pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 590
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
NYPD trying to outlaw possession of Geiger counters or air quality detectors w/o permit
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
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1042
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 322
Registered: 11-10-2007
Location: Montana
Member Is Offline
Mood: nitric
|
|
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]
The mind cannot decide the truth; it can only find the truth.
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
it`s like banning Medical Books to protect the Hypochondraics, or from fear you may inspire a Jack-the-ripper copycat.
it`s madness!
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
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]
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1346
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Archived Link
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]
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
Ozone
International Hazard
Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Integrated
|
|
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]
-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 590
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| 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...
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Civic administration 101
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 287
Registered: 31-12-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: spin up
|
|
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 241
Registered: 13-10-2003
Location: Australia, now with 25% faster carrier pigeons
Member Is Offline
Mood: heretical
|
|
| Quote: |
Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms |
Presumably they'll be banning smoke detectors as well?
Never accept that which can be changed.
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
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.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
| 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).
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
YT2095
International Hazard
Posts: 1091
Registered: 31-5-2003
Location: Just left of Europe and down a bit.
Member Is Offline
Mood: within Nominal Parameters
|
|
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) !  
\"In a world full of wonders mankind has managed to invent boredom\" - Death
Twinkies don\'t have a shelf life. They have a half-life! -Caine (a friend of mine)
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1042
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
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.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Pyrovus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 241
Registered: 13-10-2003
Location: Australia, now with 25% faster carrier pigeons
Member Is Offline
Mood: heretical
|
|
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!"
Never accept that which can be changed.
|
|
|
pyrochem
Harmless
Posts: 21
Registered: 1-1-2006
Location: United States
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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 
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
