×
The Power to build a Community (22 Nov 2019)

Do you wish to set up a STEM club? Maybe you have an idea for a professional discussion group or maybe you want to collaborate better with the members of your Area Technician group. Then why not check out the TecHKnow GROUPS area now. We give you the power of TecHKnow in your hands to manage your personal GROUP. Check it out now by clicking on the main menu.

Question Radiation Protection

8 months 1 week ago #41301 by AndyG
Anyone heard or had experience of "Oxford Radiation Protection Consultants"?
We've had a flier for a 3-hour RPS course. I would expect it to be rushed and a long powerpoint but it's "RPS training". It is £220 and either in Oxford or at Manchester Airport which is a pain for me as I'm on a pointy-out bit of the country and there's no money.

I am already the RPS but could really do with a refresher ...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 1 week ago #41302 by D.B.Ferguson
Probably not tailored to school activities.
Have a look at CLEAPSS's RPS courses all over the country and (iirc £130 but aimed at HOD's ).

Technicians: providing solutions and more.

David Ferguson B.Sc.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 1 week ago #41303 by AndyG
It is aimed (or claims to be) at Academies etc.

Can't do CLEAPSS course any more - I'm a tech and they won't let me. Had a long discussion with Steve Jones about it.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 1 week ago #41305 by AndyG
This is the link to the flier if it's of interest to anyone.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 1 week ago - 8 months 1 week ago #41308 by prep_room_boy
Yep, a very rushed powerpoint presentation, sign-in, get your print out of the powerpoint, have a nap (you need to as the room is crammed to twice the capacity and very warm), then sign out to say you are still there and collect your pre-printed certificate.

Waste of time apart from getting the piece of paper.

Shame on CLEAPSS for not recognising that a techie is not capable of doing this role.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 1 week ago #41309 by AndyG

prep_room_boy wrote:
Shame on CLEAPSS for not recognising that a techie is not capable of doing this role.


It's not quite that - there are two main arguments which do have some merit:
1) A tech isn't paid to take the responsibility
2) in general the tech doesn't have the line management authority that the RPS position requires which could cause a management problem.

In essence the argument is HoS or HoP as RPS. The tech just does all the donkey work that the RPS takes responsibility for ...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 1 week ago #41311 by Cookaburra
I went to a course run by them but to be honest it was more confusing than anything. A lot of things he said were different to the cleapss position. So I was worse off really than doing nothing

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 1 week ago #41312 by AndyG
Thanks, that is very useful to know.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 4 days ago #41313 by woody
I did the CLEAPSS RPS course as the then head of department didn't want to do it, I also did a later refresher course when the regulations changed. I found both courses very interesting.
I have pointed out an a few occasions that a senior member of staff needs to do the course as there is management aspect to training teaching staff unfamiliar with the use of radioactive sources.
The last courses I saw advertised were being offered by CLEAPSS and said that technicians could attend with the prospective RPS from their school.
I'd avoid any course that doesn't use the latest version of L93 as a guide.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 4 days ago #41314 by AndyG
The issue is that L93 is a CLEAPSS document and CLEAPSS does not want technicians as the RPS and basically refuses to allow them on the RPS course any more, hence the interest in an alternative.
Just because L93 is a CLEAPSS document it doesn't mean it is chapter and verse - it's simply their guidance/interpretation and member institutions choose to follow it as closely as they see fit in line with their own risk assessments and requirements of the law. If your institution is not a member of CLEAPSS, L93 is completely irrelevant as you don't even get to see that document ...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 4 days ago #41315 by D.B.Ferguson
Had to check this:
L093 has been made available to non-members.
science.cleapss.org.uk/Resources/Guides/
and put "L093" in the search box

Technicians: providing solutions and more.

David Ferguson B.Sc.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

8 months 4 days ago - 8 months 4 days ago #41316 by prep_room_boy

AndyG wrote:

prep_room_boy wrote:
Shame on CLEAPSS for not recognising that a techie is not capable of doing this role.


It's not quite that - there are two main arguments which do have some merit:
1) A tech isn't paid to take the responsibility
2) in general the tech doesn't have the line management authority that the RPS position requires which could cause a management problem.

In essence the argument is HoS or HoP as RPS. The tech just does all the donkey work that the RPS takes responsibility for ...






1) It did help me get bumped up a pay scale at the time (still nowhere near as a HoD salary.)


2) When I'm the only person with the key to the "metal cupboard" then I have the authority, backing of the Headteacher at the time helped. When a new head started with a different attitude I simply handed the key back to him and walked away from all radio-actives.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

7 months 1 week ago #41337 by bsimmo
That's Keith's company isn't it?
We know him quite well as he used to do our Radiation here and long before I joined, so probably must jis companies life, he would come in and do what was needed giving advice, it may differ to CLEAPSS but that interpretation of the laws and methods I guess.

Nice chap, not sure what the course is as our setup changed and it's all some centralised group effort now (CLEAPSS is still the guidance) so we don't see him anymore

When Keith did our checks etc, we used both methods.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: DampSquibTecHKnowD.B.FergusonTheOtherSeamusBaldilocks
Powered by Kunena Forum

Latest Forum Posts

More Topics »