|
|
Post by hillmom on Mar 16, 2008 10:17:42 GMT -6
The peaker plant was still in operation in 2006 - that is the reason that site wasn't an option. That parcel was not available for sale. I didn't have a preference on site and did not take EMF readings as I disclosed until January 21st which for some reason Macy finds to be suspect - of what I don't know. that was the first time EMF's ever came up and again not worried about EMF's - I'm sure how collecting data to show EMF's are everywhere is suspect. It was not to show one was worse than the other just simply that we are fighting a losing battle on EMF's if you use power - end of sentence. It actually doesn't argue either point - just nullifies it as arch pointed out. Your data is incorrect on the peaker plant operation. In Sep 2004 MWGEN began to study the future feasibility to operate it (and its other 'peaking' locations around the Chicagoland area) competitively and subsequently officially decommissioned it in Dec 2004. Google for their SEC filings. You'll find it. You are right - Not sure why I had the 2006 in my head - was that when they actually removed some of the equipment. Bottom line your are correct! I'm sure the board was afraid of exactly what is happening now - really you'll never satisfy everyone. If it is any conselation I voted yes for the referendum when I thought my children would not attend Metea. |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Mar 16, 2008 10:20:57 GMT -6
This is EXACTLY the solution - it would (should) get support from the majority of residents. I think this is all people are asking for, and it is not only logical, but necessary. There will be people that will resist on both sides, but that reveals their concerns were only personal. On BOTH sides. I think an independent study would have been more satisfying for the majority. This entire project should have been handed off to a professional construction consulting and management firm that takes care of getting the best in the business at every step along the way. That is their job and they do it well because they have the connections, resources and vast experience all over the area and this is what they do all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 16, 2008 10:24:34 GMT -6
I'm sure the board was afraid of exactly what is happening now - really you'll never satisfy everyone. If it is any conselation I voted yes for the referendum when I thought my children would not attend Metea. I told them on Jan 17th this never ending lawsuit stuff would bloom up if they approved the Eola location. I was completely wrong on the timing though. I had originally just thought it would be years down the line after it was built and all of the "SUE ME" targets would get exploited later on down the line. In hindsight, I think it happening now is much better than happening later because at least now we have time to do a course correction before passing the point of NO RETURN on our tax money. It was going to happen anyway. That much was certain. FWIW, I applaud you for voting yes too. |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Mar 16, 2008 10:25:32 GMT -6
And sushi, for what it's worth I totally get your frustration with this. But a few people don't represent how most of us feel. The right thing to do would have been for the lawsuit to demand independent testing to ensure the site's safety. And the anti-lawsuit people the same. Instead, it started out with emotion, and was responded to with emotion. And that's what got us here all arguing with each other. I think an independent study would have been more satisfying for the majority. By the way, the home pictured is not the attorneys' it is Todd Andrews, the plaintiff-in-command. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Mar 16, 2008 10:36:18 GMT -6
Fence, this is why I can not support the lawsuit. I wish the lawsuit was for holding this SB accountable for the last two years and yes have someone from the outside look at this site.
How can we come together and get the SB to hear this type of thinking? I do know on BOTH sides there are selfish motives, but if we can get this right I believe a lot of this would go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 16, 2008 10:38:02 GMT -6
How many of your TG kids spend the majority of their day at the pool in the summer....during the times of peak demand...right next to the switching station and right next to the power lines? That's what I call being a hypocrite..... We all know who the hypocrites are wvhsparent. You are sinking to new lows each day. Why don't you go back to your cave and restart the voting machine? |
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Mar 16, 2008 10:39:23 GMT -6
HillMom - love it! You called everyone out on the EMF ratings! At this point, I am gettin' tired of the fighting. Lt's forget the 3rd high school - cram everyone who wants to go into NVHS and we at WVHS will be fine. And I bet at the high schools with a cell phone in each child's hand and texting during class the EMF ratings are interesting there as well. ---------------- hi school students can only use their cell phones before and after school.. or they will be confiscated until the end of the school day. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 16, 2008 10:40:53 GMT -6
Sorry, I know for a fact they text all day long.
Ok, I didn't poll each student as they exited, but this is how we get in touch with our HS kids during the school day. Ask most HS parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 16, 2008 10:43:58 GMT -6
Sorry, I know for a fact they text all day long. Ok, I didn't poll each student as they exited, but this is how we get in touch with our HS kids during the school day. Ask most HS parents. Mine don't text at all. When mine carries a phone it is off until he needs to call us to come retrieve him from his after school club meetings. It's nothing more than a utility device, not a source of socializing or entertainment. |
|
|
|
Post by refbasics on Mar 16, 2008 10:44:14 GMT -6
How many of your TG kids spend the majority of their day at the pool in the summer....during the times of peak demand...right next to the switching station and right next to the power lines? That's what I call being a hypocrite..... We all know who the hypocrites are wvhsparent.You are sinking to new lows each day. Why don't you go back to your cave and restart the voting machine? ------------- i would like to know why he keeps changing his 'member name'? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 16, 2008 10:52:11 GMT -6
We all know who the hypocrites are wvhsparent.You are sinking to new lows each day. Why don't you go back to your cave and restart the voting machine? ------------- i would like to know why he keeps changing his 'member name'? I have a feeling if I put the old pipeline clarification thread back out in public view, people could make their own educated guesses. |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Mar 16, 2008 10:53:46 GMT -6
------------- i would like to know why he keeps changing his 'member name'? I think it is because he doesn't want people to post his actual address online with a satellite picture of his house. ETA: I do not think we should be supplying maps to peoples houses just because they have made their name public. Arch, I do not believe it is right to single out neighborhoods, and that is why I am trying to make this point. I have retracted the 2nd part of my post which you were referring to in the next post. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 16, 2008 10:54:58 GMT -6
AE, knock it off.
You know what line you are crossing, so pull yourself away from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hillmom on Mar 16, 2008 11:00:39 GMT -6
I feel like I'm talking to a toddler - let me be more clear - pulling the whole EMF thing is commonly used as a scare tactic - plain and simple. Again - if you had any working knowledge of powerlines you would know that the part that matters is the distance - I know the distance at the the AME from the power lines and the power lines are at such a distance that the EMF levels would disipate to normal background levels. That is basic electrical line principals. Doesn't matter how hot or cold. You are arguing a point that is irrelevant because of distance. Everyone keeps pointing at ugly power lines - you got it there ugly but they are not going to effect that property becasue of the distance. I took other readings to put things into perspective. How can you actually continue to argue about EMF's when you are sitting in front of a computer that is emitting more EMF's than the highest point disclosed to you on any of the sites!!! The point is the EMF argument is ridiculous unless you plan to move to a tepee out in the middle of no where!! I am not arguing anything about EMF's, because it is over my head. My only point is that it would have been more credible to have the readings at AME….you stated that you took them at many different locations, in my mind it doesn’t make sense why you did not get them at AME….maybe you do have them and you are not sharing them…this is my opinion and I am allowed to have one. I have showed you respect and I would appreciate it if you do the same. No need to belittle me….I have not been nasty in my posts to you, so you should return the favor and be respectful to everyone on this board. My apologizes - I did not mean to seem disrespectful. Please though also respect my position and opinion and that I feel the Environ tests are credible. That is my right to feel there was no need to measure the EMF levels at Eola. I do think that everyone needs to again put in perspective EMF exposure is everywhere and you can't run or hide from it. My point in bringing all this up is not to point out whos area is more unsafe but to point out we consider all these areas including the AME site safe. |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Mar 16, 2008 11:03:57 GMT -6
So we can't move away from our selfish motives and ask the SB for an independant source to deem the site safe? If we walk away from BB will we be able to afford the new site plus the damages from BB? These are very serious questions that should be answered. Some just want to continue with the name calling.
|
|
