[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: California Legislation

Hi all,
I just joined this group and have read a few posts with great interest. I am very interested in the topics, especially the California Legislation. In my opinion it is a very poorly written bill and appears to have hidden meanings. If I am reading it correctly (and please correct me if I have overlooked something), even the mineral collector will be required to have a license if he/she has any radioactive ore in a collection. Plus it would be a criminal act to transfer or sell, without a license, a mineral specimen which was radioactive even though 10 CFR 40.13 (B) exempts NORM.
Am I reading this correctly?
                    Ron
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: California Legislation

In a message dated 06/20/2002 8:52:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mail@philrutherford.com writes:


Romero had another Bill, SB 1970, on "plastic packaging containers" which had passed through to the Assembly.  She therefore replaced the original wording of SB 1970 with the Radiation Safety Act of SB 1623, and voila ... SB 1623 is reborn as SB 1970 in the Assembly.  She has effectively bypassed the required approval of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  


I would imagine it's a rather desperate person that acts in such a manner.  And, it makes me wonder what could possibly drive her to junk the bill she got passed, only to replace it with a bill that's controversial at best and potentially very humiliating at worst, but in any case will make bad law.

Barbara