L

R M Wiseman

Shell UK limited

Shell-Mex House

London WC2R 0XD.

Your Ref: UKLG 

27/11/98.

Dear Mr Wiseman,

Thank you for your letter of the 26 November. However, if I may first refer to our telephone conversation earlier today. Your forcefully made point, that Sr-90 is only a beta emitter is as it happens quite ironic. Strontium-90 is one of the most abundant of the materials resulting from the fission of uranium in a nuclear reactor, Sr-90 is a highly active source of beta particles and is one of the longest lived beta-emitting substances, with a half-life of some 27.7 years. Its daughter product being yttrium-90. 

Strontium-90 ‘contains’ other fission products, which emit gamma rays. I trust the following quote from one of my ‘papers’, is of some help;

‘Radioisotopes such as strontium-90 and caesium-137 which occur as fission products in irradiated fuel elements from nuclear reactors are less costly. The beta and gamma radiation’s they emit together with the secondary bremsstrahlung are, however, much more penetrating and require heavy shielding to reduce the radiation to safe levels.

So my statement, as per my letter of the 5 November 1998, that ‘Sr.- 90 gives off gamma rays as well as beta particles’, was, and is, factually actuate and correct. 

In its ‘purified’ form only, does Strontium-90 emit (only) beta particles. ‘Purified Sr.-90’, is Sr-90 that has been processed, by a complex chemical technique. The process involved acetic acid-acetate buffered aqueous feedstock prepared from irradiated uranium reprocessing waste solution. Now back to, you, being ironic; for guess who not only had a research program for developing ‘products’ to purify strontium-90, but actually manufactured and supplied such product. Yes, you’ve got it, your good selves. Studying the effects of Sr-90, on battlefield conditions, developing military or other equipment, or say, fuels for instance would be next to useless if one used a purified form of Strontium. You can rest assured that any Sr-90, generated as a result of a nuclear explosion is not ‘chemically purified’. Purified Sr-90 was used, for instance, in the fabrication of thermo-electric nuclear power generators, other military requirements, missile technology, by way of example demanded a ‘purified’ Sr-90 source

You may recall that I previously alluded to the fact that strontium-90, is ‘horrendous’ May I offer the following quote, so that the reality of the situation may, hopefully, be brought home; ‘On the other hand, radiostrontiuin-90 or cesiurn-137 have half-lives of the order of 25-35 years; not only must we worry about them for several centuries. These radioactive sub-stances with half-lives of 27 and 33 years respectively, must be kept isolated from the environment for periods like several hundred years if damage to human beings and other living things is to be avoided. As for your contention that I alleged, in my letter of the 5 November, that Shell Thornton was manufacturing radiostrontium, nowhere in the letter do I state that Shell Thornton manufactured radiostrontium. And furthermore, as I informed you, it has never even crossed my mind. I know precisely where, and when Shell produced its radiostrontium. As a consequence I of course, fully stand by my statement that ‘Shell not only actively "used" radioactive Strontium, but actually manufactured it'. 

I suspect your contention that ‘a plant the size of ‘Sellafield’, would have been needed to manufacture what I have, according to you, alleged, is based on further mis-readings and or misinterpretation of my letters. Please read them carefully. For instance in my letter of the 25 November, you will see (page 3), ‘Gaseous Diffusion’. This does not state, or imply, that Shell’s Thornton Research Centre, had a Gaseous Diffusion plant for the enrichment of uranium (The Bomb/nuclear fuel). That would be ludicrous! However, you (Shell) had direct connection(s) into Gaseous Diffusion military research programmes. If I may say so, your assertion that a plant anything remotely approaching the size of Sellafield would be required to produce/manufacture radiostrontium is, well kindness dictates that I simply say, it’s incorrect. 

The only time I could fairly be accused of using ‘colourful’ language was, I believe, in my letter of the 25 November. When the term ‘staggering’ was used in connection with the incident rate of osteosarcoma. Actually the term ‘staggering’, in this context, was not my own, it was taken from a sentence used by an academic, who specialises in this field. He was, and is, unacquainted with the back ground, however he expressed ‘surprise’ at the incident rate of osteosarcoma in relationship to population. 

In order to understand the events of ‘1968’ one must first understand its history. For, as I see it, the ‘madness’ can only be viewed in its historic context, if a true understanding is to be gleaned. I do not believe ‘evil’ Shell personnel deliberately set-out to commit evil acts. The liberal proposition, is that for evil to succeed, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing, is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was nearer the mark when he wrote that ‘Man can only do great evil, when he first believes he is doing a greater good’ (forgive me if the quote(s)are not entirely accurate, I’m going from memory). 

I hope you will, further forgive me if I venture to suggest that from my position, it appears that there is almost a wish fulfilment being read into my correspondence, by the collective/ committee that is conducting Shell’s ‘defence/inquiry’. One of the problems of the group is that it develops excessive conformity, often combined with intolerance of dissent in the exercise of power. Especially so when its on behalf of a wider grouping, subconscious feeling of representation inevitably come into play, in short tribalism.  

The element of identification within/by the group leads to the tendency for the most extreme view of the group’s opponent’s 'views' being accepted. For how else could one possibly reconcile my statement(s) (5 November page 4) ‘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 and your subsequent statement (24 November) ‘I had assumed (apparently wrongly) that you continue to be interested in the Cobalt-60 Laboratory’. 

What could you have possibly imagined, that I meant by my statements regarding 'the construction of the Cobalt-60 narrative/lie'. Taken together with the Sr-90 assumptions, which you inform me have a technical input, I'm afraid the only satisfactory explanations I have been able to construct is in relationship to group tribalism. 

Talking of tribalism, you seem to place great emphasis on your assertion that Sr-90, only emits beta particles, and hence is less dangerous than gamma emitters. I fear your advice, is predicated on (group) wishful thinking. If and when I decide to 'publish' and the manure hits the fan, I would, personally, not be confident in putting that particular theory forward. It appears that a fortress mentality has developed, as a consequence the most ridiculous assertions are being taken as fact. Incidentally, please do not get hung up on strontium, as per the only dumped nuclear waste. 

Returning to your latest letter. Your request that I supply you with further detailed information is, I believe, uniquely novel. For brass neck, it will certainly takes some beating! After all, I have set-out, on several occasions, a detailed list of questions for Shell. Despite the fact that you have chosen, to date, not to supply any, or virtually any, answers I have voluntary sup-plied you with further information. Shell's policy of simply ignoring my questions is not acceptable. I would be grateful if in your next letter, you would detail Shell's response to my questions, ALL my questions including my previous, unanswered questions. 

Finally, could you please in answering let me know when Lord Armstrong, was first informed of this matter. When I say matter, include the Cobalt-60 narrative of the 7 February 1994 Twenty, Twenty Television, Carlton Communications, etc. 

Yours sincerely,

John Dyer.