[ RadSafe ] NYC Bans Geiger counters!!!

Brent Rogers brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au
Fri Feb 1 22:16:12 CST 2008

I share my thanks too, Wes.

And I agree with your choice of sending your response to Hizonner, the
mayor.  If the political pundits are correct, there's a reasonable to strong
chance that he'll be running for president as an independent (and is
apparently willing to part with $1 Billion (USD) of his own private money to
reach that goal).  I would imagine that a mayor as a presidential candidate
would ill desire to have such poorly considered laws attributed to his

Brent Rogers

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of BLHamrick at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2008 12:45 PM
To: WesVanPelt at verizon.net; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NYC Bans Geiger counters!!!

Thank you for sharing that.  I think it is very important for  professionals

in the community to address these types of proposals in writing to  the 
legislative bodies considering them.  The Organization of Agreement  States
provided comments on the proposed law to Councilmember Peter Vallone  (the
of the Committee introducing the proposal). 
I know this has been said before on RadSafe, but I think it bears repeating

- while our discussions here may have great value, it is critically
to  the public for us to share our professional expertise with the lawmakers

whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Barbara L. Hamrick
In a message dated 2/1/2008 10:52:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,  
WesVanPelt at verizon.net writes:

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.
Best regards,  
Wesley R. Van  Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP 
Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.   

22 January 2008

Mayor Michael R.  Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007

Dear Mayor  Bloomberg:

I am aware of the introduction and debate over a pending  bill before the
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
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
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, Ph.D.


**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.     
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 mailing list