View Full Version : Your opinions on UKAEA please
linsayfgroat
15-Mar-04, 18:46
I am a student at the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen
Im doing my dissertation on Corporate Social Responsibility within UKAEA (Dounreay)
I would really appreciate public opinion on the following:
DO you think UKAEA acts socially responsible towards its employees and the local community? Do you think Dounreay has a good or bad reputation,?
Look forward to your replies
Linsay :o) :D
Hi My B/F works there and he never has a bad word to say about it
And Dounreay has won alot of safety awards, so that must say something!!
Me and my B/F Say a relatively good reputation!!
UKAEA is an excellent employer which has an extremely helpful and responsible attitude towards its staff. How many employers provide staff with a physiotherapist for all illnesses, there is very little difficulty in getting any equipment you requrie to make working life easier ( I speak mainly of office equipment - mouses, wrist rests, chairs etc.) Personal Protective Equipment is abundant and well maintained. If you are unfortunate enough to develop a drink or drug problem and will admit it then they will support you through this.
UKAEA's attitude towards the environment and the local community is also excellent, unfortunately however there are always those which can never be pleased who will report any negative aspect accurate or not.
There is a lot of work being carried out on the Dounreay site at the moment and this of course will lead to accidents, however on the whole Dounreay has an excellent safety history and has indeed won many awards.
By the way I am not management I simply work there but I appreciate the terms and conditions which UKAEA awards its staff and the benefits to the local community.
linsayfgroat
18-Mar-04, 22:22
I used to work in Dounreay as a contractor. Their Health and safety is of a very high standard and workers are well provided for with PPE etc..but there has been bad press coverage about contamination of beaches etc..
Steveo
Anonymous
19-Mar-04, 11:04
bad press depends on who you actually believe in the story.
A: Rich Landowner driving to make more money out of his neighbor.
B: Large goverment corporation with no interest in money but with a bit of a shakey past.
It would seem to me a bit late for A's argument as from where I'm sitting, the anti dounreay camp has already won. They're decommisioning. If you had land neighboring a nuclear power station, WHY would you NOT want them to come and survey your land for particles? ahh yes, now i remember, MONEY. Charge them money to come on your land and see if they can find any particles so you can complain more loudly and charge more MONEY.
Whereas Dounreay these days seems to be falling over themselves to tell everyone whats going on at the site, what their plans are, how they plan to achieve them. As far as I am aware more people are employed on the dounreay site than ever have been before.
The only bad press seems to come from a few individuals with very loud voices. But speak to any of the over 2000 people that work on the site and you hear a different story. Dounreay is deeply embedded in the Caithness community and economy, thankfully they've given us 50-60 years to sort out alternative employment.
My boyfriend also works in Dounreay as a contractor and he is always saying that they are very strict on safety.
Dounreay is the biggest employer in Caithness and I would say it has a good name apart from all the stuff in the paper about particals on the Beach.
Kx
I've never worked at Dounreay so won't comment or pass judgement.
However, Dounreay WILL slowly run down and after this initial spurt of higher employment which is great for the economy of Caithness, things will be on the decrease and what then.
Dounreay itself isn't at fault but too many local businesses and people rely on it way too much as their main source of income and are happy the situation at the moment. What they seem to lack is a long-term strategy and a lack of vision for investment and creating opportunities in Caithness post-Dounreay. They should really be planning the future now rather than waiting until it is too late.
I know this rant is a bit of the beaten track for this thread but what I'm getting at is that because of Dounreay making things easier in Caithness for the last 40 years or so, when it goes, unless proper planning is put in place by the people of Caithness now - there will be a big hole in the local economy and community.
Hey, lets keep on track as this lass has a dissertation to do! I think Dounreay today is very different from Dounreay some years ago when either through ignorance or through plain bad practice they put the environment and the health of its employees at risk. These days Dounreay is a very good employer in terms of health protection for its staff and I think most people who work there will agree with that. It has a very good safety record. Also, Dounreay makes a very significant contribution to the locality through training, charity work and help to local groups. Dounreay trainees are often asked to help out with local projects for instance. Just have a look through some old Groats and you will see what I mean.
North Highland College would have struggled over the years if it hadn't had Dounreay and the need to train its workforce, especially in the Thatcher years when there were few apprenticeship schemes except for Dounreay. Schools have often benefitted from Dounreay loaning or gifting equipment to them, as well as helping with schemes like Young Engineeers.
Yes I know we never really wanted a nuclear reactor on our doorstep, but over the years we have had housing, jobs and spin offs that would not have come our way without it. I think when you add it all up, Dounreay has been a benefit to the community in many ways and its employees have had training, health benefits etc that they might not have had otherwise.
I think that Dounreay has been a good thing for Caithness in general over the years. It has educated a lot of people over the years and a lot of them have gone on to greater things all over the world.
The company has been good to its workers and contractors in the past but in this new era of value for money that may change as cost becomes the main driver for things at the site.Cheaper, faster and better is a slogan that is being pushed just now.
In the past they have been cavalier in their approach to nuclear research and the drive to achieve results on this front meant that at times the environment was not that important. But this has to be taken against what other industries were up to at the same time. Many chemical and industrial plants also have left a legacy of contaminated ground requiring to be clean up today.
As has already been said it is all about who you believe. If you worked at the site or knew someone who did you got the real story and that was that. Other people had to make do with the little truth that was allowed out via offical channels. This lead to many stories and rumours being started and no one contradicting them or the truth leaking out at a later date which contradicted what was said at the earlier date.
So Dounreay has been good but has no doubt left us with problems for the future, but how many people would know where Caithness was or have ever visited Caithness if Dounreay was not here?
Just a quick reminder in response to some of the comments about Dounreay
Kit Kat stated that"I think Dounreay today is very different from Dounreay some years ago when either through ignorance or through plain bad practice they put the environment and the health of its employees at risk."
In the 1950's when Dounreay started very little was known about the dangers of radiation. Safety requirements in all areas of work were very different.
Lets not judge them by todays standards.
Jb stated that "In the past they have been cavalier in their approach to nuclear research and the drive to achieve results on this front meant that at times the environment was not that important. "
I think that cavalier is a bad description of the attitude of the workforce in those times. It suggests a kind of 'tally ho' attitude. Granted that when you can look back with hindsight some serious mistakes were made and there were effects on the environment, but at the time the consequences were not understood by anyone.
The media tend to suggest that staff at Dounreay simply dug holes and dumped waste there ( talking of course of the infamous shaft) however Dounreay is a registered nuclear site and the shaft was an authorised waste disposal route. This was endorsed by Government agencies.
I believe that UKAEA has always been devoted to maintaining staff health however this was a nuclear industry and staff were aware of the that there was a risk of receiving a radiation dose at some point in there career.
Anonymous
24-Mar-04, 10:57
I believe that UKAEA has always been devoted to maintaining staff health however this was a nuclear industry and staff were aware of the that there was a risk of receiving a radiation dose at some point in there career.
That brings up part of the problem with public perceptions of the nuclear industry. Many people still think that a risk of receiving a radiation dose at some point in there career is a fatal risk. And the great ignorance of the subject of radioactivity is mostly to blame. It would seem that many people still consider radiation to be the kind that turned David Banner into the Hulk or changes innocent little rabbits into mutant monsters. So its easy to see why some people make the immediate leap from radiation dose to death (or mutation). Still, in the face of this, I think Dounreay has made great efforts to overcome the ignorance people have of its industry. Can't be many nuclear installations that have awards for their visitor centre.
zagor points out how little was known (by comparison) in the 50's about radiation and everything it can do, but the problem now, as I see it, is not that the industry itself does not know whats going on, but that the population in general does not understand and has a knee-jerk reaction to almost anything said about Dounreay or radioactive particles. Educating the masses is not an easy task, especially when they mostly want to resist changing their attitudes or accepting that the "facts" in their own head may be wrong.
I ca say Doureay is very helpful with the local community. Most of the voluntary organisations have been given large donations of money of even a computer. Reay school recently recieved a portakabin to use as an extra classroom. Thumbs up there! :D
chemicalbrutha
24-Mar-04, 21:57
hi linsay
To help you out, i was a former employee at Dounreay.As a contractor onsite and working directly with LSA particulate (low specific activity radiation) i can assure you i was well catered for safety wise both by my contractual employer and by UKAEA itself. UKAEA kept a close eye on their operations and safety really was number one. It would be unfair to say that donreay has a bad reputation based on the experience i had whilst working there. Alot of mistakes have been made at dounreay in the past but alot has been learned since and when i worked there this was quite evident. Review of procedures and new procedures were constantly being introduced. So in my opinion it is a very safe place to work and a great place to have worked.Socially, dounreay has supported a vast amount of families over the years and when it finally goes it will leave a big hole in the local economy.It has been very sympathetic to the local community through employment, charity and education. Dounreay may have made mistakes in the past but it has by far made up for them in the long run, by better management onsite and increased knowledge of operations through constant research.I dont have a bad word to say about it, but unfortunately sometimes the press do.
I recently gave a talk on nuclear power at my university and it was interesting to get the opinions from my classmates, who had never seen a nuclear power plant, put scorn to nuclear operations based on assumption and rumour. More awareness of how these plants operate is definately needed to turn around general negative assumption amongst the mainstream public.
:eek: Ooops kinda blabbed on a bit there, well nuff said methinks!!Byeee!! :D
simian sally
25-Mar-04, 13:13
I would really appreciate public opinion on the following:
DO you think UKAEA acts socially responsible towards its employees and the local community? Do you think Dounreay has a good or bad reputation,?
Interesting thread......
In most of Scotland, probably most of Britain too, Dounreay has an appalling safety and social reputation, based mostly on ignorance and hearsay, as Niall points out in a slightly different context. People look at me as if I am some sort of holocaust survivor when I tell them my father worked at Dounreay.
Although I shouldn't have been, I was surprised how many posts here have praised Dounreay, its safety record and its management, etc. That just goes to show how much I have been influenced by being away for so long. I must have incorrectly assumed that attitudes had changed everywhere since the nuclear power industry 'died' a death of a thousand cuts in the 80s due to: Chernobyl, hidden cost revelations, fear of reprocessing, fear of terrorism, Greenpeace/FoE campaigns, and all that.
Just one minor niggle...
Niall, radiation is dangerous. It makes you sick, it burns, it can cause genetic defects in the next generations, it causes cancer, and it's guaranteed to kill you in large enough doses. It's all a matter of quantity though. Small doses are almost certainly harmless unless you are very unlucky. How do I know? Well, amongst other things, I work in a related area and I have a good freind who works in that area at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
Doolally, I agree with you. This is not mere speculation. Remember how depressed Thurso seemed in the 80s when the Dounreay workforce was being run down? A greater proportion of youngsters left never to return. How to deal with the problem? Beats me! But I am getting away from the original topic. Good luck with the dissertation Linsay!
(For the record, I work as a contractor on Dounreay, but I'm not with the Authority)
I have recently come onsite and was very impressed with how site safety is presented. It certainly does not mesh with some of the opinions that I had on the outside. If something good is reported about or done by Dounreay, it is perceived as "propaganda" whereas inside it is just accepted as a matter of course. Of course, if I try to defend Dounreay, I am accused of being a victim of brainwashing. Who is right? Only history will say for sure.
Contrary to a remark made several posts back, there was a very high awareness of the dangers of radiation in the 1950s. That's one reason the government of the day decided on Caithness for their experimental fast breeder reactor. The low density of population in the north of Scotland meant fewer deaths if things got out of control. This was considered an acceptable risk by the people of Caithness who, like the rest of the British population were only too aware of the atomic/nuclear peril. After all this was less than a decade since the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and the Cold War was well under way with nuclear weapons being brandished on all sides. I believe there was an organization called CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disdarmement) just getting started in the mid-50s that specialized in demonstrating outside the ALdermaston complex in England.
To get a little - but not too far - from the theme of the thread does anyone have records on cancer deaths in Caithness?. According to epidemiology there should have been a sharp increase after Dounereay was built.
Such an increase would have had little or nothing to do with radiation leakage.
Apparently cancer increases wherever there is an increase in incomers into stable, isolated populations. This is likely because of differences in immunity to viruses and many cancers are viral in origin.
I happen to believe that the people of Caithness would have undergone almost anything to get the fast breeder reactor. I can't help wondering if the inhabitants of Gaelic regions would have been as welcoming had they been offered a chance at it.
Maybe there's a cultural, societal difference among Caithness people that makes them more ready to take a chance on things and live a little dangerously.
Just one minor niggle...
Niall, radiation is dangerous. It makes you sick, it burns, it can cause genetic defects in the next generations, it causes cancer, and it's guaranteed to kill you in large enough doses. It's all a matter of quantity though. Small doses are almost certainly harmless unless you are very unlucky. How do I know? Well, amongst other things, I work in a related area and I have a good freind who works in that area at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
Just one minor niggle... :D
Niall didn't say that wasn't dangerous, he just said that most people don't understand it. Radiation doesn't make you sick otherwise we would be sick all the time since we are exposed to radiation everyday. It also isn't guaranteed to kill you in large doses, I'd be quite happy to sit on a massive amount of a pure Alpha emitter :)
The problem is the stigma that radioactivity carries, that is what Niall was explaining. Very few people that are not in the industry really understand it, I am much happier working in Dounreay than I would be in the construction industry, oil industry, fishing industry, farming industry, etc etc etc If you look at the health statistics for any of these you will find that they are much more dangerous than the nuclear industry.
Many other industries and chemicals cause cancer; there are lots of carcinogens that have nothing to do with the nuclear industry. Sun bathing is also hazardous but do people run inside in fear when the sun comes out? What about airline pilots, average of 5mSv per year!
You can't make sweeping statements about these things, they simply aren't true or they say so little that it isn't worth saying.
Your friendly RPS
Mr Ben
simian sally
26-Mar-04, 02:25
Lo, Mr Ben! Nice to see you outta the shop at last. My previous attempt to entice you out from behind the counter on Ash Wed was met by an admirable silence.
Niall didn't say that wasn't dangerous, he just said that most people don't understand it.
Correct on both accounts. No arguments there.
Just a few minor nigglets...
Radiation doesn't make you sick otherwise we would be sick all the time since we are exposed to radiation everyday.
This is a fine example of the applicability of your comment:
You can't make sweeping statements about these things, they simply aren't true or they say so little that it isn't worth saying. :cool:
I suspect you are well aware that I was referring to significant exposure to "radiation" from macroscopic quantities of material comprising a significant fraction of unstable nuclei, and not to ambient "radiation" of any form.
Nice to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about, though. I should have known better than to make blanket claims about radiation on a Caithness message forum of all places!
It also isn't guaranteed to kill you in large doses, I'd be quite happy to sit on a massive amount of a pure Alpha emitter :)
Ok, ok, point taken. But our readers should be aware that you wouldn't make the same claim for a gamma, beta or positron emitter, or a near-critical lump of U235 or Pt237 (quoting from memory here.. do I have the mass number right?)
The problem is the stigma that radioactivity carries, that is what Niall was explaining. Very few people that are not in the industry really understand it, I am much happier working in Dounreay than I would be in the construction industry, oil industry, fishing industry, farming industry, etc etc etc If you look at the health statistics for any of these you will find that they are much more dangerous than the nuclear industry.
Are you referring to the stigma carried by radiation (probably) or the stigma carried by working in the nuclear industry (unlikely)?
Can't disagree with the rest of what you say, whichever one you are referring to! :D
Many other industries and chemicals cause cancer; there are lots of carcinogens that have nothing to do with the nuclear industry. Sun bathing is also hazardous but do people run inside in fear when the sun comes out? What about airline pilots, average of 5mSv per year!
Yes, yes, and yes. I would never consider claiming otherwise.
You can't make sweeping statements about these things, they simply aren't true or they say so little that it isn't worth saying.
Ok, ok, what I said wasn't correct in all cases. It takes a lot of exposure to ionising radiation to make you sick. Pure alpha emitters are pussycats compared to the vastly greater number of mucho horribler radiogloopies.
I was trying to keep it simple, and avoid the impression that radiation from unstable nuclei is harmless. Ok?
--SG
[/quote] Ok, ok, what I said wasn't correct in all cases. [/quote]
Wow this is a first Simion Sally admitting an error, there is hope for us poor mortals yet
Golach
Anonymous
26-Mar-04, 11:03
I think sally made my point beautifully.
High School physics covers pretty much all of what has been said. It is unfortunate though that you have to choose a subject like physics in school to find out anything about the nuclear industry. If they taught it to primary school kids on the same sort of level as the lessons we got on Hydro and other electricity generation methods then at least at adult level folks would have a basic grasp of the subject.
People from industries where the technology involved is complex and uses many complicated methods can sound very condesending when trying to explain what they do to a layperson. On the other hand, people who are trying to capaign against it can sound worse by oversimplifing the topic and missing out key information that might allow a layperson to make their own considered opinion.
From an early age we understand the pros and cons of quite a few major industries, primarily from historical studies of older or superceded technologies/methods but the nuclear industry seems to be one that is never covered in these sorts of lessons. I know that there are literally thousands of topics that people would like to see kids taught in school nowadays, but surely a little information at an earlier age would serve to prevent misconceptions at a later stage.
How many kids from other parts of the country have had a chance to go on a guided tour of a nuclear power station?
linsayfgroat
26-Mar-04, 11:16
Hi
I just want to thank all who took time to reply to my question on UKAEA.
This has provided some great information on the public opinion and will be very helpful for my dissertation.
Thanks again
Linsay groat :D
Radiation doesn't make you sick otherwise we would be sick all the time since we are exposed to radiation everyday.
This is a fine example of the applicability of your comment:
You can't make sweeping statements about these things, they simply aren't true or they say so little that it isn't worth saying. :cool:
I'm glad you noticed, I simply turned around your previous statement. Not a good idea is it.
The stigma that I was referring to was radioactivity, not just radiation. Anything from x-rays to beach particles to people being contaminated.
The point is that without a complete knowledge you can't give people any useful information, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.
It's not a simple subject; you can't keep it simple and cover all the different aspects. That's the problem, there are lots of uninformed people making statements in the press and that isn’t good for anyone.
Mr Ben
P.S. You got the U-235 but the other I think you were trying for is Pu-239. Oh and "pure alpha emitters are pussycats" - well unless you ingest them, nothing worse really but isotope dependant of course.
Xe - 133(M)
26-Mar-04, 19:51
You make a very good point regarding knowledge, EVERY worker I know on the Dounreay site that has to go into controlled area knows the potential risk - there is a danger when working with any active substance (yes, I know that on site it is VERY unlikely to happen). But we all go in with our eyes open.
What does not help is a small minority of people, who should know better mouth off about things they obviously know little about (not thinking in particular about a local land owner or a columnist in an Inverness based newspaper). These people play on the fear of the public in general to get to their own ends.
On the original subject of the post, I do work for the authority, and can bac kup all the good points that have been made, they are very good to work for. I have worked for several major employers and the authority are by far the best. People that have only worked for the UKAEA do not know how lucky they are!
simian sally
29-Mar-04, 01:42
[P.S. You got the U-235 but the other I think you were trying for is Pu-239. Oh and "pure alpha emitters are pussycats" - well unless you ingest them, nothing worse really but isotope dependant of course.
Whoopsadaisy. Not only did I misguess the mass number of the relevant Pu isotope, but I tried to turn plut into plat in the same breath. I knew it wasn't Pu-238, and I was pretty sure sure it was only one away from that, but I went the wrong way. There goes my alchemistic street cred. :(
Pure alpha emitters as pussycats: ok, ok, we were sitting on them fully-clothed, not spreading them on toast, or worse. :confused
Xe-133 (M): I wouldn't sit anywhere near you! Well, not without several pairs of Damart specials, the cool ones with the extra-thick Pb linings. Wouldn't be too happy with your daughter without the (M) either.
Am I being too cryptic? Of course, but I am trying to re-establish my nucular cred with the local experts.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.