Dyer-Wisereply 2
Home Up Dyer-Wiseman 3 Wiseman's letter Shell's lawyers



R M Wiseman


R M Wiseman

Legal Director

Shell UK Limited

Shell-Mex House


London WC2R ODX.


Your Ref: UKLG

5/ 10/98.


Dear Mr Wiseman,

Thank you for your letter dated 2nd 0ctober l998.


In my letter of the 29th September, you will recall that I asked the following:


1.      Who, and when, authorised Shell UK Limited, to speak on behalf of Shell Research Limited and or the Shell Group?


2.       At what level was authorisation given?


3.       Have you made the owners of Shell Research Limited (Royal Dutch Petroleum Company) aware of the position.  If so when, and at what level?


4.      Have the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, granted you authority to speak on their behalf concerning these matters. If so when, and at what level was authority given?


5.     I understand that Shell UK Limited is itself a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. Can you confirm that the UK parent company-The Shell Transport and Trading Company p.l.c.-has been informed of this matter. If so when, and at what level?



You declined to answer any of the above questions outright. Neither did you reply to my inquiries regarding Shell International Chemical Company Limited/Shell Chemical Company Limited and the Shell Petroleum Company Limited. Instead of answering these questions you simply state that Shell UK Limited acts in an advisory capacity for the Royal Dutch/Shell group in the UK.


In the light of your failure to answer a single question, please allow me to be candid.  My contention is this; that 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 policy. And furthermore you 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, as per your design and instructions, illegally dispose/dump the resulting ‘waste.

That the demolition did not ‘go to plan’, I do not dispute. However, I will show that it was planned to illegally dispose/dump nuclear and other waste from the outset.

The ‘waste’ was subsequently used in the construction of an housing estate. Extensive medical, shops, leisure facilities and schools have, either been built on the waste and or its surroundings.

The requested company information stems from the nature of crimes committed. As you are no doubt aware, in the UK, a limited liability company has a separate legal status independent of its shareholders. Furthermore, a limited liability company being an abstract person cannot manage itself, it requires directors. The position is somewhat more complex than usual, due to Shell’s ownership structure.

Your contention that you (Shell UK Limited) acts in an advisory capacity for the Royal Dutch/Shell group in the UK, is, with respect, a red herring.  Only the directors and or the personnel involved, of the company’s concerned can answer questions of such a serious nature. In matters of this gravity you can act as a conduit, but no more. Unless or until you have specific, written, authorisation at a suitable level.

*The individuals from either Shell Research Limited and or the members of the committee that constructed the letter of the 7th February 1994 appear, and that’s the kindest interpretation one can put on it, not to understand the term nuclear. So as there can be no possible misunderstanding of what I mean by the term nuclear, I will define it.



To understand the term nuclear, in this context, one has to understand nuclear power.  In order to understand nuclear power, it is, first, necessary to gain an understanding of a single atom. The word atom means indivisible. If you cut say, a lump of lead you could theoretically carry on cutting it until you got down to the atomic level. At the atomic level any (theoretical) further cuts are no longer possible, because you would no longer have lead, brass, or whatever, as you cannot cut down and past the individual atoms of lead, brass, and still have lead, brass etc. etc.

 An atom consists of elections and a nucleus. The electron has a negative charge, the nucleus has a positive charge. The electron(s) orbit the nucleus (centre) of the atom. Remove an electron from an atom, the atom then becomes a  ‘iron' as a consequence of it being positively charged. An atom is said to be 'balanced' when its negative charged electrons equals its positive charged nucleus. An electron deficient atom, as a result losing one, or more, of its electrons so leaving the atom 'unbalanced' i.e. positively charged. Any atom that is in this condition-electron deficient-is said to be 'ironized'. Take two electrons out and its doubly 'ironized', three it’s triply 'ironized' and so on. It is important to realise from the outset that the atom with its inner nucleus, is ‘bonded’ very, very, powerfully. 

If all the electrons were removed from an atom you would be left with its nucleus, the innermost 1heart' of the atom. The positively charged nucleus is made up of 'protons' and 'neutrons'. A proton has a positive charge, a neutron has no electrical charge and is said to be 'neutral'. You would expect the positively charged protons to violently repel each other. But within the nucleus a new kind of force comes into play, an immensely powerful short range attraction force between the protons and neutrons; it is suffice to say that the neutrons act as 'nuclear cement' bonding the nucleus very powerfully together. 

The nucleus of uranium 238 contains 92 protons plus 146 neutrons 92+146--U238, the repulsive force of the 92 protons are on the verge of overcoming the bonding force (cement) of the 146 neutrons. Any atom which has a nucleus containing 92 protons but a different number of neutrons is an 'isotope' of uranium. 

The atomic number of Strontium is 38 (protons), so that any nucleus having 38 protons is said to be strontium. Strontium 90 has 38 protons, the atomic number of strontium, and 52 neutrons, 38+52=90 hence Sr-90 which is an isotope of strontium. 

Uranium 235 with its 92 protons and 143 neutrons is very unstable. If you bombard uranium 235, with its nuclei already under near disruptive stress, with a neutron- especially a 'slow one'-it flies apart. A complete rupture of a nucleus is commonly referred to as 'fission' by analogy with the biological term for the division of a growing cell. 

Strontium-90 is such an horrendous by-product of nuclear fission that it cannot, presently, be transported off site anywhere in the UK. Strontium-90 nucleus, a 'fission product' has a disproportionate large number of protons to its neutrons coming as it does from a much heavier nucleus which requires more 'cement'. Sr-90 gives off gamma rays as well as beta particles. By a carefully reading of the above you will be able not only to understand the term nuclear, in respect to this matter, but also gain an insight of why Shell not only actively 'used' radioactive Strontium, but actually manufactured it. 

You state that Shell Research Limited has provided all of the information needed to respond to my previous 'assertions'. Can you please forward details of the individuals that supplied this information and the names of the Harwell personnel present at the demolition of the Cobalt-60 cell, as per Ms Morrison' 5 letter of the 7th February 1994. 

I, of course, cannot speculate as to how these individuals could possibly have mistaken the demolition of the Cobalt-60 Cell, and the 'events of '68'. Especially as I now have obtained detailed accounts, and statements of the 'demolition' of the Cobalt-60 cell in question. 

I note that you finish your letter, having failed to answer a single question, by inviting me to submit further questions which you assure me will be dealt with comprehensively. A phase commonly used in Liverpool suddenly springs to mind, fortunately, good manners forbid me using it. 

As previously indicated I have spent a not inconsiderable period researching this matter. You will note that I have not as yet 'published' my findings. The (main) reason being that this matter is, particularly, of some importance to Merseyside and its people; therefore, I required what I consider absolute certainty regarding the events of '68. 

Merseyside, my home, is a deprived area both in social and economic terms. I have to take note of the wider likely effects publication would have. With' this in mind, there is a small chance that I may decide not to publish my findings. However, it is only fair that I emphasise the word small, remote may be more appropriate. 

It is entirely in the interests of Shell and the wider community that you (Shell) address this issue in a serious and responsible manner. No bluff or bluster is involved on my part. I neither require your assistance or have the slightest doubt as to the truth of these events. The ball so to speak, is now in your court. 

In finishing, you will doubtless be aware of the fact that I am dyslexic. It is somewhat embarrassing. I trust that you will accept my apologies for any difficulties you will, and may have encountered as a result of my being dyslexic.


Yours sincerely




John Dyer.