[ RadSafe ] NYC Council bill on detectors: Simple question
sjd at swcp.com
Fri Feb 1 23:05:51 CST 2008
Has anyone in NY city government explained the rationale behind
this law? I think Falkenrath's speech about preventing false alarms, etc.,
is a bunch of self-serving mumbo jumbo. The purpose of this law is to
increase the size and power of city government.
According the the Village Voice article reporting on the first
hearing on the law, "And if people use these detectors without a permit,
Vallone asked, do we really have to put them in jail? Afraid so, Falkenrath
answered." (Vallone is the city councilor who introduced the bill and
Falkenrath is NYPD.) Nothing there about detectors being used in an
emergency. Without a permit you're going to jail, emergency or not.
It is likely that NYC will try to turn this into a money-making
At 01:33 AM 2/1/08 -0500, dlawrencenewyork at aol.com wrote:
> The intent of this bill is most likely to prevent the use of
> unauthorized detectors in the event of an emergency and give the police
> the authority to seize the unlicensed ones in such an instance. This is
> an ill-advised attempt to limit the psychological impact that anti-nuke
> pseudo scientists might inflict in such an instance - and will most
> likely backfire on them as do most such ham-fisted government attempts at
> information management. Also, I would never put it past NYC to attempt to
> make this or any licensing regime a self funding enterprise as that is
> "de rigueur" over at city hall.
>Greenwich Environmental Services
>From: Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com>
>To: 'Bjorn Cedervall' <bcradsafers at hotmail.com>; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Sent: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:06 pm
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] NYC Council bill on detectors: Simple question
>Don't try to make sense of something when the concept is absurd. I will
>still have my radiation detection equipment and use it. We have a concept
>called judicial review in the USA that allows bad laws to be overturned by
>the courts when application of that law abridges more fundamental freedoms.
>We have "freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." For a
>scientist, this probably means "truth".
>Until a case concerning this is actually tried in court and a decision is
>passed whether the law or regulation can be applied, I personally think that
>this NYC Council issue is highly questionable.
>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:
>+1-713-241-5726; Austria: ?+43-676-725-6622
>mccarn at unileoben.ac.at HotGreenChile at gmail.com
>Dan.McCarn at shell.com
More information about the RadSafe