The Brockovich Report

Licensing the Right to a Healthy Environment in New York City:
What Will Happen Next?

Raise your hand if you've seen the 1984 movie Ghostbusters. It's a cult hit that has Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson ghost hunting with the use of imaginary technology that attracts the attention of overbearing EPA agent Walter Peck (William Atherton.) Outraged at being ignored, there's a moment in the movie when this reckless EPA agent shuts down the unlicensed "protection grid," subsequently releasing a horde of wonky ghosts to ravage New York City. They should have gotten that license....

I've been pondering the concept of licenses. For the most part, they're a good thing. People should be licensed to do things which require expertise and which could cause harm. It makes sense to license drivers, because driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege earned by proving the ability to control a car and obey traffic laws. Construction permits make sense, because this protects the consumer from shoddy work. Service providers-like REALTORS-get licensed, because licensing confers respectability, high standards and accountability.

Should individuals be required to get a license to test the quality of their personal environment?

I think not.

New York's City Council is considering Proposed Int. No. 650-A. There's one of those two-step double-speak terms in this bill, which concedes the need for "certain instruments designed to detect the presence of certain chemicals, biological agents, and radiation in the environment."

I agree. We need reliable instruments that detect those environmental nasties.

But then the bill moves on to an assertion that isn't so straightforward.

"Such instruments should be deployed and operated only with the knowledge of the Police Department and other appropriate City agencies. "

Isn't this like having to report to the health department every time you take a birth control test? Is it really necessary that individuals pay to get a license to test the quality of their own air and water?

However, I'm not entirely throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's another section that says "the City has an interest in the reliability and effectiveness of these instruments so that their deployment will not cause excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety that a large-scale public emergency is occurring. "

I partially agree with this statement, but not for the reason they state. The city DOES have an interest in the reliability and effectiveness of instruments and devices available to the public. The city should set, affirm and maintain standards for the testing devices; we all want to be able to rely on the quality of environmental testing devices the same way we can rely on the quality of that pregnancy test.

But it veers into a whole other realm of duplicity when the city claims the purpose of licensing is to control anxiety.

If there is no problem with the environment, then testing should not cause anxiety; testing will relieve anxiety by proving there is no cause for concern. If the tests indicate something bad, then concern is warranted, and the government needs to do something to control the problem, not the reaction of the victims.

Unlike the Ghostbusters, we don't have a protection grid.

But we do have reliable environmental testing.

So I say this to the New York City Council.

Develop standards for the testing devices. Make them available to all. If you license those who test, then don't use the license to prohibit testing; use it to promote testing, and acquisition of test results; then make the test results part of the public record so that environmental quality can be mapped. Problem areas can be found, and fixed. Rather than swooning in fear at the mere possibility of public concern, let's have the government make heroic efforts to be proactive and prevent the problem.

Control the problem and you won't have to deal with the reaction of the victims. Because if you do the right thing and keep it clean, there won't be any victims.

If the technology is available and dependable, everyone should have the right to test their immediate environment for safety.