Is HINKLEY POINT C safe to work at

Watch
bigstu99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Any students with good knowledge of physics, nuclear plants, cancer, (especially if you've studied hinkley point and it's assosciated risks cancer etc.)

Offered a job working on the hinkley point c Nuclear site. Hinkley point A was shut down a long time ago as things went wrong, Hinkley point B is in operation, Some studies suggest they are the cause of cancer clusters within a 10KM radius. And Hinkley Point C is like 250m away.

Anyone who knows about this think it is unsafe for work?

Career wise best thing i could dream of, but if it's gonna increase my risk of cancer it's not worth it IMO
0
reply
EwanWest
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by bigstu99)
Any students with good knowledge of physics, nuclear plants, cancer, (especially if you've studied hinkley point and it's assosciated risks cancer etc.)

Offered a job working on the hinkley point c Nuclear site. Hinkley point A was shut down a long time ago as things went wrong, Hinkley point B is in operation, Some studies suggest they are the cause of cancer clusters within a 10KM radius. And Hinkley Point C is like 250m away.

Anyone who knows about this think it is unsafe for work?

Career wise best thing i could dream of, but if it's gonna increase my risk of cancer it's not worth it IMO
In a word - no

On a more technical basis - exposure to radiation is closely monitored and limited. It's no more dangerous than living in bits of France
2
reply
Ed5
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by bigstu99)
Any students with good knowledge of physics, nuclear plants, cancer, (especially if you've studied hinkley point and it's assosciated risks cancer etc.)

Offered a job working on the hinkley point c Nuclear site. Hinkley point A was shut down a long time ago as things went wrong, Hinkley point B is in operation, Some studies suggest they are the cause of cancer clusters within a 10KM radius. And Hinkley Point C is like 250m away.

Anyone who knows about this think it is unsafe for work?

Career wise best thing i could dream of, but if it's gonna increase my risk of cancer it's not worth it IMO
Given the hazards associated with ionising radiation, there are a lot of safety procedures in UK nuclear power stations to minimise the risk. You should have suitable containers/gloves, remote handling equipment etc, as well as a film badge to monitor your exposure.

I think it's generally pretty safe with all the precautions - it has to be really, or it wouldn't be legal to employ people to work there. Please note I don't have any experience working in a nuclear power station, this knowledge comes from a module in A Level physics.
1
reply
bigstu99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by EwanWest)
In a word - yes

On a more technical basis - exposure to radiation is closely monitored and limited. It's no more dangerous than living in bits of France
Thanks for responding -so you think it is safe,

Is this subject something you have good knowledge about?, like are you a physics student or have you studied Hinkley etc

anymore information you can give?
0
reply
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by bigstu99)
Any students with good knowledge of physics, nuclear plants, cancer, (especially if you've studied hinkley point and it's assosciated risks cancer etc.)

Offered a job working on the hinkley point c Nuclear site. Hinkley point A was shut down a long time ago as things went wrong, Hinkley point B is in operation, Some studies suggest they are the cause of cancer clusters within a 10KM radius. And Hinkley Point C is like 250m away.

Anyone who knows about this think it is unsafe for work?

Career wise best thing i could dream of, but if it's gonna increase my risk of cancer it's not worth it IMO
Everything gives you cancer, at least the risks for radiation are well known so you'll have protection.

If you want the job, go for it, no doubt in 10 years we'll appreciate that lattes, Instagram and fidget spinners also give you cancer.
0
reply
Ed5
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by bigstu99)
Any students with good knowledge of physics, nuclear plants, cancer, (especially if you've studied hinkley point and it's assosciated risks cancer etc.)

Offered a job working on the hinkley point c Nuclear site. Hinkley point A was shut down a long time ago as things went wrong, Hinkley point B is in operation, Some studies suggest they are the cause of cancer clusters within a 10KM radius. And Hinkley Point C is like 250m away.

Anyone who knows about this think it is unsafe for work?

Career wise best thing i could dream of, but if it's gonna increase my risk of cancer it's not worth it IMO
I just read that HPC hasn't actually been built yet, and likely won't be operational for 5+ years - what exactly is the role you've been offered, something to do with construction?

In any case, since it's not been built, there won't be any radioactive material at all, i.e. zero risk.
0
reply
EwanWest
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by bigstu99)
Thanks for responding -so you think it is safe,

Is this subject something you have good knowledge about?, like are you a physics student or have you studied Hinkley etc

anymore information you can give?
I did a module on nuclear power engineering last year, part of which was on health. Basically workers in nuclear power stations are limited to 20mSv a year exposure. This extends to other radiation workers such as radiographers. The equvialent value for joe public is 5mSv a year. A CT head scan is a dose of about 2mSv as a point of comparison
0
reply
bigstu99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by EwanWest)
In a word - no

On a more technical basis - exposure to radiation is closely monitored and limited. It's no more dangerous than living in bits of France
huh you said in a word yes then change it no? Im not sure what u mean??

(Original post by EwanWest)
I did a module on nuclear power engineering last year, part of which was on health. Basically workers in nuclear power stations are limited to 20mSv a year exposure. This extends to other radiation workers such as radiographers. The equvialent value for joe public is 5mSv a year. A CT head scan is a dose of about 2mSv as a point of comparison
wait so just to be clear does that mean 20mSv like all the exposure over the year added up or = 20mSv or does it mean that 20mSv is the exposure rate/concentration that you are exposed to constantly. (hope i've worded that in a way that makes sense to you)

like if u had 10 CT head scans would that add up to 20mSv or would it just mean you were exposed to 2mSv for 10 times longer.

(i'll try use an analogy if i'm not making sense) like if a water pipe is is flowing at a certain volume rate into a container, is that like the water flow rate or the total amount into the container over a year? which would the mSv represent in the analogy?
0
reply
bigstu99
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Ed5)
I just read that HPC hasn't actually been built yet, and likely won't be operational for 5+ years In any case, since it's not been built, there won't be any radioactive material at all, i.e. zero risk.
C won't be operational till then however, Hinkley point B which is only like 250M away is operational (construction started in 1967 starting operating in 1976) things did go wrong in both construction and usage.
Also Hinkley A construction started in 1957, it's also had problems and was fully shut down in 2000

so i'm more worried about B which is onlly like 250m away from C where i'll be working
also that A and B have been there a long time so is there any more hazard which have accumulated/lasted over the years
(Original post by Ed5)
what exactly is the role you've been offered, something to do with construction?
Yep in construction, on site for Hinkley C
0
reply
EwanWest
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by bigstu99)
huh you said in a word yes then change it no? Im not sure what u mean??
I read your original post incorrectly. To clarify, no it is not unsafe

(Original post by bigstu99)
so just to be clear does that mean 20mSv like all the exposure over the year added up or = 20mSv or does it mean that 20mSv is the exposure rate/concentration that you are exposed to constantly. (hope i've worded that in a way that makes sense to you)

like if u had 10 CT head scans would that add up to 20mSv or would it just mean you were exposed to 2mSv for 10 times longer.

(i'll try use an analogy if i'm not making sense) like if a water pipe is is flowing at a certain volume rate into a container, is that like the water flow rate or the total amount into the container over a year? which would the mSv represent in the analogy?
It would be the total amount into the container
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (87)
13.92%
I'm not sure (30)
4.8%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (198)
31.68%
I have already dropped out (13)
2.08%
I'm not a current university student (297)
47.52%

Watched Threads

View All