a view to accepting it as the said reactor.
I, purposely decided not accompany the sub-contractor to/at the viewing.
Furthermore, I did not communicate with the sub-contractor until the following
day, so that a proper unhurried appraisal might be given.
The sub-contractor was adamant and unhappy that the footage he had viewed
(Shell’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth) was not the ‘building’ he had decommissioned
in 1968. He informed (that I had); ‘
definitely got it wrong’.
have established that the sub-contractors team involved 16 personnel in total,
eight Ford D1000 tipper wagons, a Drott 995K (extremely powerful tracked shovel
‘bulldozer’), and an industrial/demolition crane with, supposedly, the
biggest and heaviest known demolition ball/tup in the UK
Returning to Shell's (Thornton) nuclear history.
Mayer Victor Rothschild, more commonly known as Lord (Victor) Rothschild, played
a significant and important role in the development of the UK’s nuclear, and
Lord (Victor) Rothschild, played a (the) central role in
Shell’s-Thornton Research Centre’s nuclear programmes, culminating in the
1968 decommissioning of its reactor/testing cell/nuclear facilities.
To gain an understanding of Rothschild’s role, one needs first to view
his/the wider historic background. The
following quote is as good a starting point as any:
In the 1950/60’s
the United States was politically sensitive to worldwide concerns of the effects
of nuclear fallout, especially Strontium-90.
Public opinion in Japan was particularly conscious and alarmed by
Strontium-90 fall out. The USA was
particularly concerned that Communists (and others) would ‘exploit’ this
issue to their advantage. The
‘West’s/US’s fears that Asia could fall to the Communists meant that an
impartial appraisal of the effects of nuclear fallout was all but impossible.
It was, in part, this concern -the so-called ‘domino effect’ –that
‘required’ the authorities forever play down the effects of nuclear fallout.
public pressure, in order to be at least ‘seen’ to be addressing the issue,
the US government set-up an enquiry into nuclear fallout, with particular
reference into the effects of Strontium-90.
The Bronk Committee report was a whitewash!
The UK was also (very) concerned about the effects Strontium-90, but its
determination to develop its own nuclear weapons, and nuclear industry, meant
that the effects of nuclear fallout, were put to one side.
In pursuit of its
own nuclear weapons, the UK, undertook a series of (nuclear) weapon
trials/experiments in Australia, Malden and Christmas Islands from 1952-58.
My evidence now reveals that Lord Rothschild played a central and crucial
role in the (effect of/on) blast, animal(s), and Strontium-90 fall-out
experiments in the UK’s ‘Australia’ 1952-8 nuclear weapons/explosion test
programs. Rothschild had extensive
connections with/into the UK (military) nuclear establishment, and furthermore
he personally set-up and headed the UK (military) Strontium-90 research
establishments/programmes, in the mid/late 1950’s.
Rothschild selected (usually Cambridge), the personnel to head the
Radio-Strontium (Sr-90) research bodies/units. In 1958, the ‘head’ of the UK’s Strontium-90 (secret
military research), Lord Rothschild, left Cambridge to join Shell Research
Limited (Thornton). The UK’s
Strontium-90 research, far from diminishing during this period, greatly
increased in both manpower and scope. Rothschild’s interest in Strontium-90
research programmes continued until its demise, on or around 1968.
Following his appointment, as research head of Shell Research, Rothschild
made Shell’s -Thornton Research Centre, his base/ place of operation.
Thus, the head of the UK’s military Strontium-90 research programmes
was now installed at Shell’s Thornton Research Centre.
further direct connections into the very heart of the UK (military) Strontium-90
research establishments (other than Victor Rothschild), and at the highest
possible level. My evidence is now that all three ‘branches’ of the
military Strontium-90 research units/programmes were connected to
Shell/Thornton, at the highest levels.
Following, Rothschild's appointment, one of
the world’s foremost researchers on the effects of nuclear radiation on the
immune system was brought in from overseas, to join
Shell. This individual’s
specialised research field, on the effects of ionizing radiation, on the immune
system involved experimenting on animals, especially primates.
The research programmes involved, for instance, primates being subjected
to radiation exposure along with a controlled (experimental) ‘diet’, then
studying the differing, if any, effects on the animals.
The said ‘researcher’ had direct connections into/with the United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority’s Harwell Research Establishment.
The research was, of course, military.
A (Defence funded) document (with this
said ‘Shell’ primate radiation researcher’s address clearly shown (Shell),
dated three years (1961) after he joined Shell) makes the staggering claim, with
regards to the research (that): ‘The
possibility of radioresistance was suggested.’
light of the, then, military and political establishments preparations for, and
expectations of, nuclear war, this claim would be taken most seriously.
former head of the UKAEA, Amersham- Radio Chemical Centre, has informed, that
Shell’s-Thornton Research Centre’s said Strontium-90 rods/pipes were (‘all
most certainly’) prepared and supplied by Harwell’s 220 Labs.
Furthermore, he (and others) confirmed the ‘lads’ exhaustive
description of the said Strontium-90 ‘pipes’, and the fact that Thornton’s
(intended) retrieved Strontium-90 ‘rods/pipes’ were destined for
reprocessing and/or re-use (due to Strontium-90’s extreme long
radioactive-life) at the Harwell’s 220 labs, and/or Amersham.
My evidence now
shows that Shell’s ‘involvement’ with Radio-Strontium, was wide, and
extensive, involving detailed, complex research programmes, which bore fruit to
such an extent, that patents were filed to protect Shell’s research
Research has established that numerous other nuclear research programmes have been carried
out at Shell’s -Thornton Research Centre.
That Shell and
their employees and/or agents, and/or other members of the Shell Group, were
conducting research into nuclear Organic Moderators and Coolants at Thornton
‘Thornton’, in particular, had carried out research with regard to the Royal
Navy’s requirement to perfect a Organic Moderated Reactor(s)-OMRE (Organic-Moderated
Reactor Experimental). Such a
reactor would have significant advantages (pressure, corrosion and efficiency)
and was believed to be especially advantageous/suitable for submarine
propulsion, and bulk sea transportation. Crude
oil transportation was viewed to be the most suitable, as the ‘bulk’,
economics/reactor cost criteria are met and further crude oil acts as an
effective radiation shield.
military’s urgent requirement to perfect a Organic Nuclear Reactor dates from
the British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, having to concede, to secure the Polaris missile/submarine deal with President
Kennedy*, to the
United States that only the USA was allowed to produce and supply the highly
enriched ‘Polaris’ (submarine) reactor fuel.
This proved to be very problematic, as the United States controlled the
UK’s Polaris fleet fuel supply, hence it effectively determined the UK’s
nuclear fleets operational parameters. However,
a OMRE reactor does not require its nuclear fuel to be so highly enriched.
*The so named
’Statement on Nuclear Defence Systems’ / ‘Polaris Sales Agreement’
distance of Shell’s -Thornton Research Centre, is the UKAEA’ s Capenhurst,
nuclear (gaseous diffusion) enrichment plant.
This plant would supply the expertise and fuel for the OMRE reactor.
My evidence now reveals that a Naval Officer was put ‘in charge’ of
this research, at Shell’s- Thornton Research Centre, Cheshire.
Furthermore, I have ‘discovered’ the said Officer’s name, rank,
position, and Naval history.
That Shell’s ‘OMRE’, nuclear reactor research utilised polyphenyls, diphenyls, terphenyls*, and combinations of organics as nuclear moderator/coolants.
molecule is simply several benzene rings joined; diphenyl
consists of two rings, terphenyl three.
A major problem
with polyphenyls, is that they are practically solid at room
temperature. Consequently, the
whole OMRE reactor/system has to be preheated before loading the hydrocarbons,
and maintained at a given temperature during all the pre-operational and low
Thus, the firing up of a ‘OMRE’ reactor is fraught with
difficulties, for the reactor cannot be operated without a ‘full’ and
unrestricted flow of its moderator, coolant.
‘OMRE’ reactor, would. in operation, require constant refreshment of its
organic moderator, coolants. Irrefutable
evidence reveals that the research utilised/proposed a method of
‘efficiently’ disposing, and reusing, the damaged/contaminated organic
coolant/ moderator. I have now
‘obtained’ a document, by which by Shell Thornton personnel, ran the reactor
and that the said method did increased the nuclear reactors generated output by more
That ‘Thornton’s OMRE’ nuclear research was extensive, complex and reached a very high level of operation.
That the said ‘OMRE’ nuclear reactor research had great commercial possibilities, particularly to a petro-chemical Multinational.
shows that a former senior Thornton Research Centre, director, was on national
Nuclear Oil Panel, along with the Admiralty, Vickers, Rolls Royce, and Head
Wrightson, all of whom were contractors to the Polaris nuclear submarine
programmes. The same director was
also a member of a joint National Defence/Petroleum industry panel; it was the
very same Thornton director who replied (on or about October 1993), as to
whether or not Shell Thornton had a nuclear reactor (that he) ‘couldn’t
remember’! When questioned
about the near impossibility of not being able to ‘remember’ (if Thornton had a nuclear
reactor), he somewhat taken aback, conceded Thornton
employed Strontium-90, but maintained he ‘couldn’t remember’ whether or
not Shell Thornton had a nuclear reactor! I
was to discover that he was far from being the only former Thornton employee
that could not ‘remember’ if Thornton had a nuclear reactor.
A (former) senior ‘Manager’ of Shell-Thornton Research Centre, with a ‘better’ memory, I interviewed, not only recalled the demolition in 1968, he correctly identified its location in/on Shell’s ‘Thornton’ site. Furthermore, the said Manager stated that the demolished ‘building’ was a nuclear reactor/atomic pile, and he outlined (part of) the said reactors, research programmes. At all time during the interview my resolve not to ask leading questions, was maintained. Hence, I deliberately asked about the ‘demolition’, and at no time did I mention a nuclear reactor/pile.
this was a major breakthrough. However,
in view of the importance of this matter, I was not simply prepared to take what I had been told at face value.
Hence, I spent several years tracking down the required documentation, in
order to be able to either stand Shell Thornton’s technical manager first
hand accounts up or down.
My research now
shows that Shell’s former technical ‘Manager’ told the truth.
My offers, to hand over, to Shell, a transcript of my interview with
Shell’s former senior technical Manager, together with irrefutable document evidences that Shell Thornton and its employees were carrying out
precisely the nuclear research programs as per the Managers account, were
The only condition being that should Shell, 'find' the supplied evidence
not 'conclusive', it will undertake to interview jointly its (former) Thornton
'nuclear' personnel, I have tracked down, in order to 'establish the truth'.
The offer was rejected
, on the grounds of 'costs'!
The Shell Group (and the other oil
Multinationals) believed that ‘nuclear’ research was vital to their future
development. An historic
perspective is instructive. Post Second World War; European oil corporations (Shell in particular) urgently
undertook to develop the ‘chemical’ component of its oil.
Pre 1939, Europe obtained and refined its oil, in the main, from
underdeveloped colonial countries, hence the required chemical, cultural
expertise, and infrastructure, to develop the oils (chemical) possibilities, was
not readily available. Unlike the
USA, which, of course, has its own indigenous oil ‘fields’ in abundance,
hence chemical producers were at hand to exploit the oils possibilities.
As a consequence of these historic/geographical facts, Shell and other
European oil concerns had ‘neglected’ the chemical qualities/possibilities
of their raw product.
As the post-war industrial expansion gathered pace, along with its
resulting scientific ‘progress’, Shell’s chemical expertise and capacity
needed to be, and was, quickly expanded.
However, the said ‘chemical oil problems’ were greatly exacerbated
for the multinationals, by one of the generally unrealised aspects of ‘nuclear
power’, that is, its ability to ‘rearrange’ the electrons field, of the
atom. For it was believed and
feared by the oil/chemical multinationals that the ‘alchemists dream’ could
come about, i.e., that an endless and unique number of chemicals could be
created, by/with the aid of nuclear chemistry/physics.
Thus, the oil multinationals, who are essentially energy/chemical
providers, were alarmed at the development and resulting prospects of nuclear
power/research, hence, their requirement to be directly involved in
nuclear research. It was impossible
in the 1950/60’s to obtain nuclear knowledge without being part of military
nuclear research, and its programmes. The
Oil Corporation’s frantic desire to be at the forefront of nuclear
physics/chemistry/research was driven by the fear that not only could they be
replaced or supplemented as energy providers, but also that the lucrative and
expanding chemicals from oil market would/could be under serious threat.
Each multinational viewed the others progress with alarm and suspicion.
Shell were at a distinct disadvantage with regards to its American
oil/chemical rivals in that it had, as a none US Multinational Corporation,
limited access to the US’s nuclear research (compared to its US rivals).
The McMahon (Atomic Energy) Act of 1946, 1954, and the fact that Shell
was at the centre of, possibly, America’s most damaging ‘Atomic’ spy
scandal meant that Europe’s leading Oil Multinational was forced to seek even
closer nuclear ties with the British Establishment.
An establishment that viewed Shell with some suspicion.
It was a ‘partnership’ borne out of necessity, as the best-applied
chemists, and others, were to be found in private industry, rather than the
universities- hence the so named military industrial complex thesis.
Evidence reveals that Shell undertook
such nuclear/chemical research. Consequently,
Shell obtained the required nuclear/ chemical expertise at its Thornton Research
Furthermore, my research findings now
establishes that Shell Thornton and its employees were involved and or
carried out nuclear and other research for amongst others:
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Treaty Organisation (NATO)
Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)
military and others
Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC)
of America Air Force (USAAF)
of America Army (USAA)
of America Navy (USAN)
(my) claims concerning Shell’s nuclear research/work/involvement as set-out
are supported by extensive, detailed documentation. The said documentation includes scientific, and other papers,
contracts, patents, transcripts, correspondence, interviews, tapes, including
details of the said contracts and contract numbers.
Lying for (the) Company.
In the face of my (supplied) evidence, Shell’s Legal Head, Richard Max Wiseman, has
from November 1998, that Shell’s said Narrative of the 7 February 1994, signed by
former BBC Television presenter, ‘Fran’ Morrison, was and is ‘a
mistake’. Shell’s legal head,
and others, have repeatedly restated the Group’s ‘honest mistake’
That by way of ‘explanation’, Shell's
legal head, claims that (in 1994) Shell's, only record of a
nuclear building/facility was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth, so Shell ‘assumed’ the Cobalt-60 must have been the ‘building’
that had been decommissioned in 1968. The
legal head further asserts, that when Carlton Television failed to respond/write back,
following the submission of the Narrative, it was ‘assumed that Shell
must have got it right’, otherwise Carlton would have corrected them.
I kid you not, I was told this in all seriousness, and with an, apparent,
Furthermore, Shell’s legal head has
informed that he is authorised to speak on behalf of the Shell Group of
Companies. Hence, the ‘mistake’
defence concerning the Cobalt-60 labyrinth Narrative is the authorised and
official position of the Shell Group.
Shell has, however, failed to think
though its present position (lie) as I informed Shell’s legal head, Richard
Max Wise, in my letter of the 27 June 2000:
logically follows that if your people have not been lying, as per your repeated
claims, then the Narrative was only incorrect because, as you claimed, they had
assumed, wrongly, that the building in question was the Cobalt-60 labyrinth.
It follows that the (rest of) information in your Narrative must be, and
is ‘factual’ i.e. you have records or were informed, presumably by former
employees, as to the contents of your Narrative, otherwise you would have made
it up i.e. lied.
going back to your repeated demands for- ‘concrete evidence’, if your
‘assertions’ that Shell personnel did not lie is correct then your own
Narrative of 7 February 1994, provides the ‘concrete evidence’.
For at virtually every point your Narrative vindicates the 'Boys' account
of events. For example:
directly answer the above questions, do not ignore them. As you can see, if your
assertions that Shell personnel told the truth are maintained, it seems all
along that you had the ‘proof’ yourselves.’
have either been unable, or have chosen not, to supply ‘answers’.
forwarding the outline of my evidence, I have
repeatedly, requested that Shell
reaffirm, it’s 'we had no nuclear reactor at Shell Thornton' as per its Narrative
of 7 February 1994. For instance, my letter of the 7
'For I have supplied your clients (Shell) with detailed evidence regarding ‘Shell Thornton’s’ secret military nuclear research, see for instance paragraphs 51-79 of my draft statement of claim. Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell? Please answer.'
'You will recall that in my letter of the 7 September I wrote:
‘Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell? Please answer.’
Despite this request you have, once again, declined to supply answers. However, if Shell stands by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative:
‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’
‘(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility"…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’
‘(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 (page 2).’
Then Shell will want, no, need to, confirm that it disputes it carried out the secret military nuclear research programmes, that it ‘housed’ a nuclear reactor/testing cell- as set out in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft claim. I believe that in view of the consequences for countless thousands and incidentally Shell, you will see that a ‘We note the contents’ reply will be deemed most unsuitable and irresponsible. Furthermore, in the absence of Shell’s specific rejection that it had a nuclear reactor/testing cell and it carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 (for self-evidently any organisation that did not would offer immediate rejection), that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim.'
The Shell Group lawyers forwarded a pretence answer.
'You are, of course, perfectly aware of Shell's position in relation to your allegations......'
'I find your claim that I ‘am perfectly aware of Shell’s position’, perplexing. May I ask how, when, who or where Shell or anyone else has ever disclosed to me Shell’s position regarding paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim? Consequently, please substantiate or withdraw. In light of your expected failure to forward details of Shell’s disclosure of its said position, I once again ask:Does Shell stands by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative
‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’
‘(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility"…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’
‘(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 (page 2).’
I would be most grateful if you would now supply direct straightforward answers, instead of needless prevarication. However, I repeat, in the absence of Shell’s specific rejection that it had a nuclear reactor/testing cell and that it carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 (for self-evidently any organisation that did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell would offer immediate straightforward rejection), then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim.' --
In response, yet another letter from Shell's solicitors was dispatched, with another point-blank refusal to reaffirm, the Group's previous 'we had/housed no nuclear reactor, at Shell Thornton'.
'I once again ask how, when, who or where Shell or anyone else has ever disclosed to me Shell’s position regarding paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim? All that is required is direct straightforward answers, to each specific point, as per my own replies to Shell’s questions.
I repeat, for I have not yet received answers, does Shell stand by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative:
‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in 'atomic research' (page 1).’
‘(b) Thornton did not house a 'nuclear facility'…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’
‘(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 (page 2).’
Please answer the above in a non-ambiguous, clear 'no bull' manner. Specifically does Shell deny they had, and/or Thornton had/housed/utilised a nuclear reactor/testing cell at your clients Thornton Research Centre in the 1960’s, as set out in my Statement of Claim, Yes or No? Please directly confirm whether or not your client denies that it and/or its employees/agents carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79. I repeat it is entirely reasonable, in the absence of specific rejection, to conclude that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim.
Apparently, unwilling to repeat its lies concerning its 'we did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell', Shell failed to even offer the pretence of a response. Instead, another, rather curt, acknowledgment letter was dispatched:
As per my informing Shell, its legal head and
yourself, that I reserve the right to publish my findings via the WEB.
Consequently, I confirm that I have a WEB site.
'Following your acknowledgement of the 20 September 2000, your client Shell has now specifically refused, on at least four separate occasions, to re-state that Shell did not have a nuclear reactor/testing cell at its Thornton Research Centre in the 1960’s, as per Shell’s Narrative of 7 February 1994*. Furthermore, your client Shell has now declined to (re)state** that they did NOT carry out the secret, primarily military, nuclear research programmes as set out in paragraphs 51-78 of my draft Statement of Claim, and elsewhere.
*‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in 'atomic research' (page 1).’
‘(b) Thornton did not house a 'nuclear facility'…. Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor. (page 2).’
**‘(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 (page 2).
As per my informing Shell, its legal head and yourself, that I reserve the right to publish my findings via the WEB. Consequently, I confirm that I have a WEB site. My WEB site is presently ‘empty’. However, I enclose a CD containing its proposed contents. ................
You will see that my WEB site will contain the most shocking allegations ever made against any multinational, or other, corporation. Of course, if Shell believes any of the allegations are untrue it will to quote your letter of the 11 August 2000:
‘…. take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks.’
‘They (Shell) would however, have no hesitation in protecting their reputation from defamatory attacks.’
I await your ‘writs’, if Shell maintains that it did not hire known criminals to decommission its nuclear reactor/testing cell in 1968 and order as per Shell’s prior plan, the illegal mass dumping of its nuclear materials/waste, if Shell did not carry out the extensive military, and other, nuclear programmes, as set-out in paragraphs 51-71 of my Statement of Claim, if Shell disputes that it did construct a knowingly fraudulent Narrative in 1994, in order to cover-up its nuclear dumping crimes.
Your clients, Shell have seven days to either commence legal proceedings, or forward their proposals. Should Shell fail to do either, then I shall ‘publish’ via my WEB site, the enclosed CD contents, with immediate effect.'
On the 26 June 2000, I John Dyer,
informed Shell’s former media head, Frances ‘Fran’ Morrison, (she headed/signed
the Narrative) that:
had dumped a nuclear reactor in 1968, and you employed known criminals and paid
them extensive cash payments in order to carry it out.
it was under Rothschild’s.’
Ms. Morrison replied that she recalled the
‘issue’ but stated that
did not support this view. Responding, to this evasion, I informed Ms. Morrison (that):
made a total lie up, a piece of fiction. Shell have since told me that it was a
mistake, you said it was the Cobalt-60’.
It may appear surprising that Shell’s former Media Head's response to my informing (accusing) her that- ‘you (Fran Morrison) made a total lie up, a piece of fiction..’ (the Cobalt-60 Narrative), was not disbelief, outrage, and shock, she declined to even threaten to counter sue me, rather she replied: ‘I can’t really be accountable for that, I expressed the Company’s view’!
John Dyer (c) 2000