[ RadSafe ] NYC permitting of detectors: NYPD proposes some changes.
Dan W McCarn
hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Sun Feb 10 23:20:18 CST 2008
Regarding the NYC detector law, the various groups should be lining-up
apposing this proposed law in its entirety, not trying to be the exception.
There should especially be discussions between groups to get a clear
understanding of the scope of what services might be affected. That is why I
asked Charles Rich and the New York State Council of Professional Geologists
to take note of the ongoing discussion.
So far, the case made to me for such a law is highly questionable.
Twenty years ago, I prepared a paper on water quality for the Tullnerfeld in
Austria. The overuse of the surficial aquifer from decades of agricultural
water use had resulted in very high total dissolved solids (TDS) in the
aquifer. Only extremely sodium resistant crops such as sugar beets could
grow (no more corn, wheat, tomatoes, etc.) These data came from and were
owned by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. When I asked if I could
publish my findings, the ministry said that I could as long as no one would
recognize where those data came from. (Lieber Franz: This is why they have a
sugar fabrik in Tulln!)
I would personally find it untenable if environmental quality data became
owned by a governmental entity that would not allow alternate opinions or
measurements, or would arrest me if I attempted to make a measurement. Is
this where NYC is headed?
If the NYC Council is serious about this, they should be requiring
certification & training through the accepted norms of health physics,
environmental sciences / services, and geologists for personnel that are
already doing this sort of work with instrumentation that might likely fall
under the umbrella of such a law.
I assure you that it is the person taking the measurement, directing how the
measurement should be made, or interpreting a series of measurements that is
crucial, not just the instrument itself.
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
Albuquerque & Houston (and sometimes Vienna & Leoben)
P.S. All of my instruments get re-calibrated at the factory (with
certificate) every September.
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Philip L Smith
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 8:58 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] NYC permitting of detectors: NYPD proposes some
Following the discussion of the NYC detector law, I have noticed that
various groups are lobbying for exemption or special treatment for their
specific sensor technologies. They are essentially lining up to be
extensions of the arm of the NYC police. Orphaned in all of this is the
lowly survey meter - the instrument with the greatest potential to save
lives. Few are likely to die from a dirty bomb attack. In the event of
a nuclear detonation, immediate sheltering in place is the most sensible
survival strategy in areas such as Manhattan Island. On location survey
meters are essential to such sheltering. This has been completely
ignored by all of the "authorities", even the health physics and
responder groups. I propose that the contributors to RADSAFE along with
lobbying for their particular fields request exemption of all meters with
initial thresholds above 25mR/hr. Such instruments will only be pressed
into service when the alarm clearly isn't false. If the DHS, NYPD, and
NY City Council are honest in their justification for the law, they
should have no problem with such an exemption.
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