MP to investigate radiation death

THE GOVERNMENT is to be questioned over its regulation of health and safety in the workplace, following revelations in the Independent yesterday that an industrial radiographer had died of a massive overdose of radiation.

William Neilson, of East Kilbride, near Glasgow, received the biggest radiation dose of anyone in Britain since the war. Analyses after his death suggested he received a dose of about 15 Grays over an extended period - more than 1,000 times the annual limit at which safety inspectors would investigate over-exposure.

For some 17 years before his death in 1992, Mr Neilson had worked for Metal and Pipeline Endurance Ltd (Mapel), using radioactive sources of gamma radiation to 'X-ray' welds to reveal hidden flaws and cracks. No one has accepted responsibility and no compensation has been paid.

The constituency MP, Adam Ingram, said yesterday: 'I am going to investigate this incident through parliamentary means. There is clearly a need to ensure that those who use such equipment are given proper protection through appropriate health and safety regulations. If the regulations are flawed, I will be raising it with the Government.'

However, ministers are considering proposals to relax controls over workplace safety. As part of the deregulation drive, the Health and Safety Commission has been reviewing its regulations and sent a report to the Department of Employment in April detailing those rules that can be repealed to lift the burden of regulations from industry. Among the controls under review are the Ionising Radiation Regulations (1985) which control this type of work.

Frank Davies, the commission chairman, said: 'I cannot conceive that the commission will recommend anything which will lower health and safety standards overall, nor could I believe that the Government would accept it if we did.'

Judith Church, health and safety officer for the MSF trade union, said that Mr Neilson's was 'an horrific case . . . Clearly, something went seriously wrong in the management of Mr Neilson's work.'

Mapel employed Mr Neilson from 1975 until 1990, when he retired through ill-health already suffering from the radiation-induced illness that eventually killed him. The company yesterday said that it 'abided by all the health and safety regulations' and that 'correct working procedures were in use'. At no time did the film badges which Mr Neilson wore to record his radiation exposure indicate that he was getting an excessive dose. An inquiry did not establish when, where or how the over-exposure could have occurred, 'therefore . . .no legal duty to pay compensation was established'.

Leukaemia families, page 8