Before We Jump Down The Rabbit Hole
I want to preface this by saying that the article you are currently reading wasn't what I had in mind when I began. It started as an exploration into the historical background and potential mechanisms of Starlite – a heat-resistant wonder material that could have changed the world. However, it has since evolved into a rather sordid tale.
Like many people, I was captivated by the footage from the 1990 episode of the BBC's 'Tomorrow's World'. Intrigued, I decided to delve deeper and discovered a BBC documentary series by the journalist Lee Johnson.
It was arguably the most authoritative and detailed coverage on the subject. The documentaries feature interviews with surviving relatives, a UCL scientist, Ward’s lawyer, and a former MOD scientific officer who claims to have conducted official tests.
All of this, as you can imagine, is quite convincing, particularly when coupled with the BBC’s relatively strong reputation for factual reporting. So, my assumption was that everything was on the up and up, all claims had been rigorously fact-checked, and all sources had been vetted. However, as you are soon to discover, this was likely not the case.
A Man And His Shed: The Classic Underdog Story
From the early days of Apple to the discovery of ramen, modern history has witnessed countless men and women forge greatness in their sheds.
These instances stick in our minds because everybody likes an underdog story. It's the idea that you don’t need a degree or specialized training to achieve greatness. That beneath it all, just under the surface, lurks an underappreciated brilliance waiting to burst forth.
However, much like the story of Einstein failing math, it isn’t true.
The Life And Times Of Maurice Ward
Maurice Ward, the inventor of Starlite, was known for telling contradictory stories. The following is a separation of the facts, the fiction, and the ambiguous.
Ward is said to have spent the majority of his working life as a hairdresser in Hartlepool, Durham. There are sporadic reports of him setting up a plastics company with his wife. Upon fact-checking this, I found Ashlute Limited, a company whose business categorisation matches the claim; it was formed by Ward and his wife in 1989.
Ward recounts in many interviews, including his own blog, that his inspiration for Starlite came from the Manchester air disaster in 1985 – an accident that led to 55 fatalities, the majority of which occurred as a result of smoke and fume inhalation. Ward's goal was to create a new material that could safely withstand these conditions and prevent future tragedies.
In the BBC documentary series, Keith Lewis, the MOD scientist, said the first version of Starlite was discovered accidentally by Ward while incinerating the waste products of a previous experiment. This anecdotal account, likely relayed by Ward, should be taken with a grain of salt, especially since the concept and mechanics behind Starlite are almost certainly a form of intumescent coating.
Typically, intumescent coatings contain an acid source (usually phosphorus-based), a carbon source, and one or more blowing agents dispersed within a suitable resin system. These coatings usually trigger at around 200°C, forming a carbonaceous melt from the carbon and acid, which is expanded by gases released through the thermal decomposition of the blowing agents. This reaction produces a sponge-structured char that protects the underlying substrate.
Intumescent coatings were not new in 1985; one of the earliest patents I found dates back to 1950. Interestingly, the patent acknowledges that: “…the use of fire-retarding coatings which are intumescent to some extent is not entirely new…”, suggesting that in concept at least, intumescent coatings were a well-known phenomenon even before 1950.
So, if Ward truly started developing Starlite in 1985, he had at least 35 years of open-source information in the form of patents and academic research. It's possible that Ward rediscovered the concept on his own, but I think that is unlikely. At the bare minimum, he would have had to perform some sort of research to determine if he had actually discovered something new.
The TV Demonstration That Captured The World's Imagination
Whatever the truth behind Starlite's origin story, by 1990 the product was finished and ready to be unveiled to the world. Ward, with an undeniable gift for showmanship, decided that the best medium for this would be live television.
In the now-iconic 1990 episode of 'Tomorrow's World,' a blowtorch's heat was directed at a Starlite-coated egg for five minutes. To the crowd’s astonishment, by the timer's end, the scorched side of the egg could be placed flat on the presenter's palm without him showing any signs of discomfort. The spectacle continued as the egg was cracked open, revealing that the insides were still raw, meaning that despite being exposed to temperatures over 2000°C, Starlite had prevented any heat transfer from occurring.
This for pre-internet audiences was both exciting and bewildering. It was like a magic trick crossed with a science experiment.
Nowadays, we can reach into our pockets and Google the scientific concepts behind the trick. We can instantaneously search through patents by typing in keywords. Indeed, a quick search on YouTube will lead you to a video of someone performing the very same feat, using only common household products.
In other words, we can peek behind the curtain and dispel the magic.
What Were The Claims Of Starlite?
You may be wondering why there was, and remains a furore around Starlite. After all, how many uncooked eggs do we need?
Well, the key claim was that this material could withstand and insulate against extreme heat – nuclear detonation levels of heat. Which if true, would be revolutionary in both military and civilian industries.
An intumescent paint with such capabilities could prevent or slow down fires in residential buildings. It could be used to coat missiles, nuclear bunkers, or even Air Force One. Starlite might have even had the potential to reignite NASA’s space program. Indeed, with a technology like this, the sky would be the limit.
So, with the material allegedly tested by everyone from NASA to NATO, and on each occasion producing mind-bending results, you may ask why Starlite didn’t make it to the big time.
Well, the reports seem to coalesce around the idea that Ward wanted too much money, seeking remuneration not in the millions but in the billions. He was also said to be too secretive. Ward had stated publicly that he was unwilling to divulge anything about the constituent ingredients in Starlite. For potential investors, this was a non-starter; there was no way they were going to put up any kind of capital when there was the risk that Starlite could be ‘asbestos 2.0.’ More than that, they had no way of determining if Starlite was even profitable.
Chasing Starlite Into Black Holes And Revelations
Although the reports seemed plausible, a question kept nagging at me. It’s been over thirty years; why haven’t we seen another material resembling Starlite’s alleged properties? Let’s face it – if you, by some stroke of genius, invent an advanced technology with any sort of revolutionary military application, the government is not taking ‘no’ for an answer.
The claim that NATO, NASA, and other government organisations tested Starlite, were astounded by the results, and then simply walked away didn’t ring true.
My cynical senses tingled.
But surely, all the journalists involved in the litany of articles on the subject fact-checked their reporting?
The 'NASA' Claim
Summarised most effectively by a direct quote from a Telegraph article: “NASA publicly raved about its potential, with spokesman Rudi Narangor revealing that 'We have done a lot of evaluation and … we know all the tremendous possibilities that this material has.'”
From what I can deduce, the claim stems from an NBC Dateline episode. However, in the episode the NASA program manager actually says: "Any place where there is heat it'll have applications...".
So, why the discrepancy? I suspect that NASA became aware of Starlite either through the Janes article or NBC and consequently agreed to give an interview discussing the potential applications based on the data they were presented with.
To fact-check this further, I used MuckRock, a non-profit public resource that holds a database of US government documents and freedom of information requests. It is affiliated with multiple accredited journalistic institutions, making it a reliable source.
The first myth in the Telegraph article is the typo; the engineer's name was actually “Rosendo ‘Rudy’ Naranjo”. The second was Naranjo’s connection to Starlite. In an existing FOIA request, NASA stated: “A thorough search was conducted... and no emails from Rosendo “Rudy” Naranjo produced during the requested timeframe (1993 – 2001), or any other time period were located…”. In other words, no cigar.
But there's more. Starlite Technologies was a 'company' that, according to their website, was co-founded by none other than Ward's daughter, Nicky Ward McDermott. Although the website no longer exists, the pages can still be accessed through the Internet Archive. It's worth mentioning that I could find no reference to the company's existence in government records in either the UK or the US – but more on that later.
One of the pages on the website features a 'NASA' document claimed to have been written by Naranjo and forwarded to Ward.
Now, this is clearly a fake, and a bad one at that. Firstly, the 's' in 'Aeronautics' is missing. Secondly, the NASA meatball logo is incorrect. Thirdly, both the font and the format differ significantly from the standards set by NASA. Below is an actual example of a NASA template, so you can play 'spot the difference':
I suspect that the ‘NASA claim’ was something Ward concocted after watching the Dateline interview, which he, or perhaps someone else, embellished over the years, ultimately resulting in the production of a fake document that nobody bothered to fact-check.
The 'NATO' Claim
The next two claims I fact-checked are mentioned in the BBC Documentary. It states that tests were conducted at The White Sands Range in New Mexico and at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) facility in Foulness.
With the White Sands testing set to have taken place in America, I again searched MuckRock and found another FOIA requesting: "all reports, memos, and/or email records relevant to the June 1991 testing of Starlite at White Sands Missile Range, a simulated nuclear blast test conducted in partnership with the United Kingdom's Special Air Service (SAS)." The US Department of Defense responded, stating they had: "completed a search of documents and found no records".
Now, you might believe that the AWE claim would hold up. After all, they had Keith Lewis, a retired MOD scientist, describe these tests in some detail. But you would be wrong.
Don’t believe me? Visit the AWE's official website, look through the existing FOI requests, and you'll find one about Starlite. In the request, it is asked whether the AWE can confirm if it conducted tests on the material. So as to ensure no ambiguity, a link to Thermashield's website – another company alleged to have purchased the recipe from Ward's family and featured in the documentary – was provided. Their response was unequivocal: “…we can confirm that the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) did not carry out any tests on the material…and does not hold any relevant information.”
So, all in all a bit of a whoopsie for the BBC. Unless of course they have the evidence to disprove two major government agencies. Which they might, but since the BBC didn’t publish their sources alongside the documentary, I can’t fact-check them.
Of course, there may remain those who don the tin foil atop their heads. They may say, ‘of course the government agencies had to say that, it's classified!’
To which my rebuttal would be, were that the case you wouldn't be able to report on it. And you sure as hell wouldn’t be able to have a former MOD scientist go on the BBC and explain in detail how testing was conducted.
The 'RSRE' Claim
A claim summarised again by a quote from the Telegraph: “In tests at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment in Malvern, Starlite was pulsed with lasers that would normally have burned through polymer…as Pohling-Brown reported…in 1993”. However, the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) ceased to exist in 1991, after merging with DERA – which was subsequently divided in 2001.
I mean, it’s possible that the very last thing the RSRE did in 1991 was to test Starlite, and that Pohling-Brown chose to wait over two years to write an article about it, but it seems unlikely. I tried to track down the original article, and even with the Internet Archive, the only version I could find was on Maurice Ward’s old website. So, did the article really exist, or is this another ‘NASA’ letter?
Other Problems With The BBC Documentary
The documentary features an interview with Mark Miodownik, a materials scientist from University College London. He reportedly tested Starlite first-hand, using a sample provided by Ward’s family after his death.
Miodownik presented recordings of the test and gleefully recounted his amazement at the material’s properties. This is surprising because he’s describing an intumescent paint – a product that has been commercially available since at least 1950.
The actual data from Miodownik’s tests were neither shown nor explained, which I find bizarre, given that this is Miodownik’s area of expertise. Surely, he would be one of the most qualified individuals to clarify the material’s effectiveness compared to other intumescent paints available on the market.
It’s possible that Miodownik did outline his data and provide a fact-based comparison, but the BBC may have omitted it for editorial reasons. However, such an omission would be strange in a science documentary.
Starlite 2, Electric Boogaloo: The Thermashield Story
Ward is reported to have died in 2011, leaving the recipe for Starlite in the hands of his family, who, after 23 years, appear to have cashed out.
In 2013, a California-based material science ‘company’ named Thermashield LLC announced that they had purchased Ward’s handwritten notes and withdrawn patent applications, giving them the ability to produce their own version of Starlite — or so they claim.
On their website, they state: “Our own Starlite samples have undergone rigorous testing, including compliance with ASTM standards and high-powered laser tests conducted at a prestigious U.S. research institution.”
It seemed strange to me that one would take the time to have a 'revolutionary material' tested at a ‘prestigious’ institution and not name it.
I combed through their website for claims I could fact-check and stumbled upon their testimonial page.
The page quotes the NASA engineer Rosendo Naranjo. It appears Thermashield, unlike the Telegraph, managed to spell his name correctly – kudos to them. However, Naranjo died in 2011 two years before Thermashield bought Starlite. So, unless this testimony is channelled from beyond the grave, I think it’s pretty unlikely to be true.
Another quote on this page references the Sierra Nevada Corporation which is a large, reputable, and acclaimed company. Dubious that such a company would have ties to Thermashield, I did a search on their website for the key terms ‘Starlite’ and ‘Thermashield’ and shockingly, yielded no results.
Thermashield does not provide a company number anywhere on its website, which seemed odd. I investigated further by accessing the California state business records and searched for the terms ‘Thermashield LLC’ and the name of the CEO ‘Rafael Silva’, but no results were returned. The only hit I got was for a ‘Thermashield inc’, suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) in 1985. Had Thermashield LLC been active or existed at any point in California, I should have found it.
Update: After speaking with Thermashield LLC, it appears that they are in fact registered in Delaware. We have verified their existence in the Delaware business records and are currently investigating the company’s period of activity, as well as examining other publicly available records. We had believed Thermashield LLC to be in California as a result of the interview on the BBC where Silva states: "We are in California"
A Case Of Bad Journalism?
The BBC is typically a reliable and factual source of information; it’s gravely unfortunate that this documentary series contains such a significant number of potential errors.
To be clear, the fact checking I conducted was not an overly laborious process; the information was readily available. Really and truly any journalist worth their salt should have uncovered this within a day.
I’m not doubting Ward made a run of the mill intumescent paint; we saw it live on Tomorrow’s World. What I am questioning is all his other claims. As far as I am concerned this is not an agree to disagree kind of situation, my doubts are affirmed with no small amount of evidence.
The big bone of contention for me from a journalistic point of view isn’t so much the one-off individual articles, written hastily to meet a deadline; it’s the documentaries by the BBC.
You see, a documentary to me means the clear presentation of well-researched, and established facts. On the occasions where ideas are in dispute or facts are contested it should be made abundantly clear, especially in a science-oriented documentary.
The antithesis of this is having a former MOD scientist describe tests that, according to the AWE, didn’t happen.
These documentaries weren’t made in a day; the first one was published in 2018 with a follow up in 2021 – they had time to fact-check themselves. They can argue FOI’s weren’t available at the time of filming but to me that argument is unconvincing. As journalists and documentary filmmakers, there is an obligation to perform due diligence, and that begins by asking relevant institutions whether or not the events you are reporting on actually happened.
The consequences of not doing this are platforming, and by extension, generating an interest in a technology that is likely fraudulent. Our fact-checking strongly suggests that many of the alleged tests did not occur. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the product is likely at best, not as advertised.
The Ramifications
Something that caught my attention in the documentary was a statement by Lee Johnson: ”Now we heard about a US company, Thermashield, through Keith Lewis”. It seems innocuous enough, but how and why would Mr. Lewis know about Thermashield?
It made me wonder how two companies – Thermashield LLC and Starlite Technologies – managed to operate without selling a product, having, at least in the case of Thermashield, allegedly spent money just to acquire the recipe. We already know that neither entity had company numbers listed on their websites, and a search for Starlite Technologies in both US or UK company records yielded no results. The uncomfortable question this leads to is: where is the money coming from, and where is it going?
In the case of the now-defunct company Starlite Technologies, the answer could be inferred. Using the Internet Archive, I searched the company's site map (a list of all pages in the website) and found a link to a GoFundMe page, which, from our research, existed from 2018-2019 – during and shortly after the period of the BBC documentary’s release.
Unfortunately, the GoFundMe page hasn’t been archived, so I can’t provide the exact amount they raised. However, I can report that by the end of the 2019 period, the Starlite Technologies webpage had received at least 6,832 views. This figure does not include the engagement from the Facebook group, which they also advertise on their website.
You may believe that Chris Bennet, the ‘CEO’ of the company, had no actual ties to Ward; however, a previous website operational from 2004-2007 lists both Chris Bennet and Maurice Ward as owners.
In the case of Thermashield – which remains active to this day – while the BBC did not go as far as to directly endorse Starlite, it did broadcast both a statement and an interview from them in which the CEO Rafael Silva says: “at this point we’re looking for the expertise and the capital”.
Thermashield, as far as we could find, doesn’t have a GoFundMe-type page. However, their website does include a section on how to invest:
Now, it’s possible that the company isn’t ready for investors, as the wording might suggest, and is simply compiling a list of contacts for when the time is right. But this seems a little contradictory; after all, why would the CEO go on the BBC and say he’s looking for investment if he isn’t?
Should it emerge that people invested money into the idea of Starlite and the companies mentioned, and if both the entity and the idea prove to be disingenuous, one might question whether the BBC bears some responsibility.
After all, the crowd-funding page for Starlite Technologies was created concurrently with the airing of the first documentary, which seems more than coincidental. The BBC also broadcast Silva’s interview in the follow-up documentary in which Silva announced his search for investors.
Indeed, a quick look at the bottom of Thermashield’s testimonial page reveals the documentary proudly displayed, suggesting that, at least in Thermashield’s view, the documentary was an endorsement – a point which is hard to argue with, as it seemed to fail to challenge or investigate the claims.
When all these events and components are considered alongside the cult-like status of Starlite and the gullibility of people, it paints an ominous picture – one that an organisation like the BBC should have anticipated.
Now, all this might be disproved by some eleventh-hour document that has yet to surface, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
How We Will Follow Up
We don’t believe that the story should end here. As such, we intend to reach out and follow up with the individuals and organisations involved. We will publish our submitted inquiries followed by the responses to ensure full transparency. The information will be published in a separate article.
Our Sources:
How Starlite was first broadcast on Tomorrow's World - BBC Reel
Starlite, the nuclear blast-defying plastic that could change the world (telegraph.co.uk)
Maurice Ward: Hello One and All (mauricewardstarlite.blogspot.com)
Service held to mark 1985 Manchester air disaster - BBC News
The substance that 'can withstand 75 nuclear blasts' - BBC Reel
Science Behind It: Intumescent Coatings on Steel | CoatingsPro Magazine
History of a Lost Supermaterial & How To Make It (Starlite Part 2) - YouTube
Documents related to the fire-resistant material "Starlite" • MuckRock
Rosendo ‘Rudy’ Naranjo, aerospace engineer - The Washington Post
How does the 'wonder material' Starlite actually work? - BBC Reel
Testing of thermal barrier technology ("Starlite") at ATEC facilities • MuckRock
ASHLUTE LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk)
div-class-title-wish-upon-a-starlite-div.pdf (cambridge.org)
About - Thermashield, fireproofing solutions (starlitethermashield.com)
Awards & Recognition - Sierra Nevada Corporation | SNC (sncorp.com)
What's inside this potentially world-changing material? - BBC Reel
The wonder material that 'protects against nuclear blasts' - BBC Reel
Home - Thermashield, fireproofing solutions (starlitethermashield.com)
Testimonials - Thermashield, fireproofing solutions (starlitethermashield.com)
Comments