remember having blood tests when I started at Harwell . I wonder how many people were refused based on overall medical unsuitability ? The debate around applying medical criteria for radiation worker suitability has been raised in recent years , but has become too complex to deal with given modern employment law , I think .
What about rejection based on being accident prone ??
( d ) Provision of advisory and monitoring service In any establishment or factory ,
radioactive work may expand to such an extent that the management should consider establishing a central organisation for advisory and monitoring service . This group is usually termed the Health Physics department . It is difficult to define all the duties of a Health Physicist , but it is sufficient to say that it is he who should advise on the design of protective equipment and supervise monitoring and control of radiological hazards .
Responsibility for radiological safety in an area should be vested in one man , preferably the most senior normally present , and he should be given clearly defined and unambiguous terms of reference . At Harwell , such a man is known as the Area Supervisor and co-operation between this person and the Health Physics representative should be at a maximum at all times , so that advice and help is available when required .
Clearly paragraph ( d ) never expected a woman to be anywhere near radioactive material , a designated area , or a job as a Health Physicist ! That doesn ' t surprise me . In my early Harwell years some active facilities had no ladies toilets or change rooms . My colleague Lesley and I had to use the toilets in other office buildings , and we had to use the gents change rooms ..... there was a tannoy announcement every time we turned up to keep the men out . After the novelty wore off , we were not popular !
Radiation Protection Today Autumn 2024
2.2 Responsibilities of the worker It has been mentioned previously
that in the existing nuclear energy establishments the precautions taken are of the most elaborate . Today , workers are satisfied that the risks incurred in pursuit of their labours are no greater , and in many cases less , than those taken in other industries . The workers should realise the extent of services provided by the management and in turn ensure that co-operation is at its fullest at all times .
The worker can do two things that should have a direct bearing on the well being of the establishment . He can first of all familiarise himself with normal operating precautions , know the reasons for them , and learn the actions to be taken in the event of emergencies .
Secondly he should feel himself directly responsible for those workers under him or for new personnel unfamiliar with safety procedures . It is common to find scientists and people in responsible positions who have reasonable regard for the safety of co-workers , but are willing to take chances with regard to their own exposure . This attitude of mind is often the result of a false logic . The worker often knows the necessary protection standard and agrees with it , but argues that to put it into practice would impede his work . People who argue along these lines are quite often the most conscientious workers in their departments whose mission necessitates some calculated risks . To these people it is necessary to emphasise that to take avoidable risks is just plain foolhardy .
I especially like the last paragraph here . I think I came across a few “ plain foolhardy ” people over the years . Also interesting is the perception of how “ satisfied ” staff were with the level of risk compared with other industries !
We would love to hear other stories from readers about health physics in the year they were born . Please send them in to RPToday @ srp-uk . org
23