RE: Senate Bill 1043

[Bradt, Clayton]

Barbara, I agree with your assessment of the relative efficiency and

expediency of federal vs. state authority over public health matters.  But I

think this is a case where we need to forebear the inefficiencies built in

to our constitution for the sake of preserving as much of the original

distribution of power as still remains.   I sincerely believe that

individual freedom is more precious, and more vulnerable than public health

and safety.  To the extent that political competition between power centers

within society is protective of individual liberties, I believe we should

nurture that competition by ensuring as much of a balance of power as

possible.  Efficiency in government is far more dangerous than ionizing

radiation.  

 

Barbara, you have on a number of occasions drawn our attention to some of

the asinine  proposals for radiation regulation in the California

legislature.  Do you believe that Congress is any less prone to such

nonsense?  It is safer to require stupid laws to be passed by 50

legislatures than to rely solely upon the good sense of Congress. 

 

Clayton



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

From: BLHamrick@aol.com [mailto:BLHamrick@aol.com]

Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 9:21 PM

To: Clayton.Bradt@LABOR.STATE.NY.US; radsafe-digest@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Senate Bill 1043





In a message dated 7/11/2003 6:51:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,

Clayton.Bradt@LABOR.STATE.NY.US writes:







I have had this conversation before with

Barbara and others in the state radiation control community, and it seems I

am in the minority on this issue (as on most others).  I think that

expanding the reach of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to include other (all?)

sources of radiation is a terrible idea - for constitutional reasons.







Yes, Clayton and I have discussed this.  My view is that there are so many

trans-boundary issues (i.e., the manufacture of sources distributed

nationwide and internationally, the waste disposal issues, the political

issue of who has the "most protective" standards, and others), and issues

related to who has the "critical mass" necessary to support the

super-structure and expend sufficient funds to fully develop well-researched

guidance, contract for the development of support software (such as RESRAD

and the D and D code), or research emerging issues, etc. that it seems more

expedient and efficient to have a single federal authority on the issue.  I

agree there is potentially a valid constitutional challenge to my view.



Barbara