Sciencemadness Discussion Board

NYPD trying to outlaw possession of Geiger counters or air quality detectors w/o permit

pantone159 - 26-1-2008 at 12:12

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0803,thompson,78873,2.html

This is so incredibly ridiculous... NYPD claims that allowing civilians to freely possess biological/chemical/detectors will cause so many false alarms that it must be stopped.
Quote:
"There are currently no guidelines regulating the private acquisition of biological, chemical, and radiological detectors," warned Falkenrath, adding that this law was suggested by officials within the Department of Homeland Security. "There are no consistent standards for the type of detectors used, no requirement that they be reported to the police department—or anyone else, for that matter—and no mechanism for coordinating these devices. . . . Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms . . . by making sure we know where these detectors are located, and that they conform to standards of quality and reliability."


They tried to force this law through on short notice, but fortunately some people found out and complained enough that it is (temporarily) on hold.

This is particularly interesting re NYC, since after the 9/11 attacks, the authorities publicly announced that the air was ok, even though it was obviously very questionable, and some researchers came around to test the air and showed that, indeed, as one would expect, the air was very hazardous with all the suspended junk. That analysis would be illegal under the proposed law.

The_Davster - 26-1-2008 at 12:32

I am afraid I don't speak moron/politician...
How does
reporting that you own a geiger counter to the cops,
'coordinating these devices' (WTF does that even mean)
prevent false alarms?

I just don't get the reasoning....

microcosmicus - 26-1-2008 at 15:16

This certainly sounds upside-down to me. The obvious solution to
concern about detectors giving false alarms is to go after manufacturers,
not consumers --- require that the detectors meet certain standards
and be tested before sale, much as with all sorts of other consumer
goods. Thus, the part about consistent standards sounds OK to me,
but the rest of the proposal sounds nuts to me.

To me, this notion that detectors should be kept out of the hands of
the general public sounds like more of the same school of thought
which says that anything at all dangerous or with a potential for misuse
needs to be kept away from the sheeple and only be made available
to the few authorized by the all-wise government. I reject this
absolutist stance --- if you can't trust your citizens, who can you trust?
(And is a government which does not trust its citizens trustworthy?)

Since they count as chemical detectors, I wonder what this bill had
to say about smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms,
which are required by fire codes. Also, how broad or narrow would
the definition of detector be --- would it also cover litmus paper,
soil test kits, spectroscopes, and other analytical devices, or
maybe leave open the possibility for an unelected bureaucrat to
expand the list?

Mr. Wizard - 27-1-2008 at 01:10

In the old Soviet Union, the name for those in charge was 'Control'. They want to control everything, your money, your thoughts, your movement, and any other options you might think you have. Many European countries can't own radio scanners or any device we can buy at a Ham Radio store. It's always for your own good; what do you need that for?

kilowatt - 27-1-2008 at 01:40

I think the real underlying idea behind this law is that chemical/biological/radiological detectors are related to, and used in conjunction with, actual chemical/biological/radiological materials. By controlling the safety and measurement devices associated with those things, they hope to further control those things themselves. In other words, science is so taboo that they don't even want you to have the equipment to help you do it safely. If more private scientists died or had disasters because of lack of detectors and stuff, that would make it much easier for them to exaggerate the dangers of science, and impose further laws restricting it.

Their reasoning is that if you have a geiger counter, you must be a terrorist trying to make a nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb or something like that. Why else would you need it?

[Edited on 27-1-2008 by kilowatt]

YT2095 - 27-1-2008 at 03:20

it`s like banning Medical Books to protect the Hypochondraics, or from fear you may inspire a Jack-the-ripper copycat.

it`s madness!

quicksilver - 27-1-2008 at 08:20

They pulled the original Village Voice link....must have been TOO stupid to have in print.

The refrain "what do you need that for?" is an interesting one. In it's social context, it's a "shaming" action, not really a query. [You would act defensive or ashamed in response and the power in the questioner, etc.]
The answer is almost irrelevant because the questioner is forming what they will TELL you before you're done speaking. There are people who don't listen to what you have to say. THEY SIMPLY WAIT THEIR TURN TO SPEAK (sometimes not even that) and then they simply lecture you on what they want. This is a classical political technique.
Notice how many politicians DON'T ANSWER THE QUESTION, they simply start blathering on about their position on some issue or obfuscate the whole of the subject by introducing garbage into the conversation.

An absolute MASTER of this was Bill Clinton in his "debates". His wife is very, very good. But she is somewhat timid about being called on it. However, she will use that technique on occasion much more than anyone else.


Now....look at how in the context of a discussion on the validity of ownership of detectors the subject has slipped around to political technique.... The above would be an example of how those law-makers who are selling this issue will respond to a simple query.




[Edited on 27-1-2008 by quicksilver]

Archived Link

MadHatter - 27-1-2008 at 08:50

Village Voice Archive

As always, more politicians with their heads jammed up their asses. The text version of
the article is on the FTP in the POLITICAL folder. I also managed to ge the HTML file
but it still won't let me download the complete web page.

Make sure you read the responses from readers. I couldn't find a response in favor of the
proposed law.


[Edited on 2008/1/27 by MadHatter]

Ozone - 27-1-2008 at 09:53

Surely, this must be a typo (or a harbinger?):

Quoted from the villagevoice:

"After all, if you let research scientists and community groups do their jobs, the terrorists will have already won. "

Perverse,

O3

This also is a bit scary:

But Falkenrath pressed on, saying that unless the police can determine who gets to look for nasty stuff floating in the air, the city would be paralyzed by fear.


[Edited on 27-1-2008 by Ozone]

pantone159 - 27-1-2008 at 13:59

Quote:
Originally posted by Ozone
"After all, if you let research scientists and community groups do their jobs, the terrorists will have already won. "


I'm pretty sure that was an editorial comment by the Village Voice, not a quote from the NY officials. At least I sure hope so...

Civic administration 101

franklyn - 27-1-2008 at 15:44

Hi all and welcome to Gotham. As a life long resident here of la' la' land
( original term for Los Angeles but just as applicable to Neeuuw Yawkaas )
http://www.answers.com/topic/la-la-land
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=la+la+land
I'm sure none of this is as represented and there are ulterior motives for
this ill conceived pretext for monitoring who is in possession of environmental
sampling equipment. The tip off is the source of this initiative, I quote
from the article - " Richard Falkenrath, NYPD's deputy commissioner for
counterterrorism " ( note that's deputy, not the commissioner who is
much too astute to be associated with anything so boneheaded )
" Peter Vallone looked shell-shocked " ( consequences of the very little
thought and preparation that went into this proposal for an ordinance )
In the overall pecking order of the governmental hierarchy, Valone a
Manhattan Borough Councilman, ranks just above dog catcher.

I suspect the real reason for requiring a permit is to have readily available
background information on individuals who make a claim of an environmental
violation or initiate a lawsuit. One needs to first file a notice of claim with
the city, ordinarily only some mention of the raw measurements offered as
prima facie is available for official perusal before trial. Requiring official
permission for testing will place a considerable hurdle to the presentation
and validity of evidence, never mind if it's right, if it's procedurally defective
then it is not admissible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

________________________________


What does this all mean ?
Consider this hypothetical if somewhat snide scenario.

City attorney: " and how did you determine, as you claim
that the building is fifteen feet taller than what the
building code allows ? "

Witness: " I viewed the the structure through two popsicle
sticks pivoted on a thumb tack to determine the angle.
I measured the exact distance in feet from the building
to where I made this measurement. The rest is applied
trigonometry."

City attorney: " When you performed this measurement
that you say, had you been issued a city permit to perform
trigonometry."

Witness: " Permit ? I didn't know I needed one "

City attorney: " Your honor I move to strike and exclude
the testimony of this witness on the ground that the alleged
evidence was obtained in violation of statute proscribing
the collection of such evidence. "
Judge: " Motion to exclude is so granted "
.

[Edited on 27-1-2008 by franklyn]

microcosmicus - 27-1-2008 at 18:21

For another account of this, you might want to see Chelsea Now:

N.Y.P.D. looks to regulate environmental detectors
By Julie Shapiro
Volume 2, Number 15

http://chelseanow.com/cn_68/nypdlooksto.html

Here are a few quotes from this article together with my
peanut gallery comments.
Quote:

Public Safety Committee

Even the name of the committee sounds ominous --- it reminds
me of what a similarly named committee did to Lavoisier.
Quote:

the committee postponed a vote

So this proposal has not been shot out the water by any means.
Likely, some changes will be made to cover the more obvious
loopholes, maybe a provision for independent testing agencies
will be made or maybe some impact study will be commissioned,
then the bill will be back up for vote soon enough.
Quote:

detection equipment once available only to the military is trickling down into the private sector. . . . bill to control the proliferation of these detection devices

Sneaky rhetoric, especially the use of the term "proliferation", designed
to insinuate that chemical detectors are not something which the average,
law-abiding citizen would have around. Of course, my jeep and the
internet also qualify as once military technology now in the private sector.
Quote:

The bill, . . . requires all owners, whether they have permits or not, to inform the city of any contamination.

Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms

This sounds contradictory to me. If people are going to be required to
call the police every time the alarm buzzes, that means that every false
alarm will have to be reported. I am quite sure that, if reporting is required
by law, people will far rather report false alarms than risk conviction for
not reporting.
Quote:

it does not explicitly exclude commonplace devices such as smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.

That answers the question I raised in my last post.

Quote:

In response to the council’s concerns, Falkenrath gave several examples of the types of devices he wants to regulate. The bill would not require permits for radiation equipment used to treat oncology patients, but it would require them for emergency-room radiation detectors, since terrorists whose experimental weapons go wrong often end up there. The bill also would not regulate industrial safety chemical detectors or detectors used for instruction in university classrooms

Relevant to this forum, the exceptions are not available to private citizens.
Given the "banned unless explicitly permitted" tone of this legislation and
the deliberately broad coverage of the bill, it sounds plausible to me that
many analytical devices would qualify as regulated equipment. This, of
course, would be about as devastating as the Texas glassware law.

[Edited on 27-1-2008 by microcosmicus]

Pyrovus - 27-1-2008 at 21:01

Quote:

Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms


Presumably they'll be banning smoke detectors as well?

Sauron - 28-1-2008 at 06:16

I think that requiring a permit to possess such testing equipment is likely unconstitutional. The premise that this is to prevent flase alarms is laughable.

What the City of NY wants to do is to intimidate anyone capable of disputing their laughable official air quality assessments, into silence, a permit granted after all can be readily REVOKED>

I'd be curious as to the proposed penalties for possession of UNregistered Geiger counters etc. Draconian? or not?

A decade ago I was involved in high voltage battery issued for older Nikon electronic flash units, typically the original batteries were Zn-C piles in the 240V to 480V range at very low mAh. These were used on some Nikon F and F2 flash units battery packs, and were superceded by NiCd rechargables. Much lower voltages but higher mAh. I employed a professional battery strapper in Western Australia who assembled equivalents out of many lithium coin cells. He told me that he made similar batteries for Aussie prospectors for uranium, who needed them to power Geiger counters.

Basicallt these high voltage batteries were incompatible with electronic cameras such as the F3 but one 315V battery lingered on is a battery pack for the rather rare Bulk Data back for the F3. Nikon never sold this in Europe, where I am told the authorities did not like this kind of battery because it was very suitable for bomb making, then as now a popular sport among certain groups.

The main manufacturers of such antiquated Zn-C batteries were Mallory and Everready. I remember using such large bulk batteries as a kid. I think they were most commonly used to power powerful portable lanterns.

A decade ago sometimes they could still be found as new old stock on dealers shelves but, these were invariable deader than Kelsey's nuts.

woelen - 28-1-2008 at 07:06

How long will it take before possession of any lab measurement device will be prohibited, or at least regulated? High precision voltage meters, current meters, spectrum analyzers, oscilloscopes etc. also are invaluable tools in the hands of the persons, making electronic ignition devices and can be used by terrorists.

YT2095 - 28-1-2008 at 07:30

Quote:
Originally posted by woelen
How long will it take before possession of any lab measurement device will be prohibited, or at least regulated? High precision voltage meters, current meters, spectrum analyzers, oscilloscopes etc. also are invaluable tools in the hands of the persons, making electronic ignition devices and can be used by terrorists.


and Frequency counters, signal generators, function generators, signal injectors, HT generators, Logic analysers etc...

they`d think it was fuckin` Christmas if they came here after passing a law like that!

and yet I`v never harmed a soul in my life! (quite the opposite).

YT2095 - 28-1-2008 at 08:17

and anyway, if they ban GM counters, how are you Ever supposed to find that Isotope that accidentally
fell the back of the couch (along with the peanuts and odd coins) ! :o:P

quicksilver - 28-1-2008 at 11:23

The whole issue is misguided and sad. If they have trepidation about false reports and panicked people then they should address that issue specifically. The amount of HELP that someone could provide out-weighs the "false alarm" agenda. What stops people from calling 911 (or 999 for those on the other side of the pond) every time someone fights or yells? I'm sure there are some people who abuse that but that abuse is addressed.

How many times has some called in an emergency and it turned out to be WORTH investigating? Why not discontinue the emergency call centers because of POSSIBLE misuse? If this wasn't so potentially destructive it would be laughable (because it's so damn asinine)!

There it is! .....Oh shit; I was looking all over for that isotope.

Mr. Wizard - 28-1-2008 at 13:34

Looking at the forest instead of the trees. Read the first page of this link, and see if it makes more sense:
http://www.mises.org/story/2726

Here is the meat:
"The end held constantly in view was power.

In a revolutionary situation, mistakes and failures are not what they seem. They are scaffolding. Error is not repealed. It is compounded by a longer law, by more decrees and regulations, by further extensions of the administrative hand. As deLawd said in The Green Pastures, that when you have passed a miracle you have to pass another one to take care of it, so it was with the New Deal. Every miracle it passed, whether it went right or wrong, had one result. Executive power over the social and economic life of the nation was increased. Draw a curve to represent the rise of executive power and look there for the mistakes. You will not find them. The curve is consistent."

MagicJigPipe - 30-1-2008 at 00:28

I have a "friend" that is completely clueless about everything. Stereotypical sheep person that only cares about himself and believes that the govt. is all knowing and subscribes to the "if you don't have anything to hide then why do you care?" belief system.

I just thought I would share this with everyone:

MJP says
that's like requiring you to have a permit to own a smoke detector to "prevent false alarms"

******* says:
well a smoke alarm doesnt cause wide spread panic

MJP says:
niether do gieger counters or air quality samplers... much less so than smoke alarms actually

MJP says:
and if the people have a reason to panic...then...why should people be kept in the dark?

****** says:
yeah, but does the average joe know that.

****** says:
let me tell ya something ****

****** says:
I REALLY DONT CARE

****** says:
i think small

****** says:
i worry about ME

Unfortunately, I believe this is indicative of the average American's attitude and philosophy. It makes me sad.

Pyrovus - 30-1-2008 at 03:28

I can just imagine it now:

Police officer: "The city owes you a debt of gratitude. We'd never have known about the terrorist plot to construct a dirty bomb, if you hadn't alerted us to the high levels of radiation coming from the house across the street. You have potentially saved thousands of lives. Now, if you'll just come with me, you're under arrest for unauthorised possession of a Geiger counter!"

pyrochem - 2-2-2008 at 21:43

Is there anywhere where they define the types of detectors to be included?

Because I have a pretty good chemical detector attached to my face, though it has been known to make false alarms :)