Martin Salter MP                                                                         

413 Oxford Road                                                                        


RG30 1HA                                                                                    

15 January 2009

Dear Mr Salter

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 19 December 2008.

It should have been plain from the opening part of my letter to MP's that I am well aware of the Parliamentary convention to which you refer. Indeed, I drew attention to this issue at the outset of my letter when I pointed out that radioactive contamination does not recognise artificial boundaries.   

I took the decision to write to all MP's because firstly I believe that the importance of the subject transcends any such convention and secondly, because I was dissatisfied by the way you dealt with these matters when I contacted you previously.

You say that the convention is "universally observed".  I have reply letters and emails, which prove otherwise. Indeed, I have received support for the call for Shell to fund research into whether there is a buried nuclear reactor underneath the former Shell Earley terminal.  

As you may recall, you did write to the Department of Trade and Industry in 2003 on this matter.  Brian Wilson MP, the Minister of State for Energy & Construction, stated in a letter to you dated 30 May 2003:  

"The Environment Agency has on several occasions investigated Mr Fox's principal allegation and has concluded that the property at Earley presents no health concern due to radioactivity. "  

Given the importance to the local population in terms of health issues and property values, this was a totally unsatisfactory reply but was apparently acceptable to you. What investigations were carried out? When did this happen?  Where precisely did it happen? Who carried out the research? What type of research was it? Did it involve checking the level of radioactivity?  Did an independent expert carry out the research?  Where are the results? Did you not notice that there was no actual denial of radioactivity, but instead the comment that "Earley presents no health concern due to radioactivity"? Who made that important judgment? I think the public is entitled to know, as indeed am I, being a victim of the radioactive poisoning.

Since the agency is hardly an impartial party bearing in mind the prospect of compensation claims arising from non-compliance with EU law and negligence in properly investigating this matter, any research results carried out at the behest of the department should have been publicly disclosed.  

We would then perhaps know the answers to the above legitimate questions. We would be able to see the results of any tests on the level of radioactivity and have them analysed by an independent expert. As it is, there is just a predicable blanket fobbing off denial (cover-up?) from one of your colleagues without any supporting evidence or information.   

The findings of the only known independent research on radioactivity levels (carried out for the BBC by Dr Chris Busby) were shocking.

Speaking of impartiality, I am well aware of the controversy caused by your leader Gordon Brown, the unelected Prime Minister, offering to provide military help to the Nigerian security forces to defend the interests of Royal Dutch Shell.  Corrupt Nigerian authorities continue to work closely with the evil oil giant despite Shell's track record of fuelling violence and hellish pollution in Nigeria.  

The Independent: Brown's African misadventure  

Recent BBC Documentary: Fighting for Nigeria's oil wealth


The majority of your latest letter is devoted to ticking me off in relation to Parliamentary convention. You used just five words - "I have noted your concerns" - to deal with the subject of my letter and its content (the extensive highly alarming information and evidence published on the website rayfox.info)

It seems reasonable to conclude from your pathetic reply that you have no intention of taking any action on the matter.  Neither is there the slightest hint of any compassion for the life threatening ill health I and my family have suffered from radioactive poisoning, as confirmed by independent doctors. after being refused medical care in the UK and then made homeless for which I brought to your attention and you simply ignored.

Based on my previous and current experience of contacting you for help on a matter of great importance to the local population, quite frankly, I am of the opinion that you should be ashamed of yourself. You are a disgrace as an MP and a hypocrite bearing in mind the claims you make on your website.  

Mr Salter, you have left yourself in an exposed position. Research into these matters is ongoing and further surprising revelations about Shells deep involvement in the nuclear industry emerged only days ago.  This whole matter is a ticking time bomb.  Your role is on the record.

If for some undeclared reason you do not wish to carry out your duty to represent me as one of your constituents, please pass on the file to my former MP, John Redwood, bearing in mind that Earley is in his constituency.

Please consider this communication as being a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Action covering freedom of information. Please supply me with any correspondence held by you in which I am named. This includes correspondence with government departments and other Members of Parliament.  I will willingly pay the appropriate SAR fee if required, out of my meagre benefits although I understand from the House of Commons website that such fees are normally waived by MP's.  

Finally, I attach a self-explanatory copy of a letter being distributed to local residents living on or near land once occupied by the former Shell terminal at Earley.

Yours sincerely
Ray Fox



SUBJECT: Alleged radioactive contamination from the former Shell Terminal at Earl

Dear Resident

I am writing to you in my capacity as the editor of a non-commercial website focused on the activities of the Royal Dutch Shell Group.

The One World Trust, an independent organisation linked to the Houses of Parliament and the United Nations, has publicly applauded our role in holding Royal Dutch Shell to account for its actions.

As you may be aware, a number of TV and Radio programmes and newspaper articles have raised the issue of a possible radioactive contamination problem arising from an alleged buried nuclear bunker at the former Shell Petrochemical Terminal at Early. The BBC commissioned independent research carried out by a leading radiation scientist, Dr Chris Busby. The results were alarming.

It appears from our inquiries that basically there are two sides to the debate. All parties potentially liable if it turns out that radioactive contamination from the Shell Terminal has created grounds for legal action, say there is no radioactivity above normal background level. Independent experts take a different view, with tests by Dr Busby revealing "some of the highest levels of plutonium and uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain".

I sent a draft article on this matter to Shell on 11 November 2008. I also supplied links to many documents, reports, video and other relevant information. This resulted in extensive email correspondence with Mr Richard Wiseman, a barrister and former Legal Director of Shell UK, who is now a General Counsel and Chief Ethical and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.  Mr Wiseman eventually advanced the theory that the radioactive contamination could have resulted from the hypothetical disposal of a smoke detector. I pointed out that Dr Busby had indicated that the radioactive contamination had a unique fingerprint that could only have come from a nuclear source, such as a nuclear reactor or nuclear bomb.  

Mr Wiseman did give me a categorical written assurance that no nuclear bunker is buried under the former Shell terminal on which the homes in Amber Close were built. I am sure he is absolutely sincere in hi
s denial. Normally such a categorical statement from such a high level source could be accepted and put an end to the matter.  

The problem here is that Shell executives sometimes deliberately keep in-house lawyers in the dark about highly sensitive matters (in this case involving classified information). It was clear from an article published by The Independent on 10 May 2004 that Shell's in-house army of over 600 lawyers, including Mr Wiseman, were kept in the dark about a multibillion dollar securities fraud perpetrated by senior Shell executives.

The fraud cost Shell shareholders a combined total of about $850 MILLION USD in fines from the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission and the UK Financial Services Authority, class action settlements and associated legal costs. A number of Shell executives, including the Shell Group Chairman, Sir Phillip Watts, were forced to resign, but still received fat cat payoffs to keep them sweet, reportedly $18.5 million in the case of Sir Phillip.  


Mr Wiseman's written assurance is also undermined by the content of a draft email sent by Mr Wiseman to his colleagues for consultation and clearance immediately before his reply. We were supplied with a copy from a third party. Wiseman has confirmed the authenticity of the draft email. It contained an admission about radioactive contamination, which was removed from the email actually sent in reply.

In regard to ethical considerations, you need to be aware that there is a significant dark side to Shell stretching back many decades. It includes support for Hitler and the Nazi party.  Royal Dutch Shell Director General, Sir Henri Deterding, alleged to have financed the Nazi party, spent 4 days as a guest of Adolf Hitler at Hitler's mountain retreat, the Eagles Nest in Berchtesgaden.

Shell's more recent track record includes a leadership role in an illegal cartel for which the company received another huge fine. Only a few years ago it admitted using undercover activity in sinister missions directed at Greenpeace and other organisations. Mr Wiseman has himself admitted in writing Shell's use of another agent who was caught red-handed using fake documents and a fake company on behalf of Shell.

The glossy advertising campaigns can also be deceptive. Shell was recently fined by the UK and Dutch Advertising Authorities for "greenwash" which involved an advert showing flowers rising from its refinery chimneys, when it fact, the company has attracted multimillion fines for deadly release of toxic substances into the air and into groundwater.

A racketeering trial is commencing against Shell in February in the USA. The case relates to alleged serious crimes against the Ogoni people in Nigeria where Shell has an atrocious human rights record after plundering natural resources and polluting the environment. The Nigeria hero and peace campaigner, Ken Saro-Wiwa, was murdered by a corrupt military regime, which was supported by Shell.

What it boils down to is that contrary to the nostalgic message in a Bing Crosby jingle performed in a classic Shell TV commercial, you cannot be sure of Shell.

Inquiries have revealed two possible sources of radioactive contamination at Earley. We have already mentioned the alleged buried nuclear bunker. In this connection, declassified correspondence and agreements between Shell and the UK Atomic Energy Authority confirm that contrary to information given by Mr Wiseman in 2004, Shell's involvement in nuclear matters is far greater than he indicated.

Declassified UK Ministry of Defence documents and other evidence indicate an entirely different source for the radioactive contamination. They confirm that Shell was involved in what has been described as a money-laundering role in the BAE Al Yamamah "oil-for-arms" scandal involving the sale of fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. There is also credible evidence that more arms, including nuclear weapons, were shipped from the Earley Terminal to Iran and Iraq.

There may of course be top-secret documents that have not been declassified because of long-term sensitivity. This would likely apply in the case of any secret project involving long term radiation emissions.  

Since Shell is not short of funds given its windfall multibillion-dollar profits in the last 18 months or so from high oil prices, I suggested to Shell that it should fund research to establish once and for all if there is a buried nuclear bunker.

This is important because there is a vast difference between a buried nuclear bunker from which radioactive contamination could potentially cause a problem for many decades, compared with radioactive contamination stemming from a transient source which may have emitted radiation for a short time at the terminal many years ago.  

Obviously while this uncertainly remains, the local population is likely to be justifiably worried about health implications and the possible impact on house prices.

If you want to read more including the initial and follow-up articles, the declassified documents, various medical and scientific reports, plus my recent extensive correspondence with Shell, visit www.rayfox.info

This letter is published on the site with working links to cited information.

Shell has had advance sight of this letter and therefore the opportunity to obtain an injunction if anything stated as fact is untrue. The fact that you are reading it now is proof that Shell has not legally challenged the veracity of the content. It also means that Shell refused to fund the independent research needed to eliminate the buried nuclear bunker allegation.

I want to make it plain that I have no personal opinion about the alleged radioactive contamination because I have no expertise whatsoever in such matters. However, if I lived in your area and was aware of the allegations stemming from the findings of experts such as Dr Busby and Dr Karta Badsha, I would press Shell to fund an independent investigation so as to put my mind at rest.

If you would like to ask Shell to reconsider the matter, I suggest that you send a letter or email to Mr Wiseman.

Mr Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer

Royal Dutch Shell plc

Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com

If you or any family member has suffered from any illness, which may stem from radiation poisoning, pleas let me know. My email address is john@shellnews.net

In December Ray Fox sent an email to over 600 MP's. He received support for the call for Shell to fund research. The extraordinary subsequent correspondence with Ray's constituency MP, Martin Salter, can also be viewed on rayfox.info

Yours faithfully

John Donovan


International publications such as the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times turn to us for inside information about Shell. For example, we put the FT in contact with our network of Shell sources in relation to recent FT articles about Shell, including one about the high rate of Shell employee deaths compared with all of its peers.  Shell is known for its "Touch F*** All" culture giving a higher priority to North Sea Platform production and profits than the safety of Shell offshore workers.

We supplied to the World Wildlife Fund, whistleblower evidence about alleged corruption and environmental impact relating to the formally Shell led Sakhalin-2 project in Russia. Information naming us as the conduit for the whistleblower information can be found on the House of Commons website.


Shell lost its majority share in the project at a cost of many billions of dollars as a result of our intervention.

More information about our website can be found on the Wikipedia article: