RE: Radon Field Day

[Jack_Earley@RL.GOV]

The regulations are imposed not to keep people from harming themselves as

much as they are because people won't regulate their own behavior in

consideration of others. Boulder, CO is about as liberal a community as

you'll find anywhere, but you can't smoke in any public buildings there. If

you don't stop for a pedestrian at a crosswalk, you'll get a ticket. And if

you run a red light, you're likely to get a ticket in the mail because your

picture was taken. (The primary cause of accidents in the Denver metro area

is people running red lights.)



Jack Earley

Radiological Engineer





-----Original Message-----

From: maury [mailto:maury@WEBTEXAS.COM]

Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 4:05 PM

To: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Radon Field Day





For John Andrews,

The first thought was to say a private thank you, John, but then the

thought was, why say thanks privately just to avoid fanning flames. OK,

there is not the slightest desire to fan flames, but folks, this just

has to work both ways. Surely all of you who had a high school class in

civics or government know deep in your hearts and heads that the

foundation of liberty is just that: liberty. One does not exercise

choices by assigning them to someone else. 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. I'm certain that there are a number of anti-nuclear

engineers/scientists who are confident that, at least, all containment

structures should be reinforced with 10 ft. of added concrete and

surrounded by Stinger missile stations. Yes, unfortunately, it is

obvious that we do engage in massive social engineering by means of

taxes and regulations But (I believe) it is the obligation of a free

society to resist such efforts whenever possible. To avoid the

obligation of such resistance can only invite losses of liberty.



When foraging for a good steak to the detriment of my weight, let me ...

no, let circumstances MAKE me choose where to go to get it from the

choices afforded by restaurateurs -- not the choices imposed by the city

council, the Epicure Prevention Agency, or by the local scientists who

know what is and is not healthy. I want desperately to have access to

the scientists' information, but if  I give him the choice I once had,

then both of our liberties are diminished. And it is our collective loss

that all of these kinds of folks are hard at it ....



Thank you again, John,

Maury Siskel            maury@webtexas.com

===========================================

AndrewsJP@AOL.COM wrote:



> In a message dated 5/18/02 9:05:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> epirad@mchsi.com writes:

>

>> The two most effective ways to reduce the rate of

>> smoking is via increased tax on cigarettes and by local

>> ordinances prohibiting smoking in public places.  If you

>> do not currently have a smokefree ordinance in your

>> community I would encourage each radsafer to start such

>> an effort similar to the one in Iowa City:

>> http://www.cleanairforeveryone.org/

>

> This seems to be a very good idea.  I wonder what the unintended

> consequences will be for Iowa City.  Perhaps there will be more bars

> or restaurants with bars and alcoholism will increase because

> restaurants with more than 50% of their income are exempt.  There may

> even be more drunk drivers and more early deaths because of automobile

> accidents because of the proliferation of bars where smoking is

> allowed.  Perhaps if a few people are fined $25 for smoking during

> lunch, they will throw out the incumbent regulators and get some new

> ones that smoke.  That would be a real unintended consequence.  More

> likely, restraunteers will not consider opening a nice restaurant

> because smoking will be prohibited in all areas.  This would lead to

> fewer jobs and poorer lifestyle for all. There is no free lunch.

> Don't get me wrong, I believe that other diners should not smoke near

> me while I eat.  Note the wording is "should not" not "shall not"! and

> that is the crux of the arguement.

> John Andrews

> Knoxville, Tennessee



---------------------------

It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

                                                Charles M. Province





************************************************************************

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/

************************************************************************

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/