Slashdot Mirror
NYC Wants to Ban Geiger Counters
Ellis D. Tripp noted a village voice article about attempts in NYC to pass a law requiring permits for air monitoring devices including apparently geiger counters. I'm sure everyone will feel much safer not knowing anything.
I bet most New Yorkers don't know how to run a Geiger counter (or possibly even what one is).
All the same, slaves were prevented from learning how to read, Jews in the death camps were not given any information about the war, their future, and today, people we want to strip of power are kept in the dark.
Check my history, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I really think that those in power (ALL of them, not just the Bushies) have gotten to the point of realizing that the American populace have become dumb sheep. Through fear, all is possible for them.
Refuse, resist.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Ha. Given the lawmakers usual understanding of things technological..... Anyone reckon that they will accidently ban Smoke Dectectors, Carbon Monoxide Alarms, Butane Gas Dectectors ?
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
From TFA, the rationale is because they're worried that a bunch of shoddy devices will throw tons of false positives, and cause havok amongst emergency responders who would have to run around town constantly trying to weed out false leads.
Frankly, it's crap. I seriously doubt as many people as they're representing are going to be buying these things; the vast majority will be installing them indoors, where they'll be lucky to detect ANYTHING, and the shoddy ones will tend to go off for crap that would set off your smoke alarm...I used to have a CO detector near my kitchen...It's somewhere in my backyard now, after the 10th time it went off when I dumped some liquor in a skillet to deglaze it.
People may buy this stuff, but the vast majority won't, and the ones that do are almost MORE likely to view an alarm as a false positive than the police themselves. New Yorkers are tough bastards. They'll piss and moan, but they're not super-hazard conscious...You can't be, and live in the City all the time, because you're far more likely to be killed by a manhole or a cracked out subway driver than any terrorist.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Seastead this.
Well, immediately, this sounds retarded. However, I can picture one benign reason for this.
We all saw what happened this month with Mass Effect. One idiot decides that it is equal to XXX porn without evver seeing it, and all sorts of people believe him and run with the story. Well, maybe they didn't believe him, but figured since he can be faulted for the mistake, they can run with it to scare people. I could see major "news" networks going nuts over a reading from some moron that wired his sensors wrong.
Is that any reason to excuse this law? No. Just saying I could see one possible reason. Since Journalists can't be trusted to fact check, an incorrect reading could cause a mass panic that would obviously be very problematic.
Creating laws to combat hypothetical future situations is a waste of time. Let there be some evidence that the situation is actually feasible or enevitable before we pass a law preventing it.
It seems that quite often, lawmakers listen (quite intently) to what government groups want the law to be. In this case, it is the city police who want this law. But the people don't benefit from it, just the police. The same thing holds for much of the Patriot Act; it is not a benefit for the people, but the FBI wanted it, and congress listened.
The biggest trouble isn't false alarms, terrorists, or corporate lobbying. The biggest trouble is that government listens to itself more that it listens to the people.
It's New York...Your average New Yorker, on plugging in a Geiger counter that immediately redlined and then exploded would say, "Eh, I figyaed as much." They know it's hazardous to live there, they take a weird sort of pride in it. I moved from New York to Georgia in 2002, and people were way more freaked out about 9/11 in Georgia than they were in New York...The city still had that "burnt tire" smell, but otherwise things were back to normal.
Not to say there weren't some deep fricking scars, but you can't live there and be that high strung about environmental safety issues; the first day you come home, take off your white shirt and your white undershirt, and notice that, while they were the same color when you put them on, one of them is now a sort of stinky grey...You have to accept it and move on, or you will lose your fricking mind.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Umm, the article was pretty accurate. They're preventing them preemptively to stop "False alarms". What part of this do you think could possibly go right? Okay, here's one. How about we disable sprinklers to prevent false alarms, because too many people have false alarms?
How about you have to apply for a permit that you're not necessarily granted for science research? Oh wait, the article has that as a concern. From the article: "Dave Newman, an industrial hygienist for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, claimed that under this law, the West Virginia air-quality experts who tested the air after 9/11 would have been a bunch of criminals."
Yeah, good idea, if you want to make the world a thoughtcrime maybe. I mean this is so far as to call possession of a geiger counter something you can be be fined for. That in itself is a bit of crazy.
I totally disagree with this law. The mere POSSESSION of a device like a Geiger counter or air quality tester is a misdemeanor. That is insane, and everyone should acknowledge this. BUT there is a real problem here, which is people buying inaccurate devices that they do not know how to operate. This is resulting in false positives which, when reported, police officials are obligated to investigate. At the very least this is a defense mechanism by the NYPD, because if something was reported and they didn't respond, if it turned out to be legitimate they would be held responsible.
My problem is why is the citizen always perceived as the enemy? Why are criminal punishments always deemed the solution? Here is my solution: Establish a citizen corps of air/radiation testers. Require a minimum set of standards for equipment and require some sort of proof that the operator knows how to operate the device and that the device functions properly. This may involve some sort of licensure. If you meet the requirements and become a member, you will have established the repute required to report a crisis to the proper authorities.
If you are not a member, you will still be allowed to own or operate these devices. However, if you detect a problem, you are obligated to report it to your closest deputy as defined above, who will verify and report it to the authorities if legitimate. You will not be punished for false positives because the purpose of the deputy is to filter these. However, if by your irresponsible actions you cause a panic, you will be held responsible, possibly criminally.
This engages the community, establishes a system of responsibility and gives a method to report problems. No one has to give up their equipment. It's almost like we live in a society, where people work together and laws aren't just made on the spot to ban stuff and create criminals out of regular people.
Fire alarms can be triggered by steam from a shower. Should they require licensing too? People have actually died in their efforts to escape non-existent fires.
Imagine if hundreds of people buy shitty detectors that can be tripped by high NOX counts(A car emission). Suddenly on a hot afternoon during rush hour, 100+ counters register a large nuclear presence. Thats a big worry.
That's as shitty a reason to criminalize something as I've ever heard in my life. What if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" thus causing a panic? Maybe they should issue free speech permits to make sure only competent professionals will be heard.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
America has come so, so far from my childhood when Popular Electronics (the terrorist, mob unleashing scum) would run feature articles on building the latest geiger counter kit.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have a grave announcement to make. Incredible as it may seem, both the observations of science and the evidence of our eyes lead to the inescapable assumption that those strange beings who landed in the Jersey farmlands tonight are the vanguard of an invading army from the planet Mars.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I RFTA, and it would seem to me, that it would be better to hold the people that reported false alarms that caused a panic accountable instead of removing the availability for detectors. I can see in the near future that air detectors will get smaller and smaller in time. Emergency crews, paramedics, and first responders everyday run into substances and chemicals that cause major damage to them, that could be prevented by knowing that an area is dangerous. Even entering a room with methlab chemicals has caused lung damage to paramedics. To make the means to detect these illegal, ( I realize that emergency crews would most likely get permits quite easily) seems very stupid. Right now we have carbon monoxide detectors, and smoke detectors that save lives everyday. Why take anything similar than that out of everyday hands. Why can't Joe Blow check and see if he really wants to live downwind from the petroleum factory. Why can't a person walk by the weird looking truck with a gieger counter. Is it really bad if the neighbor wants to check the smoke across his yard from the neighbors bbq? If these devices do no harm in and of themselves why would we ever take them from the hands of honest citizens. Far better to hold the people that would cause a panic responsible for their actions as they would find other ways to cause a panic and we would eventually have to outlaw everything that could cause a scare.
I understand the point, but surely you have some kind of standards organisation. If the police have to respond to these things, why not just lean on the standards organisation to create a standard and then say to everyone "If you are calling in with a complaint, is your device certified?" Why not ban non-certified devices? Why go after the people? Why not just go after the crap that people buy?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Maybe they should issue free speech permits to make sure only competent professionals will be heard.
Give them time...they're working on it, I'm sure.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
So, pre 9/11 it was legal to fly planes into buildings?
The point though, is that using a bad Geiger counter does not cause any direct harm, as opposed to punching some one. That they could cause harm at all is speculative, not a logical conclusion.
And outlawing things based on speculation is not ok.
Except that that's not quite right. It is already illegal to cause a panic by any means, including shouting "Anthrax!" That law doesn't apply when the thing causing a panic (anthrax, Godzilla, the Pistons winning the championship) actually happened. Speech that doesn't incite a panic is still generally allowed.
What should be done is regulate them these devices like smoke detectors. You are encouraged to have them, but you pay a fine if the authorities are summoned on a false alarm.
Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
BRB, need to find my tinfoil helmet.
Tin Foil ain't gonna cut it this time. You can borrow my lead helmet and matching vest.Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
I might as well restate my feeling that this is less a reaction to fears of false alarms, than it is an attempt to head off independent investigations, like those that undermined the NYC/EPA "party line" concerning air quality after the 9/11 attacks.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I don't agree with this. I agree with this opinion if it's about e.g. serious things like starting pre-emptive wars on dubious facts, but not in case these detectors have for example been shown to signal false positives in lab environments under fairly normal conditions. That could be a real hazard that is just waiting to happen, and I don't think the price to pay would be too great if setting some certification requirements these detectors need to pass.
At this point, yes, if they're outright banning these and not coming up with alternatives, then that could be a problem with being worse off from before out of a shady "fear" in them misdetecting, but if they'd on the other hand come up with a new wave of certified detectors as well as having real facts backing up these fears, then I don't think this is a bad idea at all.
So for me it depends a bit on what exactly will happen, but I can at least go as far as to say that I don't agree with a blanket statement that it's better to sit on one's butt and not try to ban cheap detectors that risk having cops spend their valuable time in places that are perfectly safe. So if they have the science to back these claims up, and a reasonable way to provide citizens with what they want, such as by certification and better controls here, I'll just say -- go for it.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Free speech already doesn't cover inciting panic, so if 100 people ran around shouting "Anthrax" causing a panic they would be arrested. Rightfully so IMHO.
Not that I agree with the law, but at least I can sort of see where the idea comes from... not everyone is properly educated to operate a geiger counter and determine what its readings really mean in a given situation, and there is really no need for such a device in the hands of the general public.
If people are really that paranoid to begin with, then it's even more likely that they're going to report false positives. Think unconditional trust in a device you don't fully understand combined with the sort of paranoid "any minute now" mentality of someone who would buy and use a personal radiation detector. I would suggest people with a constant fear of radiation exposure use simple dosimeter badges instead - those are cheap, near-impossible to use incorrectly, and need to be professionally analyzed. No user error, no false positives, no panic.
=Smidge=
Ok, so mistaken readings could cause a group panic. Then again, permits for what is basically sensors is a nanny state attitude bordering very much on Big Brother. Once again showing the old idea of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They want to control everything, as its in peoples best interests. Its the wrong solution. They should be educating people not controlling.
... that much stress isn't helping anyone in the long run and certainly not a suitable environment within which to choose reactionary new laws and controls.
It also shows how much of a diet of fear and panic America is currently suffering. Looks like they are now worrying about people worrying so much that they panic!
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
> Yeah, good idea, if you want to make the world a thoughtcrime maybe.
;)
Oh you fuddyduddy libertarian.
Seriously though I think it is a perfectly logical progression. After all we have already been told by every right thinking person[1] that NYC has to operate under different rules, that certain otherwise fundamental liberties must be compromised to make such a metropolis fuction.
Seriously, count em:
1. The second Amendment is pretty much void in New York. The former mayor[2] carefully explained in a recent debate that 'laws that make sense in New York might not make sense in flyover country' so I list this one first to put the accepted precedent that the idea that core Consitituitional liberties vary by population density is now accepted policy. Or I totally missed the nationwide outrush of rage, the riots, etc.
2. The right to property is probably most circumscribed in NYC. See the history of several generations of Rent Control for details.
3. The Right to follow a profession of one's choice is pretty much null and void in NY, between the unions and the almost total control by the city government through licensing and regulation designed not to pretect the public but to control entry into the professions to protect the current workers from competition.
4-999 could be filled in by anyone depressed enough to type that long.
No, if one accepts the base logic that makes that level of State control acceptable, allowing them the monopoly power to control information about the safety (read the actual performance of regulators) makes perfect sense. So all I can say is, suck it up Citizen, turn in your detectors and listen to the Safety and Civil Reassurance Administration when they calmly inform you everything is 'perfectly safe.'
Of course you COULD start demanding the whole fetid mess of dank rotting crap go to Hell. You don't even have to be a Ronulan to say that.
[1] Defined of course by the editorial board of the NYT and usually Socialist house organs such as the Village Voice. Nice to see one of their sacred oxes served up on the grill.
[2] With the partial agreement of all right thinking people[1] except they think he isn't enough of a gun banner.
Democrat delenda est
Let's look at the justification again:
All of these problems, which have yet to evidence themselves in any real way, could be met head on for less money than a registration and enforcement program. Once upon a time, the US government published standards to follow and encouraged people to know how to protect themselves. Cheap equipment was made and distributed and people were trained to use it. The Government of the day called it Civil Defense. It was cheap compared to Homeland Defense.
Now we think it would be better to waste money keeping people from having equipment and knowing how to use it. We have a very different government today. The difference is as stark as freedom and slavery.
The program stinks of incompetence as well as contempt. There are some very simple ways of telling a credible radiation threat over the phone. One of the easiest is to ask the person what the background radiation rate is and if it changes with position. This tells you quickly if the person can read a meter. You still have to investigate if they can't but you know you have a real problem and help if you are talking to someone who knows what they are doing. Squandering resources like that is foolish.
The solution to this is more information, not less. Someone comes screaming to the media that we're all going to die? Except the unversities, and the PIRGs, and everyone else interested in air quality has those same monitors and says "um, no. Someone's making up shit."
And guess what? _There are already laws against hoaxes_.
Freely flinging "you're a nazi!!111" as some kind of childish insult is pretty idiotic, but claiming that all reasonably intelligent comparisons to Nazi Germany are the "loss" of the argument is nothing short of ridiculous, especially when Nazi germany pretty much epitomizes a modern totalitarian government (propaganda, dictatorship, secret police, militarism, detention camps, etc).
There's a proposed law that will make it illegal to try to figure out what you're breathing without getting police permission first. And we're discussing it like there's two sides? The terrorists have already won. No really I mean it this time.
You do realize that banning guns raises the crime rate in a city, right? How about DC for a nice example of that. Or is that not big city enough for you?
To you, you have your own opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, that doesn't counter factual evidence. This is along the same lines of "I don't want XYZ regardless of studies/logic".Non-factual opinion has no basis in the court of law, nor in politics.
My point had nothing to do with whether or not free speech allows someone to incite panic. Nothing at all. Why don't people get that?
Look, when it came to criminalizing inciting panics, did they require free speech permits? No, they did not. They did not criminalize innocent behavior in the name of combating a potential problem. In this case, however, that is *exactly* what they are doing.
Who is hurt by having a Geiger counter? nobody at all. Having and operating a Geiger counter is not a public menace. Speaking your mind freely is not a public menace. Inciting panic with your words is a public menace, and that was what was criminalized... so, what does it stand to reason should be criminalized here?
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
The primary use of legal guns in NYC is the threat of innocents able to protect themselves from predators. They aren't called "equalizers" for nothing. A thug doesn't need a legal gun, or even a gun.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I haven't read the actual legislation, but based on the quotes from the article, this law would make possession of basically any detector a misdemeanor, unless you got a special license for possession from the police department. Your suggestion, that detectors should be required to be certified, makes sense, and the requirement to possess that certification should be on the vendor of the detector. If need be, make it a misdemeanor to sell an unlicensed detector, but I see no reason at all to make possession of the devices illegal. One example given in the counter-arguments for the legislation was that someone with a air quality monitor, merely transferring flights in NYC during a multi-flight trip, would be committing a misdemeanor by getting off the plane (or possibly by being on the plane when it lands, depending on how you figure jurisdictions). Of course, IANAL, take with a grain of salt, and all that.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
> So you're saying it makes sense to drive truckloads of guns into the hands of people of the most densely populated cities of America?
Yes, I'm saying exactly that. Because NYC is exactly where they are needed most. I live in flyover country. Random violent crime is so rare it makes the front page on the occasion we have one. My weapon stays in a case on a top shelf of a closet on the reasoning that an accidental discharge is the greater risk. I wouldn't live in a place like NYC unless I could keep the damned thing loaded and under my pillow or srapped to my ass when I was walking the crime ridden streets of our major cities... even after the admirable efforts of NYC's former mayor to REDUCE[1] violent crime.
> You know, where hunting consists of going to the store, not actually going out and hunting?
You might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment has exactly zero to do with hunting. The primary purpose was the belief that armed men are Citizens while unarmed ones were only Subjects. That the carrying of arms was itself a virtue, helping to keep a Free People in the right frame of mind to be worthy of receiving the Blessings of Liberty.
But while a gun control debate would be fun, I'm instead going to stay ontopic and use your post to illustrate my original point.
I'd like to start by drawing the attention of the readers to both what our canonical hive minder said and left unsaid.
He mentions "There is no reason people in NYC need guns" and "people of the most densely populated cities" which couldn't make my argument better that there has crept into the thinking, of city dwellers at least, that individual liberty is fundamentally incompatible with cities. Personally if it proves true I'd prefer razing every population center >1million over tossing liberty but I refuse to believe it; Free Men can live in Cities, Suburbs, the country or on the Moon. Quivering masses of welfare clients on the other hand... the solution should be obvious.
And note that he ins't calling for repealing the 2nd Amendment, just substituting his greater wisdom for that of the Founding Fathers without all that tedious mucking about with having a public debate about repealing the Bill of Rights. This trend is most disturbing because it isn't just limited to gun control. McCain/Feingold shredded the 1st Amendment while those who should have been objecting were cheering. 1, 2, 9 and 10 are pretty much extinct and 5 is threatened and not once have we actually repealed any of them.
Once upon a time the fundies wanted to regulate booze. Realizing the federal government had no such authority, and believing in our Republican Form of Government[2], they did it the right way and pushed through an Amendment though it took them a hell of a lot longer than just getting 50%+1 vote in Congress. So when did we pass an Amendment authorizing the FDA, DEA, etc? Thus was the 9th and 10th Amendments voided without a vote being needed.
Remember that you can't just object to ONE of these violations, because if one accepts the logic that allows ANY of these violations to occur the rest logically follow. Choose. Choose wisely.
[1] Reduce from truly insane to levels that make Dodge City at it's worst look like a safe place to raise children.
[2] As distict from the Republican Party... for the benefit of the Government educated.
Democrat delenda est
By your post, we'd be pulling numbers out our asses that have no studies or basis. So nice for the extreme attempt. How about a real, solid example of banning guns in a urban environment lowering violent crime in the United States? Any day now, but I can't even google such a thing. Oh, and I mean factual. Not "opinionated".
In the meantime, you're comparing welfare to violence. Those two things are not necessarily in the same group, nor in the same group as guns.
How about this question...what's the point?
Have you ever been sitting at home and suddenly thought "Boy I wish I had a geiger counter!"? Has there been a moment in your life where things all hinged on you being unable to determine the levels of radioactive material in your surrounding area?
There shouldn't be a need to ban them...as they're generally unnecesary. What's going on in New York City that your casual citizen would suddenly want one? Is this like the duct tape/plastic sheeting fad of late 2002?
I think you are underestimating the idiots. Just look at the "truthers", the ID supporters, etc.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If somebody calls in a false alarm, they should not be charged. If you smell rotten eggs, and call up saying you think there's a natural gas leak, then you shouldn't be charged if it in fact turns out to actually be rotten eggs. Reporting a safety problem shouldn't come with consequences, otherwise, people might be too afraid to report something. Maliciously reporting false information is one thing. But if you report something that you genuinely think is dangerous, you shouldn't be charged.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
What are you talking about? Non-factual opinion has been the basis of politics since the dawn of time.
The problem then isn't that the detectors might be faulty; it's that they might work all too well. Far-fetched? I would have thought so a few years ago...
Well the solution is to have a DESIGN STANDARD (and I'd be surprised if there isn't already an ISO for them), not to legislate who can and can't own one.
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
I'm curious: Has this view of citizenship ever been espoused by anyone outside of the US?
Perhaps there was an urgent need to get counters in the hands of emergency personnel. Someone probably suggested that scooping up everything they could from nearby universities would be faster than waiting on an order for new ones. I don't see anything suspicious about this at all.
The point though, is that using a bad Geiger counter does not cause any direct harm
Well, yes it *does*, if you then go and phone the police screaming about some massive radiation reading that your $4.99-from-eBay Geiger counter is going berzerk over.
It's not the alarm that's causing any harm, it's the person using it that causes the harm.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This sounds like some really sick Department of Homeland/Republican (in)Security idea to totally cripple what little is left of the EPA. Sneak the law in New York and then spread it to the rest of the country.
Naturally of course those with licensed detectors would only use them in corporate, profit friendly ways and ensure that those that supported the party did not have their profits terrorised while those that opposed the party were kept under permanent scrutiny.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen