(CNN) -- Beyond skateboards, Silicon Valley and hippies, California has a trendsetting streak of a different kind. The state has been first to pass major public health initiatives that have spread throughout the country. California was first to require smog checks for clean air, pass anti-tobacco initiatives and bike helmets laws. While these laws were met with skepticism and ridicule, they've often become standard practice in other states. The Golden State was first to ban smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants in 1998. Now similar rules exist throughout the country. Some advocates tout the state as a forward-thinking vanguard in which its health and safety laws are routinely emulated by other states. "There have been progressive legislations in tobacco, environment and obesity prevention," said Mark Horton, a lecturer at the University of California Berkeley School of Public Health. "In some respect, the rest of the country looks to California as a laboratory for moving forward with those various types of initiatives." But some critics liken the Golden State to a nanny state. California has 151,002 health and safety laws. "It never ends," said Laer Pearce, who works in public affairs in Orange County. "Every year, several hundred bills come through and dozens of them tell us how to live our lives." Starting in January, 760 new California laws went into effect -- for example, the importing of shark fins is prohibited, student athletes are required to have medical clearance after suffering a head injury, teens are banned from using tanning booths and the sale of caffeinated beer is forbidden. There's a perception that California has "more folks who are health-oriented and more health-minded," said Horton, former director of the California Department of Public Health. It's not just workout fanatics hanging out at Muscle Beach, Sierra Club members hiking mountains or the uber-health-conscious touting organic foods. Californians in general tend to have healthier habits, ranking 10th for physical activity, fourth for healthy blood pressure and fifth for a diet high in fruits and vegetables compared with other states, according to America's Health Rankings. 

Why is there a perception that Californians are more health conscious?


Cathy Wallace did not always know what she wanted to be when she grew up. She wanted to help people, but did not know exactly how. A suggestion from friends sparked her interest. "When I was in college, I thought I wanted to be a doctor," she said. "I found I didn't want to do that and realized an interest in psychology. I didn't know what I wanted to do, but all my friends thought I should go into law because I was always on a soapbox. I decided to try it." Recently, Wallace received the Outstanding Woman Lawyer in Public Interest Law Award. The award was voted on and presented by the women's caucus of West Virginia University College of Law. Wallace, 38, called Gastonia home from the age of 8 until she graduated from Hunter Huss High School in 1983. Her parents, Carter Bond, 66, and Carol Bond, 59, are still residents of Gastonia. From Hunter Huss, she moved on to pursue a degree at Pfeiffer University in Misenheimer. After graduation from Pfeiffer in 1987 with a bachelor's degree in both biology and psychology, she worked as legal secretary for attorney Louis A. Bledsoe Jr. for a year and a half. "Working for Louis Bledsoe was a pivotal moment," she said. "That was when I decided to go into the practice of law." She received her law degree at the University of Arkansas in 1992 and began her legal career in Public Defender Corp. in Princeton. She also taught criminal justice classes at Bluefield College in West Virginia. Wallace lives in Athens, W. Va., with her husband Rob, 37, and her daughters Rachel, 11, and Claire, 5. 

What award was voted on and presented to Wallace by the women's caucus of West Virginia University College of Law?


Clarifying the Record The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols. It was improvised by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, the NEADS air defenders had nine minutes' notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth. We do not believe that the true picture of that morning reflects discredit on the operational personnel at NEADS or FAA facilities. NEADS commanders and officers actively sought out information, and made the best judgments they could on the basis of what they knew. Individual FAA controllers, facility managers, and Command Center managers thought outside the box in recommending a nationwide alert, in ground-stopping local traffic, and, ultimately, in deciding to land all aircraft and executing that unprecedented order flawlessly. More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning. In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA. This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time. In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77. This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C. In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. 


What was overstated in regards to the perceived inadequacy in military response to 9/11