Environmental Letter from Shawn Collins

[d204mom]

yeson321 said:

d204mom said:

A warning?

I don't want a HS at BB if it's not safe. I don't want a high school at MWGEN because it's not safe. Get it?

Sounds like the "anti" group is threatening to kill the 3rd high school if they can't have it at AME.

Or it sounds like a threat to kill the 3rd high school altogether unless people STOP questioning the safety of the MWGEN site. I guess they "DON'T GET IT." We will not stop questioning until we are satisfied that our kids won't get sick there.

Go ahead and throw a fit and kill the 3rd high school but at least my kids are safe.

I keep asking where Hillmom was when she took the readings at BB because I thought that there was room to shift the high school within the site if there was a portion that would not be deemed safe. Didn't the SB try to see if they could only buy a portion of the site in order to save costs? I believe the portion of BB that the SB would not have bought was the strip along 75th street. In that case, no portion of MVHS @ BB would be on areas near the powerlines. This is only my opinion based on the limited information I have regarding the BB site.

I don't for one minute believe Hillmom took any readings even close to the BB property as she stated that she was at the corner of Ogden and Rt. 59. That's a good 1/2 mile or so from where the BB property starts (corner of 75th and 59) and even farther away from where the school would be - south of the (future) corner of Commons and 75th. And if she was actually standing at 75th street and Rt. 59 she would be looking at a giant Great Street Realty sign saying that there is going to be a new mall there. Not a high school.

To threaten everyone to shut up about the environmental problems at AME or ELSE they will question the environmental safety of any site that is picked? WTH? I think every site should be tested to make sure it's safe.

hillmom said:

It's called public easement - pedestrians can walk along 59 & ogden!!!

hillmom said:

I can only assume you don't know about the EMF readings at the Brach Brodie Site. NE corner 15MG. Along Ogden entire stretch readings ranging from 4 -10 MG. NW corner 25MG.

When I read these posts all about Ogden Avenue I was thinking - when she was at 59 and Ogden, did she not notice the big U Haul storage facility that is nowhere near the BB property?

[rural]

d204mom said:

rural said:

However, as a warning to the people using this as a platform to move their agenda forward, this dangerous area is where their arguments will lead: If it becomes an issue at AME, then it must also be considered an issue at BB or any other site under consideration in the future, HS, MS, ES. So all the BB supporters out there better double check their readings at the BB site if they want to continue down this path.

A warning?

I don't want a HS at BB if it's not safe. I don't want a high school at MWGEN because it's not safe. Get it?

Sounds like the "anti" group is threatening to kill the 3rd high school if they can't have it at AME.

Or it sounds like a threat to kill the 3rd high school altogether unless people STOP questioning the safety of the MWGEN site. I guess these "anti" people "DON'T GET IT." We will not stop questioning until we are satisified that our kids won't get sick there.

Go ahead and throw a fit and kill the 3rd high school but at least my kids are safe.

Okay, the warning part did sound stupid now that I read it again, sorry.

Do over:

Here is what I'm trying to say. If MWGEN gets scrapped, I personally, will not fight the BB site or Macom or anywhere else that the Administration or SB deems a better site. Is that squared away?

However, they must sleep in the bed they've made. If MWGEN is not safe due to overly high EMF levels, then the same rule must be applied to BB, and if their levels are the same or higher than the AME site, BB must also be precluded due to safety concerns. That's all. They are leaving the door open for this possibilty. End of point.

I'm only talking EMF here, nothing else. However, the same rule can be applied to soil samples.

[Avenging Eagle]

rural said:

You don't have to buy it. Only a judge does.

Why are you bringing this up on a discussion board then?

[rural]

avengingeagle said:

rural said:

You don't have to buy it. Only a judge does.

Why are you bringing this up on a discussion board then?

AE,

I'm not trying to convert you. I thought this board was open to dicussions of opinions of all types, not just the ones you agree with.

[WeBe204]

rural said:

avengingeagle said:

Why are you bringing this up on a discussion board then?

AE,

I'm not trying to convert you. I thought this board was open to dicussions of opinions of all types, not just the ones you agree with.

Well of course it is. It is just not all kumbaya around the fire at the momment. It's more hmmm.. Shout at the Devil. I think the orginal point that it will be decided by the judge is extremely valid. It will be. Thankfully.

[macy]

d204mom said:

yeson321 said:

I keep asking where Hillmom was when she took the readings at BB because I thought that there was room to shift the high school within the site if there was a portion that would not be deemed safe. Didn't the SB try to see if they could only buy a portion of the site in order to save costs? I believe the portion of BB that the SB would not have bought was the strip along 75th street. In that case, no portion of MVHS @ BB would be on areas near the powerlines. This is only my opinion based on the limited information I have regarding the BB site.

I don't for one minute believe Hillmom took any readings even close to the BB property as she stated that she was at the corner of Ogden and Rt. 59. That's a good 1/2 mile or so from where the BB property starts (corner of 75th and 59) and even farther away from where the school would be - south of the (future) corner of Commons and 75th. And if she was actually standing at 75th street and Rt. 59 she would be looking at a giant Great Street Realty sign saying that there is going to be a new mall there. Not a high school.

To threaten everyone to shut up about the environmental problems at AME or ELSE they will question the environmental safety of any site that is picked? WTH? I think every site should be tested to make sure it's safe.

hillmom said:

I can only assume you don't know about the EMF readings at the Brach Brodie Site. NE corner 15MG. Along Ogden entire stretch readings ranging from 4 -10 MG. NW corner 25MG.

When I read these posts all about Ogden Avenue I was thinking - when she was at 59 and Ogden, did she not notice the big U Haul storage facility that is nowhere near the BB property?

Kinda shoots down any credibility of the EMF levels Hillmom posted. While it might have been a typo, she did mention Ogden twice.

[rural]

There is that point of 75th where it dead ends into Ogden, but I'm not sure that's part of the BB parcel.

Thank goodness for google maps.

ETA: It's too far west to be BB, so that can't be it.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

archwinsome said:

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.

Thanks Arch, I was looking for that info.

More mis-information from the SB. The paper also states that the peaker plant ceased operations last year - when it's actually been 3 years - and was not in operation when the site selection report was written. Which is probably why the site selection report does not mention the peaker plant.

The data I have from the DOE says Nov 2003 was the last time it operated to produce commercial power.

[doctorwho]

rural said:

There is that point of 75th where it dead ends into Ogden, but I'm not sure that's part of the BB parcel.

Thank goodness for google maps.

ETA: It's too far west to be BB, so that can't be it.

Since I am one of those people who actually live in the central ( not North) part of the SD- I know exactly where it deadends- made that trip for 4 years ( all 10-12 minutes of it ) to WVHS to see my daughter play ball -

My area has been relieved of that commute though for one that takes 3 times as long -- great deal.

don't worry though- no one on the SB knows where 75th street is at either --

[southsidemom]

concerned2 said:

Sushi, your name calling never stops.

My EE husband said that voltage from the TG station are not the same as the voltage on the Eola site. I showed my husband the pictures of the site and we have driven to the site and he stated he would never send his children there. It is an industrial area, not a place where a school should be built.

Just to add I have not contributed to the lawsuit. Do I think the SB has made a ton of mistakes, YES!!! If they had been more truthful we would not be in this situation. When they lie about the most basic of info then how are we to trust they are doing due dillengence on this site.

I think that we need to all remember that we may have names on this blog but there are ALWAYS people who know your real name. We are insulting people that live closely among us. Knock it off is the best advice I can offer.

[MustangSix]

To Dr. Who on the Stonebridge CFO'rs who are now converts. This is exactly part of the problem - people not knowing so they make up their version of what's going on. It is apparent you don't these CFO'rs - cuz I do!

Those Stonebridge CFO"rs - we are PTA'rs together - if you did know them at any level, you would know that one of them changed course during the last referendum which was interesting as they struggled to maintain their friendship (and they did - cuz that was more important) and the other said at the time the vote came in that the public has spoken so we move towards a third high school.

And I recall one comment from them was "I don't care if you build it in Bruce Glawe's backyard" - so to say now they are on board now because of the site - is WAY OFF BASE! And insulting. They both could care less if their kids go to WVHS (the one has a son at WVHS graduating this year) - they both just want to support the 3rd high school. That's the Real Facts.

On the topic of EMF's and Hillmom - her point is well taken - we all live amongst higher EMF ratings in our homes (and our schools computer labs) than at the Eola site. I had a handy dandy machine in my hand today and my laptop came in at 30 EMF's! Woo hoo! My cell phone didn't do so well either. So, unless I'm going to throw out my technology, I guess I can't say much about theEola site's EMF ratings. And probably no one else should either. Unless they like double speak.

I think I'm going to rely on the authority who the Board hired and do this for a living and go with their information on the safety of the property over any residents that are doing this as a hobby. Because quite frankly I'm seeing time and time again people making broad assumptions that are not reality based. Everyone seems to be 'an expert.' And everyone seems to dismiss any real expert who doesn't happen to agree with their position.

And the bottom line is NSFOC does not want to go to WVHS - and we all know it. I don't care about that - I just think we should be honest.

And where do I stand. I am tired of the fighting. At this point, though I believe we would all benefit from a 3rd high school - I don't have that many years left in the system so if NSFOC gets this whole thing mucked up, my personal interests will be taken care of. And good luck to all with younger children.

[friend]

Question- Didn't Warrenville go through a similar situation in their school district a few years ago? I seem to remember that people were upset that a school was going to be built too close to a plant where many employees came down with cancer. It was in the Naperville Sun back then. Does anybody remember that? What became of that issue?

[MustangSix]

fRIEND - I don't know the outcome - but this is what I found on another blog - sounds vaguely similar to what we have going on .... the Illinois EPA cites the property as safe and people question it...


R Smith wrote:
<quoted text>The Illinois EPA. That really doesn't instill a lot of confidence. They only check for high amounts of the more common pollutants/toxins. The problems on that site are unique. Experimental petro-chemicals. Unknown by-products, carcinigens, lost records. 10-BILLION to ONE brain cancer cluster coincidences among former employees. They were all told they were "safe". BP wanted to distance themselves from that property, others want to make a killing on selling/buying the Hubble property. They don't care about the future health of the students, teachers, and other employees of District 200. The Il EPA ran the auto-emission program and at one time they thought it was OK for Kerr-Mcgee to give away all that free radioactive dirt. They even approved mallard lake to be used as a ski-area, and campground. BP doesn't want that property, District 200 should steer clear of it also

The IEPA Says "All Clear" for the New Hubble Site
You need to get your facts straight, but I suspect that you know the real truth about the site and have ulterior motives for the mis-information you posted.

You are 100% incorrect about the proposed site. BP does not own the property and two properties are not even adjacent to each other. In addition, the BP is down wind and down ground water flow from teh new site. Therefore BP/Depaul Naperville Campus will not have any environmental impact on the new school. BP/Depaul is more likely to impact the Creme de la Creme pre-school or the Dupage Orthopeadics facility than the middle school.
On September 10, 2007, Wheaton Warrenville District 200, received official notification from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) that the site for the proposed new Hubble Middle School,“does not constitute a threat to human health and the environment and does not require further remediation…” The document, often referred to as the NFR (no further remediation) letter, goes on to indicate that the site is approved for “residential land use” which is the highest standard with the most stringent requirements the IEPA has for land use. The evaluation by the IEPA was done on the site in its current condition without any remediation.

[MustangSix]

The only other thing I see is that The Hubble Referendum passed - so it appears that it is being built on that site? ?

Interesting point - BP workers, we all have read, have come down with "alarming" rates of cancer that may or may not be coincidental; how many workers at the Com Ed site have been in the media with cancerous conditions from working around this equipment?

Wouldn't the unions be sensitive to any spikes in medical conditions and be alarmed and screaming? They have direct contact with the equipment - over a long period of time, so I would assume they would have high rates of cancers.

Has anyone really looked into that?

[mandmmom]

mustangsix said:

To Dr. Who on the Stonebridge CFO'rs who are now converts. This is exactly part of the problem - people not knowing so they make up their version of what's going on. It is apparent you don't these CFO'rs - cuz I do!

Those Stonebridge CFO"rs - we are PTA'rs together - if you did know them at any level, you would know that one of them changed course during the last referendum which was interesting as they struggled to maintain their friendship (and they did - cuz that was more important) and the other said at the time the vote came in that the public has spoken so we move towards a third high school.

And I recall one comment from them was "I don't care if you build it in Bruce Glawe's backyard" - so to say now they are on board now because of the site - is WAY OFF BASE! And insulting. They both could care less if their kids go to WVHS (the one has a son at WVHS graduating this year) - they both just want to support the 3rd high school. That's the Real Facts.

On the topic of EMF's and Hillmom - her point is well taken - we all live amongst higher EMF ratings in our homes (and our schools computer labs) than at the Eola site. I had a handy dandy machine in my hand today and my laptop came in at 30 EMF's! Woo hoo! My cell phone didn't do so well either. So, unless I'm going to throw out my technology, I guess I can't say much about theEola site's EMF ratings. And probably no one else should either. Unless they like double speak.

I think I'm going to rely on the authority who the Board hired and do this for a living and go with their information on the safety of the property over any residents that are doing this as a hobby. Because quite frankly I'm seeing time and time again people making broad assumptions that are not reality based. Everyone seems to be 'an expert.' And everyone seems to dismiss any real expert who doesn't happen to agree with their position.

And the bottom line is NSFOC does not want to go to WVHS - and we all know it. I don't care about that - I just think we should be honest.

And where do I stand. I am tired of the fighting. At this point, though I believe we would all benefit from a 3rd high school - I don't have that many years left in the system so if NSFOC gets this whole thing mucked up, my personal interests will be taken care of. And good luck to all with younger children.

So you are insulted by someone's comments, but then you turn around and make insulting comments about another group. IMO this is wrong....