RadarArchiveRob,
May I ask one question? Have you read the relevant legislation on this matter?
Rob,
The reason I ask this question is because in post 84 you write: “What we should be doing is finding ways for people to ensure they know about the risks involved in what they are doing …”
This all sounds very admirable, but if you can’t even be bothered to check the approriate information yourself, as an educated enthusiast, do you seriously expect the general public or other enthusiasts to do so either? No in this world! If people can’t be bothered to educate themselves (when the information is freely available), why expect others to do it for them?
RadarArchiveRob,
May I ask one question? Have you read the relevant legislation on this matter?
RadarArchiveAndy,
You don’t know how much I appreciate your post. It feels a bit like the world is against me and it’s nice to know that others understand and agree. Too many people think they know better and it’s those people that kill and injure not only themselves but innocent people as well. You can never stop that stupidity, but that is no reason not to at least try and limit the damage and distress they cause. Yet all you get in return is “you’re infringing my basic human rights!”
RadarArchiveIan
You can write on this forum whatever you want to write, subject to moderation, everyone else is entitled to their views to. So don’t be so pedantic mate, chill out, aye?
That is exactly the point. It’s not a matter of opinion, but law. What irritates me, as I’ve mentioned previously, is that this matter comes up every so often with the same viewpoints raised, yet no-one ever seems to listen to the hard facts. The Health and Safety Executive has a website, the facts are there for everyone to see, yet most comments are based on an individuals opinion rather than on factual knowledge. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I welcome that, provided that they at least try and learn the facts before posting ill-informed comment.
At the end of the day, the matter of ionising radiation hazards has been dealt with by legislation to which everyone must abide and that is that. End of story.
RadarArchiveHere we go again. Have you actually read any of the previous posts?
I’m not certain, but I assume the relevant legislation is The Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 and The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001, although there may well be other relevant laws as well. As you say, “it is the law there is nothing anyone can do about it apart from abide by it.”
The second part of your post is either deliberately antagonistic or very naive. It is almost impossible to prove absolutely that cockpit instruments had caused injury or death. Medical science has great difficulty in proving the exact causes of cancers, but just because proof is difficult doesn’t mean that the overwhelming likelihood of cause can’t be judged. Just look at the families of the servicemen who participated in nerve gas experiments at Porton Down. It has been very difficult for them to prove that their relative died due to the experiments. Or the service personnel who have succumbed to Gulf War Syndrome. Proving what caused you to become ill is very difficult, although that does not stop the illness happening because of the cause.
As to why the rules have been introduced, it is only recently that the hazard has become known. As the paint breaks down it becomes much more hazardous and therefore the threat has become much greater. The services weren’t aware of the hazard when the instruments were put into the aircraft, but that doesn’t mean that the threat doesn’t exist.
The comparison with Ellen MacArthur is entirely irrelevant. She was trying to achieve something and yes this involved a calculated risk, but there was a point to it. What is the point in putting yourself and others at risk to look inside a cockpit when in most cases photographs are available which give the same information but involve no risk?
RadarArchiveNo I’m not. The discussion is about whether or not I, as an adult member of the public, can visit areas of a museum where I might be at risk from a potential health hazard, and whether or not I have the right to determine whether or not the risk of visiting that area outweighs any benefit I might gain.
I think the problem is that whilst you may decide that you are happy with the risk, the decision is not yours to make. Whilst, as you’ve suggested previously, you could sign a indemnity form, this does not clear the museum from legal liability for your safety. You could quite easily and properly argue in court later that you signed the form and visited the hazardous area but were not fully aware of how serious the hazard was, and therefore the museum was at fault for allowing access. Now, you may say that if you’ve signed a form you would never then sue a museum, but let me tell you that there are plenty of people who would. How can a museum tell the difference between someone genuinely interested and someone who is using the situation to make a load of cash? More importantly than the legal argument is the fact that if I were responsible, I couldn’t live with myself if I had given someone cancer because I let them into a hazardous area. You might be happy with the risk, but I wouldn’t be.
There is also the matter of putting others in danger as has already been mentioned. Rob, you say you understand this aspect. Well, bear in mind that if you were given access to a radiation hazard area which by its definition is a non-publicly accessible area, you would have to be escorted by a member of staff. Are you happy to put them in danger? And what about all the other people who feel like you that they should be allowed to make decisions on the level of threat for themselves? If they are all given equal access, they will all only get one dose, but the member of staff will get repeated doses. Museums are responsible not only for public safety but also the safety of their staff and your selfish attitude puts them in serious danger. That is why you are not allowed to decide the risk for yourself, because the experts (and I’m not classing myself as one, before you say I’m arrogant) have already looked at all the factors and decided it is unsafe.
RadarArchiveThe law is wrong because it removes my right to make an intelligent sensible decision based on my evaluation of the risk, when squared off against the potential benefits.
I’ve already covered this – whether that is a good enough reason for you I cannot say – but you nor anyone else, should have the right to make decisions on my behalf, when there might be a good reason for my making a contrary decision to what might seem sensible. If I want to make the decision to do something that can’t possibly damage anyone other than me physically, then that should remain my decision until such time as I am incapable of making decisions for myself.
Surely, this is common sense!
What makes you so sure that what decisions you take and actions you carry out “can’t possibly damage anyone other than me.” If you entered a cockpit and became contaminaed, you would then exit the cockpit and spread that contamination around a huge area. Your actions do not simply affect yourself, but can affect others. That is why health and safety legislation exists – to safeguard people against the actions of themselves and others which can put them and others in danger because they do not necessarily know, or think through, all the consequences of their actions.
RadarArchivePerhaps it’s not what you say, but the way that you say it!
Well, wouldn’t you get frustrated saying the same thing over and over again whilst people ignore you. 😉 Particularly when you know you’re telling the truth. 😉
Incidentally, if anyone is a member of a BAPC organisation, just have a look at the most recent BAPC Matters (January issue, I think). It contains a report on a visit by H&S to the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum. They were OK because they had acted correctly in dealing with radioactive hazards,but it is quite likely that many small museums could find themselves in serious trouble. I understand H&S may be visiting all aviation museums in the near future and those that don’t comply with the regulations will be closed down by the local council on health grounds. It’s no trivial matter!
RadarArchiveOf course, no one here is blaming the museums. It is the law that is at fault. Agreed.
but you patronising me personally, doesn’t help your case.
Actually, no I wouldn’t agree that the law is at fault. It is there to protect the public as well as museum staff and volunteers from hazards about which they may have only limited knowledge. Very few people working in (or visiting) aviation msuems have experience or training on radiation hazards, so the law is there to protect everyone. That a hazard exists is a fact and I’m not being patronising in stating that. The law, museums and anyone else who knows what they are taling about agrees that there is a health hazard from aircraft instruments containing radium (ie roughly pre 1950).
It is not my intention to be patronising. If I am it is probably because this matter has been discussed before on this forum and the same ill-informed opinions keep being repeated. If people are going to ignore the facts, and continue to belive that their ‘opinion’ is correct despite all evidence to the contrary, then I think I can be excused if I get a little frustrated. The BAPC and their members are aware of the problems and I have discussed these matters personally with the BAPC Radiation Protection Officer. Despite what you or anyone else may think about museums treating the public like children who cannot think for themselves, we have to act responsibly in the face of a recognised and serious health hazard integral to many of our objects on display.
RadarArchiveWell, I’m sorry if I’ve upset you, but that’s the facts whether you like it or not. Museums have to comply with the law and whether you believe the hazards or not is irrelevant. Just because you think you know better, doesn’t mean that you do!
RadarArchiveI am sorry, RadarActive, but I find your post extraordinarily patronising.
In what way?
RadarArchiveThere have been a lot of comments post here on a theme that has been discussed before. Some of the comments are ill-informed speculation and are of no help to anyone. I’ve nothing against an expression of opinion, but not when it is presented as fact.
Like many here I have always assumed that, whilst museums have to comply with the H&S regulations, said regulations are a bit over-zealous and that there was only minimal risk from instruments with unbroken glass. A recent event showed me how wrong I was. Let me explain: the museum I work for (which shall remain nameless, but most of you will know which one) was returning instruments which had come from a certain nose section which had been on loan from another museum. These instruments which were already individually bagged, had two sheets of lead taped in front of the dials and, in a steel ammunition-type box, were placed in a lead-lined wooden crate, with extra sheets of lead added to the crate. Despite this, the readings were three times the maximum legally-acceptable dosage levels outside these crates! Needless to say they were re-packaged with extra lead and brought within the limits.
Anyone who says that the glass in instruments protects you from ionising radiation is a complete fool. Period.
Radium produces beta and gamma radiation. Alpha radiation is stopped by a sheet of paper and thus is no threat from instruments. Beta radiation should be stopped by a sheet of metal. However, it takes several inches of lead to stop gamma radiation and therefore these instruments are highly dangerous. This is particularly so when the radium paint breaks down, releasing radium dust into the air. As has been mentioned in other posts, if you breathe this in it is a REALLY serious health hazard. Do you want to die a slow, painful death just to be able to smell the inside of a cockpit?
As regards the issue of sitting in cockpits (ignoring the radiation hazard issue), national museums such as the RAF Museum, IWM and others have a duty of care to the objects in their collections. These institutions receive public funding in order to preserve these items for posterity. If only 10% of the visitors to these museums sat in the cockpits, the aircraft would be completely trashed within a few years. If this seems like scaremongering, let me ask you a question. If you go and buy a leather chair, how long will it last you? Perhaps 15 or 20 years? That’s with one or two people using it. How about 1 or 2 million EACH YEAR. The seat is ruined within a few months. And you can’t just pop down to IKEA and buy a new one. And that’s just the seat. Kids will trash the control column, rudder pedals, and all the various switches and levers in the cockpits. If you think this is exaggeration then go somewhere where kids are allowed to sit in a cokpit and watch what they do. Believe me, even with close supervision they don’t treat things with reverence. Any many parents encourage them. These aircraft are important museum objects, just like Ming vases, and should be treated with equal respect. A museum wouldn’t let you put hot ashes in a Brone Age cremation urn, so why should you expect to sit in a cockpit and act like a child pretending to shoot down Messerschmitts?
RadarArchiveWell, somebody had to. Perhaps he could be persuaded that it is airworthy.
RadarArchivePerhaps it could be sold on eBay? You never know, some pub owner or other might want it. 😉
RadarArchiveWe’re slowly repainting it as a PR LFXVI 😉 .
Seriously though, it does look as though it may need repainted, but this could take some time with everything else that’s been going on lately.
Sign In
