[ RadSafe ] NYC Bans Geiger counters!!!
Dan W McCarn
hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 13:58:19 CST 2008
Hi - I liked your letter. Perhaps you should inform the mayor's office that
"The world is watching" what the city council is doing. He needs to
understand that it is not the detector that needs to be certified / licensed
but rather the professional using the instrument.
Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA
Cell: +1-505-710-3600; Home: +1-281-903-7667; Fax: +1-713-241-1012; Office:
mccarn at unileoben.ac.at HotGreenChile at gmail.com
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Wes Van Pelt
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 12:45 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] NYC Bans Geiger counters!!!
I see there is continued discussion on the misguided proposed law in NYC.
FYI I attach below the letter I sent to Mayor Bloomberg about a week ago.
Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP
Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.
22 January 2008
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mayor Bloomberg:
I am aware of the introduction and debate over a pending bill before the New
York City Council known as "Int. No. 650: A Local Law to amend the
administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to permits for
atmospheric biological, chemical, and radiological detectors."
I understand the general intent of NYC to standardize and control the
alarms generated when someone might measure the presence of a dangerous
airborne substance. However, the bill is so poorly crafted that it would
not reach its goal. Furthermore, the bill is so overreaching and general
that it would require registration and reporting from persons owning smoke
and carbon dioxide detectors in their homes as well as safety and industrial
hygiene professionals who routinely measure airborne levels of dangerous
gasses in the workplace.
Even if the poor definitions were better crafted to the intended purpose,
the overall approach of registering atmospheric detectors is at best
unconventional and cumbersome. I feel this legislation creates more
concerns than the problem it addresses. Frankly, I am not convinced that
there is a problem.
I recommend you withhold future action on this legislation, invite affected
stakeholders, i.e., citizens, law enforcement, government officials,
professionals in health and safety, and others to begin a dialogue that will
produce a product that protects the health and safety of citizens through
the combined resources of experts in all fields.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Very truly yours,
WESLEY R. VAN PELT ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Wesley R. Van Pelt, Ph.D.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe