Britain holds hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of lethal radioactive waste. The stockpile of plutonium alone totals 4300 cubic metres. More than once plutonium has been known to go missing from Sellafield. But very rarely is plutonium found again.
So what happens when anomolous levels of plutonium are discovered in a back garden in suburban middle England, apparently having escaped from a site owned by a well-known multinational with documented links to the nuclear industry? Answer: absolutely nothing
Raymond Fox's life has been wrecked by chemical and radioactive pollution leaking from a former Shell petrochemicals depot behind his old home in Earley, Reading [1]. Since being made critically ill by the pollution, three surveys of the property have been conducted by independent scientists. Two were conducted by Dr Kartar Badsha on behalf of Fox's insurers, Royal Sun Alliance and one by Dr Chris Busby of the Low-Level Radiation Campaign. All three investigations found raised levels of radioactive contaminants, far in excess of background levels. Although well below national safety limits, both scientists considered them major long term health hazards and recommended a full investigation of the area in order to find the source of the pollution. Fox's own investigations indicate that nuclear materials were stored on the site, possibly including a small reactor, and that the site caught fire in 1986, distributing radioactive materials across the area.
Fearful of a cover up Fox has imposed a condition on the Environment Agency's testing of his land: that each sample should be split in two, with one going for independent analysis. The Agency refused this condition and had their consultants Harwell Scientifics, test the garden next door. This test found only normal background levels of radioactivity. On this evidence DEFRA (the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) decided to do nothing.
A Clandestine Meeting
With the backing of Caroline Lucas MEP, Fox had hoped that the European Commission would be able to help him. However the European investigation was moved from the Directorate General for the Environment, to that for Energy, which has quietly dropped his case. They seem to be using it as little more than a bargaining piece to pressure the UK government into implementing parts of the 'Euratom' radiation treaty that should have been ratified into British law many years ago. Whilst Corporate Watch was investigating the case last summer, the Commission and DEFRA were holding a meeting regarding the case. The Commission was not satisfied with DEFRA's report on the matter due to the discrepancies between the data in the Environment Agency's survey and those conducted by independent scientists. So the commission sent experts to meet with representatives of DEFRA. The DEFRA team was Chris Wilson, Steve Allen and Fiona Shand. Corporate Watch attempted to interview Wilson and Shand in August of 2004. Both of them refused. Shand claimed then that she knew very little about the case. Ultimately the August 19th meeting concluded that Fox's case was 'unsubstantiated', and that the 'results of the different analyses were not completely concordant (e.g. regarding the isotopic ratios of some radionuclides), due to differences between measurement methods.' After two letters of inquiry as to progress with the case, Commissioner Piebalgs finally informed Caroline Lucas of the meeting and its outcome on 2nd February 2005. More Unanswered Questions
Corporate Watch approached DEFRA and Piebalg's office in April 2005 to ask why no one was informed of the meeting for so very long, and why Fox and others were not asked to attend it or given any input to it. DEFRA simply replied that it was because it was a 'technical' meeting. The Commission, on the other hand, took over three weeks to answer and told us that Fox, Busby, Badsha and Lucas had not been informed of the meeting because it did not directly concern the Fox's case. We got back in touch with the Commission to ask how this could be, when Commissioner Piebalgs himself had told Lucas, in his February letter, that the meeting concerned the discrepancies in the survey data from Fox's garden and apparently provided their reason to drop the case. Although an answer has been promised several times, at the time of writing they have yet to reply. Spokeswoman Marilyn Carruthers refused to comment on the case by telephone. Dr Chris Busby, one of the two scientists to test Fox's land, has a different explanation of the data: 'The differences,' he says, 'were due to the fact that the measurements showing the anomolous high plutonium levels and strange isotope ratios were made on Mr Fox's property and the ones that were made by the Environment Agency were made somewhere else... What would Mr Piebalgs say if the reactor collapsed next week and concentrations of Cobalt-60 or Plutonium-239 in the Thames began suddenly to rise, contaminating millions...?' he added. Legal Liabilities
Fox continues his struggle through the courts. His adviser told us that the case should have been referred to the European Court of Justice when Ray first went to court in 1999. Under the Nuclear Installations Act, he said, UK courts have no jurisdiction in dealing with any claim for damage from radioactive contamination causing personal injury and property damage. Under the Brussels Convention (supplementary to the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy) twelve European governments contribute to a fund to compensate 'if a nuclear incident were to cause damage totalling more than... approximately £150 million'. Fox argues that damages to himself, his family and property, and to many hundreds or thousands of others in the surrounding area would certainly exceed £150 million and would set a precedent for many more claims. This may explain the European Commission's reluctance to properly investigate.
[1] see Corporate Watch Newsletters 11, 14, 16 & 20
With the backing of Caroline Lucas MEP, Fox had hoped that the European Commission would be able to help him. However the European investigation was moved from the Directorate General for the Environment, to that for Energy, which has quietly dropped his case. They seem to be using it as little more than a bargaining piece to pressure the UK government into implementing parts of the 'Euratom' radiation treaty that should have been ratified into British law many years ago. Whilst Corporate Watch was investigating the case last summer, the Commission and DEFRA were holding a meeting regarding the case. The Commission was not satisfied with DEFRA's report on the matter due to the discrepancies between the data in the Environment Agency's survey and those conducted by independent scientists. So the commission sent experts to meet with representatives of DEFRA. The DEFRA team was Chris Wilson, Steve Allen and Fiona Shand. Corporate Watch attempted to interview Wilson and Shand in August of 2004. Both of them refused. Shand claimed then that she knew very little about the case. Ultimately the August 19th meeting concluded that Fox's case was 'unsubstantiated', and that the 'results of the different analyses were not completely concordant (e.g. regarding the isotopic ratios of some radionuclides), due to differences between measurement methods.' After two letters of inquiry as to progress with the case, Commissioner Piebalgs finally informed Caroline Lucas of the meeting and its outcome on 2nd February 2005. More Unanswered Questions
Corporate Watch approached DEFRA and Piebalg's office in April 2005 to ask why no one was informed of the meeting for so very long, and why Fox and others were not asked to attend it or given any input to it. DEFRA simply replied that it was because it was a 'technical' meeting. The Commission, on the other hand, took over three weeks to answer and told us that Fox, Busby, Badsha and Lucas had not been informed of the meeting because it did not directly concern the Fox's case. We got back in touch with the Commission to ask how this could be, when Commissioner Piebalgs himself had told Lucas, in his February letter, that the meeting concerned the discrepancies in the survey data from Fox's garden and apparently provided their reason to drop the case. Although an answer has been promised several times, at the time of writing they have yet to reply. Spokeswoman Marilyn Carruthers refused to comment on the case by telephone. Dr Chris Busby, one of the two scientists to test Fox's land, has a different explanation of the data: 'The differences,' he says, 'were due to the fact that the measurements showing the anomolous high plutonium levels and strange isotope ratios were made on Mr Fox's property and the ones that were made by the Environment Agency were made somewhere else... What would Mr Piebalgs say if the reactor collapsed next week and concentrations of Cobalt-60 or Plutonium-239 in the Thames began suddenly to rise, contaminating millions...?' he added. Legal Liabilities
Fox continues his struggle through the courts. His adviser told us that the case should have been referred to the European Court of Justice when Ray first went to court in 1999. Under the Nuclear Installations Act, he said, UK courts have no jurisdiction in dealing with any claim for damage from radioactive contamination causing personal injury and property damage. Under the Brussels Convention (supplementary to the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy) twelve European governments contribute to a fund to compensate 'if a nuclear incident were to cause damage totalling more than... approximately £150 million'. Fox argues that damages to himself, his family and property, and to many hundreds or thousands of others in the surrounding area would certainly exceed £150 million and would set a precedent for many more claims. This may explain the European Commission's reluctance to properly investigate.
[1] see Corporate Watch Newsletters 11, 14, 16 & 20