[ RadSafe ] NYC Council bill on detectors: Simple question

[Steven Dapra]

Jan. 31

         There is no point to registering Geiger counters, or to 
registering any of the detectors this law would cover.  No rational point, 
that is.  This law is not about false positives, or catching terrorists, 
blah, blah, blah.   It is about control.  To reiterate my posting of Jan. 
29:  <According to the V[illage] V[oice] article, "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.)

         If this bill is passed a huge uproar will ensue.  Falkenrath and 
NYPD will be bellowing out threats all over the place and there will be a 
few show prosecutions to show New Yorkers who is boss.  After a few months 
everything will die down.  Then, the bill will be applied hit or miss and 
will probably be used to persecute eccentrics, or unpopular residents of 
NY; and will be resurrected occasionally to remind New Yorkers who is 
boss.  Is will also serve as a useful precedent for control freaks in other 
cities.  The bill's shortcomings and the vast bureaucracy and the 
administrative nightmare will be ignored, unless current and new victims 
become too restive.  Then the control freaks will start shouting about how 
opponents are supporters of terrorism, much like John Ashcroft said 
(publicly) that anyone who opposed the Bush Administration's incipient 
police state was also a supporter of terrorism.

         Anyone want to put money on this?  That is a rhetorical 
question.  I am *not* suggesting that we start gambling on RADSAFE/.

Steven Dapra


At 05:16 PM 1/31/08 +0000, Bjorn Cedervall wrote:

>I apologize for asking something that many of you probably understand
>- I hesitate to go through all the previous postings/responses to the subject:
>
>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 
>general
>public learns more about natural background radiation?
>
>My personal comment only,
>
>Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers at hotmail.com