[meteorite-list] [Fwd: UK museum gets in trouble for displaying Radioactive Rocks]

From: E.L.Jones <jonee_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 09:41:11 2004
Message-ID: <3A916F21.10A9C316_at_epix.net>

IS this what you are talking about--vis a vis meteorites? The issue, I believe,
was the display of radioactive ores/minerals and safe BUT over advertised levels.

And as always, the press and government have gone overboard on an issue that has
far more emotive value than genuine health concerns...over reaction is an
understatement. As I have posted before... there is more radioactive potassium40
in a half cup of Brazil nuts than the daily maximum exposure for US Nuclear
Industry Workers.... It is all relative.

Elton
PS For those in the know...what is a "conditional discharge"?
"E.L.Jones" wrote:

> FYI, Elton
>
> Repost from Rockhounds
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:15:13 -0800
> From: David Guin <dguin_at_earthlink.net>
> Subject: Radioactive Rocks in UK
>
> <http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/02/16/museum.radioactive/index.html>
>
> Museum guilty over radioactive rocks
>
> February 16, 2001
> Web posted at: 2145 GMT
>
> LONDON, England -- One of the UK's top museums has been
> given a conditional discharge for displaying radioactive rocks.
>
> London Blackfriars Crown Court heard that rocks on display
> at the National History Museum contained radiation 60 times
> the level they should have been.
>
> The museum's 12 trustees admitted one breach of the Health
> and Safety at Work Act and two of the Ionising Radiation
> Regulations between January 1990 and October 1999.
>
> Judge John Samuels QC, passing sentence on Friday, said he
> was satisfied that it was highly probable that no-one's
> health had been adversely affected.
>
> Readings had shown some of the exhibits had a radiation
> level of 60 microsieverts -- as against the museum's
> benchmark figure of one.
>
> But the judge said it was important to look at the case in
> its "proper" context.
>
> The museum, described as a "centre of excellence" with a
> world class reputation, had taken its responsibilities in
> connection with the case extremely seriously.
>
> He said the museum had an unrivalled reputation in the
> scientific field and all other respects, and had been
> tarnished by convictions in this case.
>
> "In my judgment, justice will be done if I impose a
> conditional discharge for one year."
>
> Defence QC Malcolm Fortune said the museum wanted to make it
> clear that everything had been done to resolve the situation
> and there was absolutely no reason for any visitor or
> employee to be concerned.
>
> "We accept the concerns of the Health and Safety
> Executive... but the limits (of radiation) that members of
> the public may have been or were exposed to were low, but
> not as low as reasonably practicable.
>
> "We are not dealing with something as emotive as Chernobyl."
>
> He said the museum realised they had "fallen short" of what
> was required of them "but not substantially short," he added.
Received on Mon 19 Feb 2001 02:09:33 PM PST