A few weeks ago, the Guardian ran a story implying that a building at Manchester University, where Ernest Rutherford once worked with radon and polonium, was contaminated and had caused the cancers that killed two staff members.

At the time, The Great Beyond contacted the Health and Safety Executive, which was mentioned in the story as having identified 10 contaminated rooms in the building. An HSE spokesperson said the agency was not planning to investigate the matter. But the story has not gone away. Since the Guardian’s September 9 report, other UK press outfits have followed suit, and the number of deaths attributed to effects from the building rose first to three then to four. (Telegraph, BBC) The reports from September 24 say that Manchester coroner Nigel Meadows has called an inquest into the deaths.

Since then the Guardian has followed up with a report that the university has appointed David Coggon from the Medical Research Council to lead an independent review into the suggestion that hundreds of staff and students were exposed to dangerousl doses of radiation.

All these reports prompted another call to the HSE to clear things up. A spokesperson explained that the review was commissioned by the University of Manchester, at the suggestion of the HSE. This move was in response to a 294-page report by three other Manchester psychologists – the report that triggered the first round of media interest in the story. The Health Protection Agency will run the review, with Coggon at the head as an independent expert.

One of the contaminants of concern, radon, has been monitored by the university as a matter of course, the HSE spokesperson said, and all levels recorded to date have fallen below maximum exposure levels set by the HSE’s Ionising Radiations Regulations, last updated in 1999.

So far, the HSE has no reason to require the university to take any action. No law has been broken. The review by the Health Protection Agency, if it provides any evidence that the university put its employees at unnecessary risk, will prompt the HSE to act. But so far no such evidence exists.