|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Tobacco, Radiation, &
Government Regulation
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.
>In California, and certain
other areas in the USA, smoking is banned (i.e. illegal!) in all public
buildings including all restaurants, bars, airports, office buildings,
etc<
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.
>IMHO, treating second-hand smoke as a nuisance is OK,
but not banning it as a health menace.<
.
Finally, I believe that it is generally
agreed that some limits on exposure to ionizing radiation are needed,
and that such limits should not just be a matter of individual choice, and it
is the degree of limitation that is the subject of controversy.
< limiting
radiation exposures to ~5.0 rem/a may be reasonable. BUT, what is
gained by mandating further reduction below this limit
??<
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
|