[ RadSafe ] NYC Bans Geiger counters!!!
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
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.
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
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 ASSOCIATES, Inc.
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