Evidence Videos Evidence Videos

  Shell’s Thornton nuclear reactor decommissioning - a premeditated crime that escalated into a catastrophe. 

Before publishing the enclosed allegations, I, John Alfred Dyer, gave Shell explicit advance notice. This notice involved supplying digital copies of the site, along with supporting evidence, to Shell's  'nuclear dumping' media lawyers   D J Freeman, the Shell Group's legal head; Richard Max Wiseman, Shell Transport & Trading chairman; Mark Moody-Stuart, Royal Dutch Shell's chairman Jeroen van der Veer. All parties (Shell) have declined to initiate legal proceeding, despite the Group's multiple threatend: “Shell will take whatever action it sees fit in order to protect its reputation from false attacks” - and other threats.   

Since 1983, I, John Alfred Dyer, have researched the 1968 decommissioning of Shell's clandestine Thornton Research Centre (TRC) Nuclear Reactor decommissioning and Shell’s 1994 claim, in the face of ITV1 exposure, that there was ‘no TRC nuclear reactor’, Thornton’s decommissioning workers were mistaken: they had decommissioned TRC’s Cobalt-60 labyrinth. It is now established, following Shell’s legal head R M Wiseman conceding, as Shell understood from the beginning, that Thornton's 1968 reactor decommissioning Team had no involvement with or knowledge of Thornton's Cobalt-60 labyrinth. Shell's 1968 nuclear reactor decommissioning facts: despite countless frantic attempts to pry apart and retrieve the high-level and other waste material from the reactor's biological shield, it proved impossible to recover the mandated nuclear 'materials'. Working under Harwell/Shell (nuclear physicists) supervision, the 5-tonne wrecking ball was producing little more than dust, nuclear dust that was freely flowing, settling across Shell’s TRC/Stanlow complex. Having run out of ideas, Shell/Harwell held, within earshot of the decommissioning team, a bad-tempered on-site meeting; at its conclusion, the reactor decommissioning’s head man was asked if he believed it was possible to separate the reactor and its mandated material; having answered no, Shell ordered the decommissioning team to “dump the lot”, (see videos).

1993, my research led to the commissioning of a Shell nuclear dumping exposure programme for Carlton Communications, mainstream UK broadcaster. In response, Shell set up the Group's no-nuclear-reactor admittance committee. Having obtained an illegal copy of the television script, the committee fabricated Shell’s Cobalt-60 2,900-word narrative, approved at director level. Shell’s Cobalt-60 fabrication succeeded; the nuclear-dumping exposure programme was cancelled.

Briefly:

• 1969/70, I met individuals who claimed they had been employed in 1968 to decommission a (top secret) nuclear reactor and other ‘facilities’ at Shell Research Limited’s Thornton Research Centre in Cheshire, England.

• They claimed the decommissioning had gone disastrously wrong and under Shell's instructions the nuclear reactor had been dumped. (Evidence video 00:17:55) Evidence video

• I brushed it off as nothing more than 'pub talk'. That pub talk nonsense perspective lingered with me for fourteen years. 

• However, in 1983, thanks to a one-in-a-million chance (Evidence video 00:58:56). I could no longer dismiss the nuclear dumping allegations as ‘pub talk’ nonsence.  

• 1983, initial step in verification,  I conducted individual interviews with each participant. Their accounts demonstrated remarkable consistency, while the details became increasingly extraordinary.

• The decommissioning failure was emphasised, along with the on-site “nuclear scientists” (physicists), Harwell staff and the repeated, unsuccessful attempts to separate and retrieve high-level and associated waste from the nuclear reactor's "colossal" structure. Workers were told that once the reactor cracked, Harwell would collect the mandated waste with remote equipment and place it in the fifty-or-so Harwell-supplied nuclear-logo barrels. The workers were informed these fifty barrels were only the first consignment, with additional batches to be provided as needed. However, the first and only consignment of Harwell’s barrels left empty. The job was a disaster, a disaster whose main product was nuclear-contaminated dust, which, to Shell’s horror, was settling across its Stanlow complex. The job was stopped, again. Shell and Harwell then held a 'heated' on-site meeting. At its conclusion, Shell ordered the decommissioning’s head man to "Dump the lot”. The alleged dumpings included the nuclear isotope Strontium-90 (Evidence videos)

• 1993, Carlton Carlton Communications commissioned a nuclear dumping exposure programme; Shell responded by placing me under surveillance. Investigators monitored my activities, tapped my telephone, and intercepted, destroyed, or withheld my mail. At the same time, Shell filed seemingly endless complaints about my alleged conduct to the Independent Television Commission (UK regulatory authority), Carlton TV, 20/20 Television, and anyone else they could rope in.

·    7^th February 1994, a matter of days before the programme's proposed transmission date (10^th February 1994), Shell produced its 2,900-word  Narrative’ to set out the Group's official defence/position. Shell asserted:

      Yes, a nuclear facility had been demolished at Shell Thornton in 1968. However, it was, Shell claimed, a low-level (radiation) Cobalt-60 labyrinth, not 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.  

·     Consequently, Shell concealed the criminal disposal and dumping of its Thornton reactor.  

·       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 website 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:

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

      2. These individuals received cash payments totalling at least £500,000 in today's money to decommission (dump) Thornton's nuclear reactor.

3.      Shell ordered, sanctioned the wholesale mass dumping of 'Thornton’s' reactors and other 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' a Carlton Communications ITV1 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.' (Evidence video 2:57:11)          

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 set out in the full video, the reactor had to be decommissioned (i.e., dumped).

A small proportion of the most hazardous waste, as measured by tonnage, was designated for retrieval and safe reprocessing. Scientists from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) Harwell were assigned to Shell's Thornton site to collect and remove the most highly toxic elements, classified as high- or medium-level waste, in accordance with the decommissioning plan. The remaining waste was intended for illegal disposal (dumped). To facilitate this process, Shell sort out and engaged a contractor with a recent nuclear ‘waste’ theft arrest to decommission Shell's Thornton nuclear reactor and assorted ‘items’, and to dump the residual nuclear materials and waste. The selected contractors had known criminal records and received a minimum, in today’s money, totalling £500,000 Cash.

The reactor's decommissioning did not go to plan. It proved impossible to separate, and consequently retrieve, the mandated material/waste from the reactor's 'vast' biological shield.  In short, it was a disaster. As Shell and Harwell ‘scientists’ became increasingly desperate to obtain the nuclear ‘materials’, the situation grew increasingly frenzied. Incapable of separating, retrieving the designated nuclear material, Harwell departed empty-handed.  After Harwell left, along with its remote retrieval equipment, Shell ordered the wholesale dumping of its nuclear reactor, involving tens of thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste. The implications of this mass disposal for those who reside - or have resided - in areas where the materials/waste is dumped are potentially devastating. The demolished reactors’ 'waste' included the nuclear isotope Strontium-90.  Radioisotopes such as Sr.-90 and Caesium-137 occur in irradiated fuel elements in nuclear reactors. The nuclear isotope Sr-90 (half-life 28 years) is one of the most dangerous of all nuclear products. Because of its long half-life, strontium-90 remains hazardous for centuries!

After Thornton, both the reactor decommissioning subcontractor and his foreman's wives gave birth to children with heartbreaking congenital deformities. Previously, neither wife had experienced any complications. Doctors, acting separately, warned both families that their newborns would not survive and that seeing them would be emotionally overwhelming. After several such tragedies, the subcontractor insisted on seeing his newborn and was devastated to discover the infant’s head was not fully formed. The child, like the others, passed away within hours. During Thornton’s nuclear decommissioning, Shell offered no guidance or protection to the workers or anyone else involved. (Evidence video 2:45:30) 

Shell having succeeded in illegally getting the television exposure programme cancelled, the weight of the allegations fueled my resolve to dig deeper.

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 required evidence and research 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 enormous cash 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 7 February 1994 was a 'tissue of lies from start to finish'/Evidence video 00:9:45

Since re-establishing contact with Shell, I have repeatedly offered to hand over my evidence. The decommissioning workers, with their Shell experience, were not happy to meet with Shell, to put it mildly. After declining all opportunities to review my evidence, Shell, believing it now had a PR excuse, demanded access to the  decommissioning workers, 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; Shell then used this (sole) refusal to justify its public relations 'we need to see the witnesses' line. When I persuaded the reluctant workers, Shell declined to contact or interview them! This episode illustrates Shell's cynicism and disregard for victims. Therefore, I am compelled to conclude, as I pre-informed Shell's legal head, I have no alternative but to publish my evidence as an initial step: 

"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.