[ RadSafe ] NYC Council bill on detectors: Simple question

Cary Renquist cary.renquist at ezag.com
Thu Jan 31 12:39:33 CST 2008

I only skimmed through the info posted to the list, but...  
The way that I interpreted the proposed regulation is that they *do*
desire to have a bunch
of "sensors" out there -- part of the reg requires that any alarm be
reported to NYPD.
In what I assume is an attempt to filter out too many false positive
reports, they also
require that the "sensor" be registered with proper calibration records
being part of the

It seems misguided, appears to be unfunded, and likely would just result
in chaos.

If an extended alarm network is what they are trying to get...
What they could do is have a program involving volunteer "citizen
deputies" who get 
registered as being capable (able to understand the instrument being
used) of filing 
"alarm reports" for hazard-x.  

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Bjorn Cedervall
Sent: Thursday, 31 January, 2008 09:17
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] NYC Council bill on detectors: Simple question

I apologize for asking something that many of you probably understand
- I hesitate to go through all the previous postings/responses to the
Can anyone summarize in 2-3 lines what the point would be to register
Geiger counters? (I don't understand it)
Wouldn't it be better if there were lots of them "out there" so that the
public learns more about natural background radiation?
My personal comment only,
Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers at hotmail.com
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
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: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list