[ RadSafe ] NYC Council bill on detectors: Simple question
sjd at swcp.com
Fri Feb 1 23:08:41 CST 2008
Now you're acting like government will do something that makes
sense. Really, Dan. I'm surprised at you.
At 01:11 AM 2/1/08 -0600, Dan W McCarn wrote:
>Strange. Shouldn't NYC be concerned with licensing/accrediting/certifying
>the person using the instrument rather than the instrument itself?
>From: dlawrencenewyork at aol.com [mailto:dlawrencenewyork at aol.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 12:33 AM
>To: hotgreenchile at gmail.com; bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NYC Council bill on detectors: Simple question
>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
More information about the RadSafe