Radiation Protection Today - Spring 2022 - Page 5

In June 1980 , I went to Stromness to advise the Orkney Islands Council on whether it would be safe to build the new Stromness Academy ( a school ) on a green-field site less than a mile away from its position in the town centre . The Council ' s concern arose from the fact that the chosen site was right on top of the uranium corridor .

I arrived on a Saturday afternoon , inconspicuously , so I thought , as it was pouring with rain and very few people were out . However , subsequent events proved that in a town with a population of fewer than 2000 , little escapes attention . Around lunchtime on the following Monday , as I was preparing to visit the proposed site , the Rector of the Academy ( the headmaster ) urgently warned me not to go . A protest group had formed that was adamant in preventing me from undertaking measurements or removing rock samples . All afternoon , the Rector , who himself was strongly opposed to exploration for uranium , but highly supportive of my work , tried to clarify the situation with the protestors — that my interest was solely in order to protect Orcadian children from radiation — but to no avail . They were aware that there was a scientist from Harwell wanting to survey on the uranium corridor and that was good enough for them . I can only assume that someone had seen my NRPB postal address , which was Harwell at the time , in the Stromness Hotel register and wrongly assumed my intent .
Certainly , in my early career with NRPB in the 1970s , the need for the NRPB to show clearly its independence from promoters of nuclear energy was very much to the fore . My Orcadian experience indicated that NRPB ' s address was one issue that could cause difficulty . This led the late Sir Fred Dainton ( later Lord Dainton ), Chairman of the Board , to suggest that it should be changed . The change from Harwell to Chilton was thus precipitated by uranium mineralisation and consequential safety concerns .
Tony Wrixon MSRP ( retired )

Digital versus Print

Radiation Protection Today is self-financing , with the cost of production and distribution covered by advertising . Paper copies of the first issue were automatically mailed in the same wrapper as the Journal of Radiological Protection ( JRP ) to those SRP members who still received a hard copy of the Journal . The same was due to happen with the second issue however it was , in the end , mailed separately due to delays in production of the Journal .
With JRP switching to digital-only format from 2022 , future options for the magazine were reviewed . Although there would be environmental benefits to going fully digital , it was thought readership may fall , and opportunities to distribute the magazine at Society events would be lost . Potential advertisers also indicated they would be less likely to advertise . On balance , the decision was therefore made to continue with print .
Radiation Protection Today Summer 2022
Paper copies of the magazine will continue to be posted to members who previously received a hard copy of the Journal . However , SRP is inviting those who no longer wish to receive a paper copy to switch to digital . The online version is visually the same as the print edition , easy to navigate , and can even be downloaded for reading offline . It also carries longer versions of some articles . Current and all past issues can be accessed at www . srp-rpt . uk
Members can opt to receive the online version of RPT by emailing admin @ srp-uk . org For those who prefer a paper copy , SRP urges you to think of the environment . The magazine is printed on paper sourced from responsibly managed forests and printed using vegetable-based inks . However , when you have finished with your copy , instead of putting it in the recycling , why not give it to a colleague or leave it in the coffee room ? Reuse is more sustainable than recycling , and you may even help to inspire the next generation of radiation protection professionals .
5