In a message dated 5/20/02 7:19:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time, jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET writes:
Tobacco smoke and low-dose radiation are both easy targets for government regulation. Whether or not the public receives any real benefit from such government controls is another question. First of all, the restrictions of second-hand smoke are not quite parallel to those on ionizing radiation: in most states, restaurants are required to have a non-smoking section, but are not required to ban smoking. "Smoke-free" public places (like airports) usually have places where smoking is allowed. Second, there are a number of anti-nuisance laws that restrict various kinds of public nuisance (I don't think I have to get graphic here), even though the nuisances in question may have no actual health impact. Finally, I believe that it is generally agreed that some limits on exposure to ionizing radiation are needed, and that tsuch limits should not just be a matter of individual choice, and it is the degree of limitation that is the subject of controversy. Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. ruthweiner@aol.com |