4th December 2005, 10:29 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
I don't know the details, as I was not involved in the project - I just heard about it from the excavator at a conference. However, my understanding is that the contaminants were such that, if they got into a woman, they would stay there permanently and would cause serious deformities/death to any baby she might have in future.
This may be the case if certain transplacental contaminants were on site, particularly mercury or methyl mercury. Whilst dangerous to both men and women, there is an additional risk if the contaminant is passed through the placenta and perhaps the additional risk resulted in the non-female site ruling.
In the instance that 1man1desk describes the potential risk was obviously detected at assessment stage. One would hope that other risks (to both male and female archaeologists) are also being picked up at this early stage. One would imagine that a reverse of this action would be implemented if a contaminant were additionally dangerous to men.
Although bearing that thought in mind, perhaps holding ones breath isn't a good idea....