Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

20101001

Smoking Laws in Ontario, Quebec

On a different note, I thought that I would talke about an idea I had for an amendment to the existing Ontario bylaws that prohibit smoking in public buildings, places or private automobiles with a child present. It is illegal in most municipalities in Ontario. It's getting better in Quebec, but Ontario is a bit further ahead. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is smoking in the home around children. Certainly, there have already been numerous studies that indicate without a doubt that smoking in the home around children is harmful, but why isn't it illegal? I suppose that one could argue that it interferes with a persons rights... to smoke... and ... err... slowly poison their children (!?). Ridiculous, right? In some cases such as mine, it isn't even a volountary decision, and I would really prefer not to have any member of my family, but especially my son, slowly poisoned.

In Montreal, it's common to rent and live in small buildings where each floor is a residence in itself. In some older buildings, smoke actually travels very easily through areas of flooring (or ceiling), through ventilation, or even through plumbing! I live in such a dwelling, with my 2 1/2 year old son and his lovely mother. And the tenant that rents the residence below us, refuses to smoke outside, even when the weather is clearly warm enough to do so comfortably. The second and third-hand comes up into our apartment through various sections in our fairly old 3-story apartment building - we live on the top floor - and at times it is so dense that we can actually see it in the air. Clearly in those circumstances, we open the front and back doors to our balconies, and use a fan to properly ventilate the apartment. Actually, we need to use 3 fans, since the apartment is rather long and old fashioned, and there are no other sources of ventilation aside from the front and back balcony doors. However, we cannot leave our doors open all day and all night, since it would basically be equivalent to inviting people to steal from us, and we would freeze to death in the winter. Not to mention, that it probably has a measurable effect on our heating & electricity bill. So when we come home, we often find that the apartment smells awful. To be specific, it smells like a mixture of cigarette smoke and fabreeze, which our neighbor downstairs thoughfully uses to mask the odor. Thanks for the thought, but the fabreeze really doesn't make it smell any better, and it certainly isn't reducing the health risks to my son.

I find it particularly bothersome when I hear my son cough in the middle of the night and I go into the kitchen to get him a glass of water, only to be greeted by a cloud of carcinogens. It's really no wonder why he's coughing. 

It's most certainly not healthy for our son, or us, at any time of the day or night. I've asked our neighbor politely to only smoke on the balcony, making specific mention about my concern for my son, and I've even asked the landlord to speak with our neighbor, but this hasn't made a difference and has only made our neighborly relationship less pleasant. Actually, our landlord lives in the building too, and he shares the exact same cloud of carcinogens coming up through the flooring. He also said it's intolerable at times, but unless there's a law about it, there's really not much more he can do. Moving is not an option. We really like our place, and from the landlord's perspective, he's stuck - this building is his property, business, and home. We live near a great park and we get a great sunset on our balcony. The kids in the neighborhood all seem happy, it's minutes from downtown and just far enough to be not down-towny, and ... well, there's a really great park across the street!

When will smoking laws catch up with common sense!?

I think this is a reasonable suggestion to the committee responsible for making smoking laws. Although the residences in question are not public buildings, there are direct effects on the health and safety of members of the public. It's basically the same logic that requires drivers to drive slowly in an area where a deaf child lives, even if it's not their child. Logical, right? Complaints would probably be followed by a building inspection and a mandatory no-smoking sign. I'm just hoping that maybe someone in the Ontario & Quebec governments will read this post and decide to finally take some action so that smoking laws catch up with common sense.

20090404

Cringely Compares Financial Mess to a Nuclear Meltdown

I read Robert Cringely's post about the Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown, and thought it was quite insightful, particularly

  • when compared it to the financial meltdown of the last 6 months
  • when he clearly stated that there are consequences for having the wrong people in charge

Quite often, when I speak about the economic crisis of late, I make an analogy that the risk analysts for certain investment firms are very much like the safety engineers in a civil engineering. However, there is one major discrepency - when a skyscraper collapses that a civil engineering firm has built, the engineering firm is held legally and financially responsible. At least in Canada, that concept is stressed upon engineering students right from the beginning. Furthermore, the regulatory body for professional engineering in Canada will not allow someone to act as a professional engineer without certifying that they are fully aware of their own liability. In many cases, the collapse of a building has similar reprocussions to the collapse of an economy. Lives are ruined. Some people lose everything. It's unfortunate that public administration, and certain investment banking firms are not also required to have liability.

The public administration that changed the laws for acceptable risk analysis methods did so based on a paper by a certain Waterloo mathematician. It was a formula for risk analysis that simplified calculation in a few very special cases. In spite of publications warning about improper usage of that formula, the public administration never fixed what they had broken.

The economic meltdown actually started a decade ago after the US government had approved certain changes in acceptable risk analysis for bank loans. The consequences of those changes went unnoticed, because the people overseeing the loans simply did not know to observe them. Similarly, public administration was either not qualified enough to understand the mathematics of the risk analysis methods they approved, or they were simply ignorant of the warnings and did nothing about them.

Why is it, that an engineer can be held legally responsible for disaster, but a financial analyst cannot be? Why is it, that there are often highly unqualified people in positions of great power?

Those are questions that we should really never need to ask.