Letter: Radiation safety needs tightening
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leading article 'Industrial safety affects us all' (9 May) implies that the system of regulation for industrial radiographers is inadequate. This is not the case. The strict framework of regulation which applies to the nuclear industry applies equally to them. All employers must ensure that exposures to ionising radiation are kept as low as reasonably practicable and do not exceed statutory dose limits. In general, persons who work as industrial radiographers are subject to medical surveillance and provided with routine assessments of the radiation dosages they receive.
Generally there has been a sustained reduction in doses since the mid-1980s, demonstrating the effectiveness of the regulatory system. However, we accept the need for greater efforts in the industrial radiography sector, since there had been no equivalent downward trend in this sector.
We have acted on this evidence and in March 1994 published an information sheet aimed at managers of industrial radiography companies and their clients. This highlighted the risks involved and the importance of adequate control of the work. Your article of 9 May drew on the press release which accompanied it but did not refer to the guidance.
Sustained efforts are needed to achieve a reduction in the doses received by industrial radiographers. But the horrendous case of Mr Neilson is, thankfully, quite exceptional. Our investigations have not enabled us to determine how and when he could have received such a very high exposure to ionising radiation. Sadly, a number of questions remained unanswered.
Yours faithfully,
D. C. T. EVES
Deputy Director General
Health and Safety Executive
London, W2
11 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments