Atomic energy authority fined over radiation alert
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.The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was fined pounds 8,000 and ordered to pay pounds 10,510 costs yesterday, following an incident at its Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire, when two workers were exposed to radiation. Magistrates at Didcot were told that during decommissioning operations at the laboratory's defunct Pluto reactor last April, a worker sawed into a gas bottle without knowing it contained radioactive tritium gas. He and a workmate received radiation doses up to 12 per cent of the annual safe limit during the incident in the active handling bay at the laboratory.
The UKAEA admitted three charges alleging it breached ionising radiation regulations of 1985, in a prosecution brought jointly by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and by H M Inspectorate of Pollution. The laboratory was prosecuted for two similar tritium leaks in July 1990, when it pleaded guilty and was fined a total of pounds 3,000.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments