RAY FOX NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE
Note: Many documents available on this webpage are pdf which means they will take time to load so please be patient. The advantage of pdf is that the text can be copied, is fully searchable and can picked up by Google so that the information is given wider circulation on the Internet.
ARTICLES & RELATED CORRESPONDENCE PUBLISHED IN DECEMBER 2008 AND JAN/FEB 2009 CONCERNING RAY FOX AND ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
Article published 05 December 2008: Shell, Saudi Arabia, Arms-for-Oil, Corruption, & Radioactive Contamination
Ray Fox email to over 600 MP’s: 11/12 December 2008
Ray Fox Reply to Martin Salter MP: 15 January 2009
Email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc: 14/15 JANUARY 2009 (INCLUDES LETTER TO RESIDENTS OF AMBER CLOSE & LAMBOURNE GARDENS, EARLEY, READING UK)
Prof Dr Chris Busby Report 6 July 2009
TV & RADIO PROGRAMME LINKS BELOW PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE RAY FOX STORY
Channel 4 TV "Mark Thomas' Secret Map of Britain":
Segment broadcast on London News Network "London Tonight" news on 18 July 2002: Reporter Sharon Thomas tells the story about alleged massive levels of radioactive contamination of Ray Fox...
Ealing Studios video of the Ray Fox story headlined "Suburb Poisoned By Plutonium"
Includes an interview with Dr Josef Kees who states that his tests found traces of uranium in the bloodstream and fatty tissue of Ray Fox at double normal expectancy.
Unofficial transcript of BBC Radio 4 programme: The Bunker First broadcast on 6 October 2003
Selection of pages from a related book "Wolves of Water", also authored by Dr Chris Busby BSc, PhD, C.Chem, MRSC, a radiation scientist who once studied Laser Raman Spectro-electochemistry in collaboration with Shell Research.
Published in 2006
Related impressive CV of Dr Chris Busby published in same book, "Wolves of Water" (also back cover page with reference to "buried nuclear reactors under housing estates...")
I was asked by the BBC to investigate the levels of radioactivity in a land water drain at the end of the garden of 337 Wokingham Rd on 17th June 2003. This was further to some earlier evidence that there had been contamination of the garden and house at this address by isotopes from a nuclear reactor or bomb, specifically Uranium-235 and Plutonium 239. There had also been evidence brought forward that suggested that the site to the north of the property, previously owned by Shell Ltd, had been the location of an underground nuclear reactor and experimental nuclear laboratory which had suffered some accident in the 1980s and had been abandoned. Therefore I also made a brief survey of radioactivity in the vicinity of the property to see if there was any gamma or other evidence for the existence of this reactor.Conclusion
This exercise and its results support the conclusion that there is a source of material from a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb in the vicinity of the property. The absolute levels of the material remaining in the drain do not allow us to conclude that the drain itself was the main source of this contamination. However, since the drain has been cleaned and water-jetted in the early 1990s it is unlikely that much material would have remained and so the Caesium to Plutonium ratios are consistent with the conclusion that highly concentrated material containing Plutonium-239 was at one time in the drain and that we are measuring the small amount that has remained after cleaning and the passage of more than 10 years.
New Information relevant to the reputation and credibility of Professor Busby added March 2012
Post-Fukushima 'anti-radiation' pills condemned by scientists: Guardian Newspaper 21 November 2011
Christopher Busby's wild claims hurt green movement and Green party: Guardian Newspaper 22 November 2011
The Guardian: Toxic link: the WHO and the IAEA: A 50-year-old agreement with the IAEA has effectively gagged the WHO from telling the truth about the health risks of radiation: 28 May 2009
Chernobyl area doctors and researchers contradict predicted UN mortality figures as being far too low years after disaster: http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/Chernobyl_deaths_contradicted
Notification to Shell of "serious pollution of the River Loddon" from the Shell Earley "Storage Depot" seeking views on "contamination from your premises..."
Shell reply blames pollution on new drainage which in the light of subsequent unauthorised discharge on adjoining property was apparently defective and illegal.
Letter from Shell announcing plans to "decontaminate" the Shell site at Earley prior to pending sale of the property. Further letter contains an apology from Shell "if our letter came as somewhat of a shock". Offers reassurance over decontamination. It is interesting to note this is the "Richard Collett" interviewed in "The Bunker" programme when he described noticing "buried empty rooms" at the time when contractors were removing contaminated soil from the site. Apparently the "decontamination" was not satisfactory because at least one further "decontamination" was subsequently carried out. The site was also decontaminated after a chemical fire which according to reports at the time, included an explosion. None of the decontaminations apparently prevented the leakage of pollution/radioactivity on to ajoining property.
Letter says results of an independent survey "showed contamination, within the site boundary, by volatile inorganic hydrocarbons" and that "more heavily contaminated soil is being removed from the site..." Also says: "Samples were taken at the site boundary, but these showed no evidence of contamination, and so I can conclude that there is no risk of contamination of your property or any others adjoining the site." Apparently the decontamination process was inadequate because, as previously indicated, at least two further decontamination processes had taken place at the site but none apparently prevented leakage of radioactive contamination. To be fair to the contractors involved, none were as far as we know, advised of any nuclear/radioactive history of the site.
GOOD NEIGHBOUR SHELL
Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman blames Thames Water for a broken sewer resulting in discharge on Mr Fox's garden, before shifting position. Eventually, while denying responsibility for contamination, Shell agrees to inspect and clean the drain. In a letter dated 26 October 1995, Shell admits that it does not "dispute the analysis of the samples taken from the drain by your expert and Thames Water" but continues to deny that "any contamination in your garden is the responsibility of this Company..." In a letter to John Redwood MP, Wiseman claims that Shell is helping Mr Fox on a "good neighbour basis by arranging for the drain to be cleaned and inspected at our expense while the legal situation is clarified." This was an unfortunate comment bearing in mind that poisoning people as a byproduct of a commercial enterprise hardly falls within the definition of being a "good neighbour". Shell has a track record of contaminating the environment and has paid huge fines for so doing. The Wikipedia record shows that Shell is a deadly neighbour, not a good one.
From Wikipedia: Royal Dutch Shell Environmental Issues:
Dr G Lethbridge of Shell's Thornton Research Centre (now dealing with such matters at Shell Global Solutions) becomes involved. This suggests a serious concern by Shell at what was going on at Earley.
Clayton Environmental Consultants were present when during the cleaning and inspection of the drain as arranged by Shell and confirmed in their report that there was an oil discharge from the pipe which appeared fractured/open jointed at two locations. Subsequent letter from Shell legal division notified Mr Fox of Shell's intention to repair the drain.
Mr Fox writes to Shell saying he has received notification that a planning application has been made to build 42 houses on the Shell site. He also complained about the death of trees in his garden from "clear contamination". Wiseman replies on 2 May saying "your horticultural problems cannot be attributed to escape of product from this Company's premises." On 16 May Wiseman sends a letter headed "CONTAMINATION AT 337 WOKINGHAM ROAD READING". The letter contained an offer which was not made on a "without prejudice" basis to carry out work on the drain by inserting a sleeve. Instead the offer was made on the basis that no further claims would be brought against Shell. Mr Wiseman seemed understandably keen to draw Mr Fox into the agreement which, for the cost of a modification to a drain, would have relieved Shell of all future liability. Peanuts compared with a potential claim by Fox arising from contamination by toxic poisons or undeclared radioactive materials.
Shell legal division confirms that in 1986 a fire took place at the Shell Terminal in Earley. A Shell letter dated 5 December 1997 revealed that the site was "remediated" (decontaminated) based on "target contamination levels". The following are extracts from the letter Mr Fox sent to Wiseman on 25 February 1998:
Mr M H Files replied on behalf of Wiseman, side-stepping providing a reply to the vitally important issues raised in Mr Fox's letter. Files informed Mr Fox that Shell had sold the contaminated site to Persimmon Homes and cold-bloodedly stated: "Shell no longer has any interest in the land" (or apparently the dire medical consequences to past and future households in the area arising from the long term contamination).
Wokingham District Council Letter to Shell Legal Division: 5 December 1997
Council seeks information about complete knowledge of previous site uses including all substances stored or used thereon. Shell did not disclose that any nuclear/radioactive material or activity was connected with the site.
Letter mentions public concern over site contamination issues and expresses hope that the Council will not authorise Persimmon Homes to build on the site until contamination issues resolved.
Letter confirms fire at the Shell terminal in 1986. It also refers to the defective drain pipe as being "our connecting pipe". This is directly at odds with the denials and attempted buck-passing by Wiseman in earlier correspondence when Wiseman said that the pipe belonged to Thames Water. Mr Files was being economical with the truth when he indicated in his letter that Shell had been the site owner since 1976, yet failed to disclose Shell had been the co-owner of the site for many years earlier, when the activity which involved radioactive material may have occurred. We note that the letter contains admissions of a leaking drainage pipe running across Mr Fox's garden and that contamination levels were above threshold in some areas. When Mr Files referred to "remediation", was he using this term as a preferred alternative to "decontamination"?
In this letter Cllr Swindells mentions a letter from Woodley Social Services recording that Shell had expressed concerns that the children of Mr & Mrs Fox were at risk, the inference being that they were at risk of being harmed due to the action of their parents. This was of course a very serious allegation.
Letter Deputy Town Clerk, Earley Town Council, to Mr & Mrs Ray Fox: 25 February 2000
NHS Primary Health Trust Chief Executive Mike Attwood states: "It is true that your house and garden are contaminated with uranium and plutonium from nuclear reactors." He goes on to claim: "This is a universal phenomenon since the nuclear industry and weeapons tests began to take place." Most of the UK population might find his statement to be rather alarming.
16 March 2004
Dear Mr Fox
Thank you for your email of the 10th March. No, you cannot have copies of the correspondence in question. Since you constantly threaten litigation and indeed on several occasions have engaged firms of solicitors and referred to advice recently taken from American lawyers, the correspondence in question is clearly privileged.
I am afraid you have completely misunderstood the material you have obtained. Shell has never been involved in "atomic" or "nuclear" research at the Thornton site or elsewhere in the U.K. Between 1953 and 1966 it conducted research for the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. The research was only ever concerned with developing lubricants for nuclear power plants. It involved subjecting lubricants to controlled emissions of low-level Gamma radiation in a small secure purpose built laboratory at Thornton. The work was conducted strictly in accordance with the Radio Active Substances Acts of 1948 and 1960 and other relevant legislation. The site was properly registered and regularly inspected. We have nothing to hide - we have never made a secret of this research programme. Indeed, the work was described in the publicly available brochure "50 Years of Thornton Research Centre" which was produced in 1990.
According to the results of tests mentioned in the letter...
The letter goes on to state: -
Shell DEFENCE to Action in the High Court Justice Queens Bench Division Case No. HQ06X01271: BETWEEN: Raymond James Fox & Others (Claimant) And Shell U.K. Limited ( Defendant): 31 May 2006
PERSIMMON HOMES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON AN ALLEGEDLY RADIOACTIVE SITE
Leaflet distributed to households in the area notifying that:
1. Planning permission had been granted for a residential development on the former Shell "petrochemical storage site"
2. "Some" decontamination had been carried out by Shell.
3. The site was still contaminated but the Wokingham District Council did not consider that there was any health risk.
4. There was no evidence to support claims made by an unidentified local resident (Ray Fax).
5. The property developer PERSIMMON HOMES had agreed to have a further decontamination process carried out to deal with "known past use of the site" i.e. as a petrochemical storage site.
Subsequent Notice to Residents from PERSIMMON HOMES
For some reason the housing site developers Persimmon Homes appeared to prefer the term "remediation" to "decontamination" when describing the pending treatment of the radioactively contaminated site previously owned by Shell
Persimmon Homes Decontamination Validation Report, Earley Rise, Reading: February 1999:
By now Ray Fox had kicked up such a commotion that Persimmon Homes actually used the dreaded word: "Decontamination".
The former Shell site has been unsuccessfully "decontaminated" at least three times. It appears that no one involved in the repeated decontamination processes were aware of any nuclear/radioactive past history of the site on which the housing development took place.
RAY FOX RELATED MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC EXPERT REPORTS
Dr. med. Josef Kees Medical Report on Mr Ray Fox: 3 February 1998
Dr. med. Josef Kees Medical Report on Christopher Fox: 4 February 1999
Dr. med. Josef Kees Analysis Results on Mr Ray Fox: 5 February 1998
Test Results by Dr Robert Cass: 3 November 1997
Letter to Ray Fox from Biolab Medical Unit: 21 July 1999
Open Letter from Dr Stephen Hodges, University of Essex: 30 March 2000
Report of Dr K S Badsha MSc CChem MRSC MAE: Soil analysis and preliminary assessment report carried out for the RoyalSunAlliance insurance company: Study Completion Date: 17th May 2002
JUDGMENT BY COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
SHELL EARLEY CONNECTION WITH THE SAUDI ARABIA / AL YAMAMAH BAE ARMS SCANDAL
Witness Statement of Mr Gerald James 1 June 2007 (24 page pdf document, so please be patience, it will take a while to download)
Comment in House of Commons by Vince Camble MP, former Chief Economist of Shell (Debate on the Al-Yamamah BAE Fraud/Corruption controversy and associated money laundering)
7 Feb 2007: Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD):
Al Yamamah 2 Offset Agreement THE AL YAMAMAH ECONOMIC OFFSET PROGRAMME
This Saudi British Bank document contains a reference to the original "Al Yamamah" agreement involving Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems, the UK Ministry of Defence (the MOD), with Shell and BP fulfilling what has been described as a money laundering role in the "oil-for-arms" deal:
The main parties are once again Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems and the MoD. The main "Key" address for "The British Offset Office" stated in the document is the Ministry of Defence in London. Shell is also involved, this time via a subsidiary:
House of Commons Select Committee on International Development: September 2000
Declassified UK Government documents relating to Shell role in Al-Yamamah "oil-for-arms" project (all confidential/secret/restricted documents):
UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) document "SALE OF AIRCRAFT TO SAUDI ARABIA). Includes written confirmation from Minister of Defence Michael Heseltine to "His Royal Highness Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz" of terms for the BAe military planes-for-oil deal:
UK Department of Trade & Industry Minute headed BRITISH AEROSPACE: SAUDI ARABIAN DEAL
Letter to UK HM Treasury headed "SALE OF TORNADO, HAWK AND PC-9 TO SAUDI ARABIA".
From 10 Downing Street (From Charles Powell on behalf of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) to MoD plus MoD Response.
MoD letter to Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) headed "SAUDI ARABIA - MILITARY AIRCRAFT FOR OIL"
Department of Trade & Industry Minute
Export Credits Guarantee Department letter from P Henley to R E Adams at HM Treasury
Export Credits Guarantee Department Minute by P Henley headed "£5BN DEFENCE DEAL WITH SAUDI ARABIA"
Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)
Letter from Peter Walker MP, Secretary of State for Energy, to Rt Hon George Younger MP, Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence
Letter from MoD Head of Defence Export Services, Colin M Chandler, to HRH Prince Sultan bin Adul Aziz Al Saud, under the heading "PROJECT Al YAMAMAH"
Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading "SAUDI ARABIA: DEFENCE DEAL (Tornados) (now called the YAMAMAH PROJECT)
Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)
Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading "SAUDI ARABIA - YAMAMAH PROJECT")
Letter from Department of Energy Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Peter Gregson, to Sir Clive Whitmore, MoD.
Ministry of Defence letter to Department of Energy.
Letter from G T W Jones of HM Treasury to Peter Henley of ECGD under the heading "SAUDI ARABIA: YAMAMAH PROJECT"
Letter from Peter Henley ECGD to T J D Downing at Bank of England under the heading "SAUDI ARABIA; YAMAMAH PROJECT"
Press articles covering Shell involvement in Al-Yamamah corruption scandal
Extract from MEED Middle East Economic Digest article published 17 May 2002 under the headline: Al-Yamamah weathers the changes. (BAE). (Al-Yamamah project remains at the heart of the UK trade drive in Saudi Arabia)
Extract from The Daily Telegraph published 19 August 2006 under the headline: “BAE lands arms deal for a new generation”
Extract from The Times article published on 21 February 2007 under the headline: “Al-Yamamah an echo of 1980s sleaze”
Extract from The Guardian article published on 7 June 2007 under the headline: The al-Yamamah deal “Al-Yamamah is Britain's biggest ever arms deal.
Extract from Financial Times article published 8 June 2007 under the headline: “Barter fund used to pay commissions to middlemen”
Extract from Financial Times article published 2 July 2007 under the headline: Al-Yamamah deal: the Saudi foreign policy connection
Extracts from The Times article published 11 April 2008 headlined: Margaret Thatcher ‘ordered bugging of prince’
Declassified documents from UK National Archive revealing secret dealings of Royal Dutch Shell with the UK Atomic Energy Authority
UNITED KINGDOM ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (UKAEA) DOCUMENT FOLDER CONTAINING DOCUMENTS DECLASSIFIED AT 25 YEAR REVIEW: Handwritten on cover: "SHELL PETROLEUM CO. LTD Heavy Water Access Agreement": "Draft Graphite Access Agreement"
Letter from Shell Chairman Sir Francis Hopwood to Sir Edwin Plowden, Chairman of UKAEA: 17 January 1956: Announces Shell's ambition to broaden the scope of its "research programme in the nuclear field": (see Page 1 & Page 2 below:
UK Atomic Energy Executive internal correspondence: 17 February 1956: Involves Chairman of UKAEE and the Chairman of Shell Transport, Sir Francis Hopwood, concerning visit to Harwell by two members of the Shell Group
Details of discussions and agreements between The Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd and the UKAEA recorded on typewritten note dated 17 February 1956: Subjects included "Isotope Techniques", "Radiation Laboratory Design", "Radiation Chemistry", "Hydrocarbon Moderator and Coolant" and "Ship Propulsion Reactors": The Atomic Energy Research Establishment was represented in the meeting by Sir John Cockcroft, Director of the AERE. (see Page 1 & Page 2 below)
UKAEA internal letter proving further confirmation that the Chairman of the UKAEA and the then Chairman of Shell, Sir Francis Hopwood, were personally involved in the negotiations between the UKAEA and Shell: Concern expressed at the prospect of a Dutch Shell employee attending the next "International Reactor School Course": 23 February 1956
Approach letter from Shell Petroleum Company Limited to the UKAEA concerning "our wish to acquire detailed technical information for the purpose of building a commercial plant for the production of heavy water...": 21 November 1957
NOTE ON AGREEMENT BETWEEN BATAAFSCHE PETROLEUM MAATSCHAPPIJ AND SHELL PETROLEUM CO. LTD: Reveals there are agreements between the Dutch and UK parent companies of Shell "not embodied in formal documents": 18 February 1958 (see Part 1 & Part 2 below)
Shell Thorton Research Centre Report: August 1958: Deals with development of radiation resistant greases for reactor equipment in nuclear power stations (see Page 1 & Page 2 below)
Approach letter from Shell International Chemical Company Limited to U.K. Atomic Energy Authority covering exchange of information on "heavy water": 12 May 1959 (see Page 1 & Page 2 below)
UKAEA internal letter expressing concern about information arising from a proposed Graphite Access Agreement being passed by Shell International Chemical Co Ltd to their associates, in particular Dutch associate company: 29 May 1959
UKAEA internal letter expressing concern about information arising from a proposed Graphite Access Agreement being passed by Shell International Chemical Co Ltd to their "associates, who may be numerous and international": 1 June 1959
Letter from UKAEA to Shell International: Proposed Access Agreement regarding Manufacture of Graphite: 6 August 1959
Extracts from "A CENTURY OF OIL" published in 1997:
Extract from page 247 in reference to the Shell Thornton Research facility near Liverpool:
Thornton's most unusual venture at this time was into radioactivity. This took two forms: the use of radioactive isotopes to monitor wear on piston rings in car engines, and the provision of lubricants for atomic reactors. The latter came about almost by chance, when samples of oil were subjected to radiation from Cobalt-60 to see the effect on the hydrocarbons. What was discovered was that one sample proved impervious to radiation, remaining liquid throughout the experiment. As it happened, a nuclear reactor was being built at Calder Hall in Cumbria, barely 90 miles from Thornton. Lubricating the reactor's graphite moderators was a problem no one had yet satisfactorily answered, but Thornton's fortuitous find was the basis of the solution.
Extracts from pages 311 and 312
The venture into nuclear energy was even less successful - indeed, considerably less so. In the 1950s, when nuclear power began to generate electricity for civilian use, Shell was delighted (as we saw in chapter 13) to gain the contract to supply all the lubricants used in Calder Hall, Britain's first commercial nuclear power station, and proceeded additionally to produce coke of extremely high purity for use in reactors. At the time there was a good deal of concern among shareholders that nuclear power could become a competitor to oil. Lord Godber (Shell Transport's then chairman) dismissed these fears as exaggerated, but a watchful eye was kept on the nuclear industry's development. On 2 April 1958, Shell Transport's Minute Book recorded that 'A paper on Atomic Power was placed before the Board and was the subject of a general discussion.' Less than a year later, on 16 March 1959, John Berkin one of Shell Transport's directors - reviewed for the benefit of his colleagues on the board a 'Memo on Atomic Power ...with particular reference to its cost compared with that of power from conventional fuels.' The wisdom then was the same: there was no foreseeable likelihood of nuclear power even coming close to overtaking oil as a cheap and convenient source of energy. But by the early 1970s that view had changed. A toe was put in the nuclear water with the purchase of a 10% interest in a Dutch company called Ultra-Centrifuge Nederland, part of a British-Dutch-German arrangement for developing the centrifuge method of uranium enrichment; and in 1973 Shell announced its 'first big step into nuclear energy'. In a 50:50 partnership with Gulf Oil, two businesses - General Atomic Company in the United States, and General Atomic International elsewhere - were established to develop, manufacture and market the second-generation High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors (HTGRs) and their fuels.
The initial cost to Shell was $200 million, with all subsequent costs to be shared equally with Gulf. For its money Shell acquired interests in a small 40-megawatt experimental plant in Peach-Bottom, Pennsylvania; a commercial-scale 330-megawatt plant in Colorado; six other larger HTGRs which were on order; and two more on which options had been taken. Nor was that all. HTGR technology was set to be introduced into France and West Germany, and possibly into the UK and Japan; and (as Shell Transport's annual report for 1973 recorded) General Atomic was already working on several other developments, including inter alia an HTGR closed-cycle gas-turbine power plant, a gas-cooled fast breeder reactor, the use of HTGR heat in industry, nuclear fusion research and 'the construction of the largest industrial light-water reactor fuel reprocessing plant in the United States.'
In the annual report there was, with all this, a blissful lack of technical explanation, even in the simplest terms. Probably few shareholders had any clear idea of the differences between types of reactors, or between nuclear fusion and nuclear fission as sources of power; but an annual report is hardly the place to attempt such explanations, and anyway - 0 brave new world! - they may not have wished for elucidation. Especially when set against the worrying and unfamiliar background of high-cost oil, it was enough to feel that their company was, as always, in the vanguard of modern energy supply.
At any time in our lives, we all (or most of us) do the best we can with the knowledge and tools currently available, and to many specialists and non-specialists alike, Shell's entry into the nuclear field seemed a sensible idea. Proponents of nuclear power saw it as the clean, simple, eternally renewable fuel ofthe future, and nuclear fusion (the process at work in the sun) may yet prove to be just that. But the existing method of nuclear power generation (nuclear fission, the principle of the atomic bomb) was already a publicly contentious issue, soon exemplified - long before the much greater disaster at the Russian plant of Chernobyl in 1986 - by the episode at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, when, on 28 March 1979, the cooling system of the plant's No.2 reactor failed and led to a leak and partial melt-down of the uranium core, with radiation detectable over twenty miles away.
Three Mile Island was a great leap backwards for the nascent nuclear industry, hardening feelings that having a nuclear reactor on one's doorstep might not be an unmitigated good. It was followed, moreover, by a ,series of five smaller but similar accidents in the US, which led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission temporarily to cease licensing the construction of new reactors. Although General
Atomic was not involved in any of these, Shell read them as a clear warning and decided there was not enough to be gained from remaining in an industry which was so expensive, so politically vulnerable, and so much the target of public protest. Those factors were quite sufficiently present in the oil industry anyway; one would have to be a glutton for punishment to seek them elsewhere as well. So, resolving to remove itself from active participation in the nuclear industry, Shell sold its interests in both General Atomic companies to Gulf Oil in 1980. Lasting a mere seven years, nuclear energy had been a short and costly byway - one which Shell would not follow again for a very long time, if ever.
A colour photograph on page 312 had the caption: In appearance oddly reminiscent of Shell's pecten logo, the Doublet III experimental nuclear fusion device was developed by General Atomic.
ARTICLES RELATING TO ALLEGED RADIATION POISONING OF RAY FOX BY SHELL
INDYMEDIA UK: TESTS IN POISONED BERKSHIRE SUBURB: 2 January 2002
The Independent: Radioactive house is put up for sale: 14 January 2003
Corporate Watch Newsletter 14 : SHELL SHOCKER: July/August 2003
Daily Telegraph: Exclusion zone: 29 November 2003: