Illinois PTA Resolution on Electric Fields

[Arch]

jwh said:

jb said:

g
What exactly would you need as proof? I think we could have several cases of leukemia and still not statistically PROVE anything.

It's not about proof - you'll almost never get that in complex biological systems when response times are measured in years.

This is about involuntary risk to in an environment that is currently suspect. All those reports state more study is needed, and I don't want my kids, or your kids, to be part of that study. Especially if they don't have to be.

Well, when I drive by the site, I see power lines off in the distance that are an eyesore, nothing more. If there is a LEGITIMATE risk, then let's remediate or abandon the site. Otherwise, it's BS!

Back to my previous post, perhaps we should increase taxes to fund organic milk in the schools, because, you know all the kids will grow tumors from that nasty growth hormone.

I'd pay more in taxes for that, the same as I would pay more in taxes for a site without train tracks, emf, power lines, multiple active high pressure pipelines and a substation as its neighbor.

Will you?

[researching]

jb said:

jwh said:

And that is the only PROVEN detriment at this point.

g
What exactly would you need as proof? I think we could have several cases of leukemia and still not statistically PROVE anything.

It's not about proof - you'll almost never get that in complex biological systems when response times are measured in years.

This is about involuntary risk to in an environment that is currently suspect. All those reports state more study is needed, and I don't want my kids, or your kids, to be part of that study. Especially if they don't have to be.

Completely agreed. If you've watched primetime news programs (ie. 20/20...) in the last 30 years you have most likely seen a report on this issue. I haven't seen anything conclusive EITHER way. Again, EITHER way. If they cannot conclusively determine the safety of this particular site, and I do not believe they can, it should be dropped.

Or, we can have the faculty and students at MV featured on one of those primetime news programs for being involuntary subjects in one grand experiment.

[Arch]

warriorpride said:

archwinsome said:

Radon? Yes, multiple times since we moved in and having a 'capped' crawl space and an exhaust fan put in down there works wonders.

Water quality? Whole house filter ring a bell?

Air? 3 huge honeywell HEPA filters in the bedroom, living room and basement as well as filtretes changed on the 2 AC/Heaters every month religiously.

Chemicals drank: Water, Orange Juice, Milk, Coffee, Tea.. Soda is a 1-2x a month thing and then a 12 oz can.

Any other questions?

I ETAed: germs in public places - what do you do about that?

I avoid touching things that I don't have to and I wash my hands. It's called personal hygiene. Most societies practice some form of it. If you need a link to what it involves, I could post one.

[researching]

jwh said:

jb said:

g
What exactly would you need as proof? I think we could have several cases of leukemia and still not statistically PROVE anything.

It's not about proof - you'll almost never get that in complex biological systems when response times are measured in years.

This is about involuntary risk to in an environment that is currently suspect. All those reports state more study is needed, and I don't want my kids, or your kids, to be part of that study. Especially if they don't have to be.

Well, when I drive by the site, I see power lines off in the distance that are an eyesore, nothing more. If there is a LEGITIMATE risk, then let's remediate or abandon the site. Otherwise, it's BS!

Back to my previous post, perhaps we should increase taxes to fund organic milk in the schools, because, you know all the kids will grow tumors from that nasty growth hormone.

The fundamental difference here is that our kids do not HAVE to drink the milk.

[warriorpride]

researching said:

jb said:

g
What exactly would you need as proof? I think we could have several cases of leukemia and still not statistically PROVE anything.

It's not about proof - you'll almost never get that in complex biological systems when response times are measured in years.

This is about involuntary risk to in an environment that is currently suspect. All those reports state more study is needed, and I don't want my kids, or your kids, to be part of that study. Especially if they don't have to be.

Completely agreed. If you've watched primetime news programs (ie. 20/20...) in the last 30 years you have most likely seen a report on this issue. I haven't seen anything conclusive EITHER way. Again, EITHER way. If they cannot conclusively determine the safety of this particular site, and I do not believe they can, it should be dropped.

Or, we can have the faculty and students at MV featured on one of those primetime news programs for being involuntary subjects in one grand experiment.

Unless you know how the EMF readings compare to those on any documentary (with inconclusive results) that you saw on TV, this is not a fair comparison - it sounds more like a scare tactic.

By your argument, NO site can be guaranteed or proven to be safe, so I guess we should all just stay home (in our houses that are not guaranteed to be 100% safe) and home-school.

[warriorpride]

archwinsome said:

we4 said:

Question: Arch posted a link for a map that show where pipelines run around the AME property. It looks like some run through the middle of the property. If those lines really run through the middle of where the school will be, would they need to be moved?

They stay, are active, and give off a current due to the cathodic system on them.

rapidshare.com/files/88396325/MWGEN-pipelines.pdf.html

The building, according to M2 would be just to the west of those lines. Over the lines would be the PE and practice fields, where the 6.2 and 4.2 EMF readings were taken.

thanks arch

[Arch]

warriorpride said:

researching said:

Completely agreed. If you've watched primetime news programs (ie. 20/20...) in the last 30 years you have most likely seen a report on this issue. I haven't seen anything conclusive EITHER way. Again, EITHER way. If they cannot conclusively determine the safety of this particular site, and I do not believe they can, it should be dropped.

Or, we can have the faculty and students at MV featured on one of those primetime news programs for being involuntary subjects in one grand experiment.

Unless you know how the EMF readings compare to those on any documentary (with inconclusive results) that you saw on TV, this is not a fair comparison - it sounds more like a scare tactic.

By your argument, NO site can be guaranteed or proven to be safe, so I guess we should all just stay home (in our houses that are not guaranteed to be 100% safe) and home-school.

You are correct in that no place is 100% safe, not even your own home. The key is to MINIMIZE threats and risks so that you have a longer and healthier life.

[researching]

warriorpride said:

researching said:

Completely agreed. If you've watched primetime news programs (ie. 20/20...) in the last 30 years you have most likely seen a report on this issue. I haven't seen anything conclusive EITHER way. Again, EITHER way. If they cannot conclusively determine the safety of this particular site, and I do not believe they can, it should be dropped.

Or, we can have the faculty and students at MV featured on one of those primetime news programs for being involuntary subjects in one grand experiment.

Unless you know how the EMF readings compare to those on any documentary (with inconclusive results) that you saw on TV, this is not a fair comparison - it sounds more like a scare tactic.

By your argument, NO site can be guaranteed or proven to be safe, so I guess we should all just stay home (in our houses that are not guaranteed to be 100% safe) and home-school.

Not a scare tactic here. This is just MY OPINION on a known hazard (EMF's) I am just not willing to subject our students and faculty to NEEDLESS exposure to a KNOWN hazard. EMF's ARE hazardous. Basically, we are arguing over how much is too much. I too chose the location of my home based on the distance it was away from the powerlines in our area. This is not a new issue.

This does not affect my family personally. I have been opposed to this location from day one. Long BEFORE it was voted in and long BEFORE the boundaries were voted in. It is the WRONG site for this primary reason.

[warriorpride]

researching said:

Not a scare tactic here. This is just MY OPINION on a known hazard (EMF's) I am just not willing to subject our students and faculty to NEEDLESS exposure to a KNOWN hazard. EMF's ARE hazardous. Basically, we are arguing over how much is too much. I too chose the location of my home based on the distance it was away from the powerlines in our area. This is not a new issue.

This does not affect my family personally. I have been opposed to this location from day one. Long BEFORE it was voted in and long BEFORE the boundaries were voted in. It is the WRONG site for this primary reason.

But this is an invalid argument if the EMF readings for the site aren't any different that they would be for any other site (or even your house)

[JB]

jwh said:

jb said:

g
What exactly would you need as proof? I think we could have several cases of leukemia and still not statistically PROVE anything.

It's not about proof - you'll almost never get that in complex biological systems when response times are measured in years.

This is about involuntary risk to in an environment that is currently suspect. All those reports state more study is needed, and I don't want my kids, or your kids, to be part of that study. Especially if they don't have to be.

Well, when I drive by the site, I see power lines off in the distance that are an eyesore, nothing more. If there is a LEGITIMATE risk, then let's remediate or abandon the site. Otherwise, it's BS!

EMF is a LEGITIMATE risk- why else would the NIEHS-NIH label it as a possible human carcinogen? Why else would Connecticut require power lines to be buried near schools?

EMF-induced corrosion in pipelines is a LEGITIMATE risk.

Pipeline maintenance accidents are a LEGITIMATE risk.

The question you have to ask yourself is, after reviewing all the sources quoted over the past several days, how do you feel about the risks associated with EMF? You can either be comfortable with the risk, as JWH and Warriorpride are, or you can be uncomfortable with the risk.

If you are comfortable with the risk, are you sure enough that you'd argue other people should be comfortable with it as well? Would you be confortable forcing someone to be exposed to that enironment, knowing they were uncomfortable?

And, if you're concerned about EMF and the current configuration of the site, what would it take you to be Ok with it? Buried / moved powerlines? Re-located natural gas pipelines? And what cost should we be willing to accept?


This entire debate is not about personal risk, but rather a prolonged, involuntary risk to an environment that is suspected of being unsafe. It's up to everyone to be informed - which hopefully they have by now. At least we're now going into this with our eyes open. A few weeks ago, I had no clue what EMF was. Now I know better.

[rural]

I have been trying to bite my tongue while reading this thread. I've been holding back because I was afraid I might post some remarks that would get ED mad and kick me off. So, I will try to be restrained.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? 8 hours a day? 5 days a week?
Yes, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in a CONCRETE BUILDING! The only EMFs are going to be coming from the stuff inside, not outside. Please be sensible!

[rural]

As I recall, sporting activities are voluntary. If you or your child do not feel safe on the playing fields, don't try out for outdoor sports and don't attend sporting events that are outdoors. Otherwise, the only time your child will be exposed to the perceived elevated EMFs will be on the walk to and from the building each day.

[proschool]

rural said:

As I recall, sporting activities are voluntary. If you or your child do not feel safe on the playing fields, don't try out for outdoor sports and don't attend sporting events that are outdoors. Otherwise, the only time your child will be exposed to the perceived elevated EMFs will be on the walk to and from the building each day.

I think school itself is voluntary after age 16. We could choose have our kids drop out after sophmore year and cut our EMF exposure by half!

Give me a break.

[EagleDad]

warriorpride said:

eagledad said:

What site report? The Jay went walkiing with his buddy email?

Please tell me you are not basing the safety of our districts Childen over the next 30 years on that "information" only.

The fact is we have no data. Where is the phase I and phase II we were promised would be posted a month ago?

Yes, I want to see it, too - my kid's slated to go there for 4 years

But, I suspect that no matter what the results are, and how safe the site may be reported to be, it's not going to be good enough for some (for whatever reasons)

That may be the case (never good enough for some), but it is no excuse to hide or delay the data. They need to publish the Phase I and Phase II reports as they said they would ASAP.

Proceedning any further on the site without doing that is irresponsible.

[Arch]

proschool said:

rural said:

As I recall, sporting activities are voluntary. If you or your child do not feel safe on the playing fields, don't try out for outdoor sports and don't attend sporting events that are outdoors. Otherwise, the only time your child will be exposed to the perceived elevated EMFs will be on the walk to and from the building each day.

I think school itself is voluntary after age 16. We could choose have our kids drop out after sophmore year and cut our EMF exposure by half!

Give me a break.

Hmm, that would cut down on the school crowding and the need for a school, wouldn't it?