[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Radon Field Day
Hello all -
I have to say that I disagree here.
There are good, valid reasons for a Max 70/Min 45
speed limit. In reality, I think the limit should be
Max 65/Min 45. Anyone who has done any work remotely
related to safety realizes that traffic wrecks are the
single largest category of 'accidents.'
Anyone who has been around for longer than the
lifespan of their pet hamster probably has a few
"wreck stories" to tell about cases where they either
observed a bad wreck or where friends or neighbors
were involved in a wreck.
I believe that "government" should represent the
interests of the people, chief among which are life,
liberty and pursuit of happiness. A sane speed limit
protects life. There are individuals out there who
are happy to threaten the lives of others by doing
things like speeding and DUI. This is enough
justification for speed limit and other routine
traffic laws. Sure, if I owned a Camaro I'd probably
not like the speed limits, either.
Protection of life is also justification for common
sense safety regulations such as lockout/tagout and
guards on moving machinery.
A rational view on where government should step in vs.
stay out of the picture can only really be made if
risks are ranked. Plenty of studies have been
performed that do this. A rational point of view is
that the government should not meddle in areas where
safety risks are quite low, but should promote safety
where risks are high, as with traffic.
I think it's dangerous for folks who believe that
radiation safety regulations are too strict to get
mixed up with an idea that there should be _NO_ or
_VERY FEW_ safety regulations of any kind whatsoever.
Rather, risks should be ranked, as they have been by
numerous sources, among them our own Dr. B. Cohen, as
well as the Safety Council, Nat'l Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, etc. Resources should be
allocated where the greatest risks (risk = probability
of death or injury) are, and taken away from
situations that demonstrate paltry risks.
This will yield the _minimal_ level of regulation
necessary to protect life. This will assist with
liberty and pursuit of happiness.
In reference to radiation safety, this allocation of
resources by degree of risk would probably have the
effect of loosening radiation safety regulations,
especially at levels below natural background.
To reiterate, I think that it's very dangerous in the
safety community to suggest that government should
authorize NO safety regulations, even very basic ones
such as reasonable speed limits. This strikes me as
an extremist, simplistic "one size fits all" blanket
approach to a problem that needs instead to be
addressed on a case-by-case basis using quantitative
risk comparisons.
Statements such as "the government shouldn't enforce
speed limits" also remove credibility from viewpoints
about lower risk situations. If I were to listen to
and compare two speakers, both of whom held the
viewpoint that public radiation exposure regulations
are too strict, I would tend to believe the one who
supported safety regulations for traffic and
significant occupational hazards (moving parts,
certain chemicals, equipment safety, etc. etc.) much
more than I would believe the guy who walked up on
stage and told me that there should be NO safety rules
of any kind. I would pretty much discredit completely
the viewpoint of the person who did not believe in
_any_ safety laws, because I know there are reasons
for things such as speed limits.
Overall, I don't like a lot of regulation. However,
some is necessary. The wisest approach to regulation
minimization is to rank the risks quantitatively and
proceed from there.
[I did not address the 2nd hand smoke issue because
the reports on risks are conflicting. Personally, I
don't like very smoky restaurants].
~Ruth 2
optional 'gory wreck story' below...I have lots more
but one is enough.
====================================================
Just this past weekend, a friend told me about three
college students who were out testing their car's
power on a two lane road about a mile from her house.
Their car flipped right over a low stone wall and came
to rest in a low spot behind the wall, with a very
high force of impact (the impact was direct on the
ground with very little lateral force). Two are dead
and the third has so many things broken he is being
kept in total sedation.
====================================================
--- maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM> wrote:
It simply
> is not the proper
> role of government to impose rules of conduct on the
> citizenry because
> it is "known" that smoking compromises individual
> health, that because
> speed kills your max speed must be 70 and your
> minimum must be 40, or
> that Denver shall be permanently evacuated because
> all Denver residents
> receive ionizing radiation in excess of the
> permissible federal
> standards.
> Maury Siskel maury@webtexas.com
> ===========================================
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/