Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hiding Radiation, etc.? - NYC Ban Private Toxic Sampling?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:18 PM
Original message
Hiding Radiation, etc.? - NYC Ban Private Toxic Sampling?

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=53912


We are writing you with great urgency in opposition to Intro 650, a bill introduced into the New York City Council at the request of the mayor and with the support of the Speaker of the City Council. We believe this bill poses a grave threat to university programs, academic research, and unions, environmental, and community-based organizations that conduct independent chemical, biological and radiological environmental sampling. We ask you to join us in opposing this legislation.

Intro 650 will require permits for the possession or use of any instruments which monitor chemical, biological or radiological contamination. The NYC Police Department has testified that the impetus for the bill came from the Department of Homeland Security. Intro 650 will give NYPD the power to authorize, deny, or delay any workplace or environmental sampling. NYPD has testified that the Department of Homeland Security intends to use this legislation, if enacted, as a model for other cities throughout the country. We believe the bill, if enacted, will restrict, and could prevent altogether, independent environmental monitoring by unions, community organizations, and others, including university programs. We believe this would pose a significant threat to our civil liberties.

The stated purposed of the bill is to “reduce excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety." However, the bill’s proponents have presented no data to support the claim of "excessive false alarms," nor have they identified the types of alarms that are presumed to be excessive. No evidence has been presented to document "unwarranted anxiety." It is likely that no such data exist.
-snip-
--------------------------


and it could stop vets from seeing if they have DU poisoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good grief! What next? K & R - n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. The next time they say "No asbestos, go back to work", no one can contradict them...
I Love NY....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Wow, this could very easily eliminate all independent oversight of nuclear plants, corporations, etc
Hmmm, wonder what they're going to do about all those high school Geiger counters? Hell, depending on how this is worded, it could eliminate gardeners from doing soil samples.

I don't think that its any coincedence that this comes along right when there's a big push to expand nuclear energy in this country. Can't have the pesky environmentalists, or even ordinary citizens going on about tritium in the water table.

However it won't prevent vets from getting tested for DU. That is actually done via a piss test not some sort of body scan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. but equipment to read the piss for radiation would have to be licensed


??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed-up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-22-08 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. what about testing for contamination from former meth labs? would it outlaw use of spray starch? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC