Re: Radon Field Day

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 05/19/2002 9:02:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:



> One of my daughters is exceedingly sensitive to cigarette smoke.  Happily she can now fly comfortably in airplanes.  I am not so sensitive -- I don't mind second-hand smoke particularly, but I am grateful that I can sit in a no-smoking section of a restaurant and not have all my clothing pick up stale smoke. 
>
>
> I might say I am equally grateful that my neighbors cannot substitute outhouses or pit toilets for indoor plumbing, that a drive-in liquor store cannot be built on the corner lot across from my house, that Wal-Mart can't condemn my property. 


The problem with all this is that each individual decides what is important to them personally, and what they don't like, and then demands there's some kind of law to enforce their personal preference.  I don't like bass-heavy stereo systems in cars driving down my street, but does that mean I have a "right" to stop them?  My husband doesn't like when neighbors don't mow their lawns, should he be allowed to legally force them to?  (I know some jurisdictions hold he can - I oppose that.)  I don't like speeding either, but is the solution to enforce a 10 miles per hour speed limit everywhere, which might give us the 1E-6 risk the anti-nukes are looking for with respect to the use of radioactive material?


Who gets to decide what is safe or what is safe enough?  That is the real issue.  Ruth, your daughter is sensitive to smoke.  That's a shame.  My daughter, with a strong family history of melanoma and fair, freckled Irish skin, is highly sensitive to sun damage.  Sure, it's easy to say, that your daughter's sensitivities are out of her control, so people should capitulate to her needs, but what rights should my daughter have, under, say the ADA, to have soccer and cross-country running, and track events be moved indoors in Southern California, because of her interest or talent in these areas, and her sensitivity to sunlight.  How many people do we punish or make pay for our own genetic weaknesses?  Sure, now, looking back, I realize I should've thought of that in choosing a breeding partner, but, you know, love, yadda, yadda, yadda...


I'm not trying to be cold, but we all die.  There's virtually no question about that.  Some people die from eating peanuts, should we ban them?  Some people die from bee stings, should we governmentally finance a program to exterminate all bees?  Some people die from broken hearts, shall we ban love?


And, now, I'm not trying to be facetious, but there must be common sense in our restriction of liberty.  There must be informed consensus, not simply a mob majority; there must be a balance of the rights of all, not simply the rights of the most offended or most sensitive; and there must be a rational assessment of the risks and benefits, to include the risks to liberty and democracy, not simply an assessment of the potential risks of a behaviour to a hypothetical individual in a vacuum. 


Okay, I'm way past my foot, and up to mid-calf, so I'm shutting up now.


Barbara