WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1990
SHE SAID UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE ORDINANCE, THE RADIATION BOARD WAS EMPOWERED TO EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE ANY SPECIFIED PERSON, GROUP OR CLASS OF PERSONS, HAVING REGARD ΤΟ THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE DEGREE OF RISK.
+
HOWEVER, THERE WAS AT PRESENT NO GENERAL EXEMPTION COVERING RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES OR IRRADIATING APPARATUS THEMSELVES, WHICH WERE BY DEFINITION "RADIOACTIVE" BUT WERE NOT HARMFUL TO HEALTH, FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
THESE MIGHT INCLUDE LUMINOUS WATCHES AND SMOKE DETECTORS WHICH CONTAINED RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES THAT WERE SO PERMANENTLY ENCASED THAT THEY WERE CONSIDERED SAFE TO BE USED BY THE PUBLIC WITHOUT THE NEED FOR LICENSING CONTROLS.
SHE SAID IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DRAW UP AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF SUCH ARTICLES WHICH MIGHT BE EXEMPTED AS NEW PRODUCTS APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME.
"CLAUSE 7 OF THE BILL THEREFORE PROVIDES THAT THE EXISTING POWER OF THE RADIATION BOARD TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS TO SPECIFIED PERSONS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO COVER SPECIFIED RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES OR IRRADIATING APPARATUS, AND THAT SUCH EXEMPTIONS SHOULD BE PUBLICISED BY NOTICE IN THE GAZETTE, MRS WONG EXPLAINED,
**
UNDER SECTION 16(4)(C), A RADIATION BOARD INSPECTOR HAD THE POWER TO SEIZE, REMOVE AND DETAIN ANY IRRADIATING APPARATUS OR RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO SUSPECT THAT AN OFFENCE UNDER THE ORDINANCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED.
MRS WONG SAID CLAUSE 8 OF THE BILL AMENDED SECTION 16 BY EMPOWERING INSPECTORS TO SEAL OR RENDER INOPERABLE AN IRRADIATING APPARATUS IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DO SO WITHOUT PERMANENTLY DAMAGING THE EQUIPMENT.
IN THE CASE OF RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES WHICH HAD BEEN SEIZED OR DETAINED, MRS WONG EXPLAINED THAT NEW SUBSECTION 6 ENABLED AN INSPECTOR ΤΟ SEAL THE ARTICLES OR PLACES CONTAINING THESE SUBSTANCES.
"THESE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPARATUS OR SUBSTANCES INVOLVED MAY BE TOO BULKY TO BE REMOVED PROMPTLY AND THE BOARD SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO PREVENT OR MINIMISE HAZARDS THAT MAY ARISE FROM THE INDISCRIMINATE USE OF THE APPARATUS OR SUBSTANCES, SHE SAID.
SHE ADDED THAT CLAUSE- 9 PROVIDED A SANCTION AGAINST UNAUTHORISED BREAKING OR INTERFERING WITH THE SEAL.
UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE ORDINANCE, A LICENCE HOLDER WAS LIABLE FOR AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE ORDINANCE COMMITTED BY HIS EMPLOYEE OR AGENT, UNLESS HE PROVED THAT THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE AND THAT HE HAD EXERCISED ALL DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE.
THE
/MRS WONG