Environmental Letter from Shawn Collins

[macy]

yeson321 said:

hillmom said:

It is called a gauss meter - and I'm not slamming the EMF readings at Brach Brodie - remember I think they are safe and so do most of the parents whose children will be attending METEA - your group is slamming those kinds of readings lets make sure that perspective is right - I'm simplying advising you to be careful which pandoras box you open. It's awfully easy to criticize a location when you have done absolutely no homework on the one you are suing the district to purchase! Imagine the counter suits that could be filed against NSFOC - are you prepared for that?

I am not a part of any group. I do however believe that you should not be discussing EMFs at BB until you can verify the school property layout and where on that map you took the readings.

I agree with you. I don't for a minute believe the EMF levels at BB are as high as stated by Hillmom.

[Arch]

hillmom said:

archwinsome said:

Take readings at both site with the exact same equipment.
Do a phase 1/2 at BB. MWGEN/AME was farmland too. So, do the Phase1/2 at BB as well. See which has a better results.

Now compare neighboring and on the property hazards with respect to the FEMA 428 - Primer to Design Safe School Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks documentation. The reason is simple: It explicitly goes through a checklist of potential what-if scenarios that could cause drastic loss of life and property in case of even a simple 'accident'. It doesn't have to be a terrorist attack at all.

www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/rms/rmsp428

The SB should produce a side by side comparison of the properties using equal qualifiers and we simply just purchase whichever comes out on top.

Fair, right?

I missed the part about the price of the Brach Brodie land going down - Missed you Arch Winsome - been a while since I've visited the blog!

I don't put a price on kid's safety. If the district needs more money to buy it I will bust my butt to ensure they have it.

[hillmom]

macy said:

After reading this thread, I'm of the opinion the district/SB should build on the Macom site. I had NO IDEA that the EMF readings at BB were so high.

I would be more comfortable with an expert opinion (sorry Hillmom) but yet think the district still has time to find another site.

I've seen the EMF readings for the Macom site. They were verified by the City of Naperville.

Hillmom, would you like me to forward the city of Naperville study on EMF for the Macom site to you?

I'm thinking the district should build on Macom. I had no idea that BB was so hazardous in terms of EMF readings.

I'm confident with the City of Naperville study on EMF levels at the Macom site.

In my opinion, that would be the only safe parcel left for us to build a third school on based on what I've learned tonight.

What about the explosive hazardous gas plant 1/8 a mile away - by the way this is not natural gas this ones all above ground probably seeping into soil, the trains, the power plant, power lines, and there are higher EMF levels there by the railroad tracks surprisingly.
Again which pandoras box do you want to open because they each have things a portion of the community that wasn't happy about boundaries could file a lawsuit about. NSFOC has set a nice example of what can happen over and over again - just think it could be like ground hog day were we just keep repeating the same thing but for a site!

[rural]

So, Hillmom, those quaint little electric lines on the wooden poles that run along the street in front of my house emit more EMF radiation than the big ominous ones?

How I'm not growing and antenna yet is a mystery to me!

[macy]

hillmom said:

macy said:

After reading this thread, I'm of the opinion the district/SB should build on the Macom site. I had NO IDEA that the EMF readings at BB were so high.

I would be more comfortable with an expert opinion (sorry Hillmom) but yet think the district still has time to find another site.

I've seen the EMF readings for the Macom site. They were verified by the City of Naperville.

Hillmom, would you like me to forward the city of Naperville study on EMF for the Macom site to you?

I'm thinking the district should build on Macom. I had no idea that BB was so hazardous in terms of EMF readings.

I'm confident with the City of Naperville study on EMF levels at the Macom site.

In my opinion, that would be the only safe parcel left for us to build a third school on based on what I've learned tonight.

What about the explosive hazardous gas plant 1/8 a mile away - by the way this is not natural gas this ones all above ground probably seeping into soil, the trains, the power plant, power lines, and there are higher EMF levels there by the railroad tracks surprisingly.
Again which pandoras box do you want to open because they each have things a portion of the community that wasn't happy about boundaries could file a lawsuit about. NSFOC has set a nice example of what can happen over and over again - just think it could be like ground hog day were we just keep repeating the same thing but for a site!

I am having a hard time finding anything you say to be credible based on the ridiculous to believe EMF levels you posted (albeit from your own "self study") of the BB site.

Go out tomorrow to the Eola and Molitor site, take your ghostbuster machine, and report back.

Maybe then, I will take your words more seriously.

Sorry, until you do so, I can't believe you are not biased towards the Eola site.


ETA: In my opinion, if you wanted to be perceived as credible, you should have measured EMF levels at the Eola and Molitor site prior to taking measurements anywhere else.

Just my opinion.

[anonofthenorth]

I have to question whether Mr Collins actually wrote this letter. Sounds more like a proboard post, not from someone who knows the letter will be scrutinized and advertises himself as an environmental lawfirm. If he did write it, maybe NSFOC may want to ask for their money back.

A few examples, but only a few as it is late:

Section 1 petroleum tank and power plant

first dot " and another power plant immediately adjacent to the eola/molitor property to the north"

Wrong, switching substation not a power plant. Seems like a pretty big differences to me.

5th dot "... entire northest corner of 80 acre site dedicated to a "retention" pond"

Retention ponds are a requirement for onsite retention since they are putting in parking lot and roof, just like any subdivsion is required to have in pond or detention areas. Does Mr Collins not know this is required? Looks like a great spot to put it, in an area everyone seems afraid to go into.

Dot 6 "Why is the district buying unusable property?" HUH? A lawyer trying to build a case throws a zinger like that?

I don't have time to go through EMF section, but by siting examples with 2mg as the seemingly common lower limit, Mr Collins must not have seen the .036 and ,039 readings at the north end of the school building. I guess kids will be safer at school than at home, as long as we don't put lights and computers in the school.

Again, I just don't think Mr Collins could have written this letter.

[rural]

So, Macy, are you completely ruling out the possibility that BB could have equally high or higher EMF readings than Eola?

[hillmom]

yeson321 said:

hillmom said:

It is called a gauss meter - and I'm not slamming the EMF readings at Brach Brodie - remember I think they are safe and so do most of the parents whose children will be attending METEA - your group is slamming those kinds of readings lets make sure that perspective is right - I'm simplying advising you to be careful which pandoras box you open. It's awfully easy to criticize a location when you have done absolutely no homework on the one you are suing the district to purchase! Imagine the counter suits that could be filed against NSFOC - are you prepared for that?

I am not a part of any group. I do however believe that you should not be discussing EMFs at BB until you can verify the school property layout and where on that map you took the readings.

According to NSFOC that wouldn't matter because they are concerned about a reading along Eola road and a reading that will be 4mg up to their childrens knees standing over a gas line. this is within the same average reading in a home, in every school in the district. Go back to the cell phones (100 mg)and alarm clocks(25-50 mg) and then come talk to me again about that level 4mg at a childs knees for split seconds.

Honestly I think it is all fair game - its on the property after all if it is fair for one group to find an isolated reading in the corner of a parking lot why isn't perimeter readings on BB fair game. Are you saying sometimes it might be considered safe -BINGO!!!

[Arch]

Hillmom,

Post your map/data anyway. I'm curious what your readings are. As suggested, if you could take the time to go stand in a location at the Eola site that Environ used and take a reading that would be helpful too so the meters used have a same-spot reading to compare any deviation between them if that exists.

Thank you in advance if you embark on this.

[d204mom]

hillmom said:

concerned2 said:

My kids are not allowed to text and we do not use our cell phones that much. I think we have over 2,000 roll over min.

Again, though this is our choice to use cell phones and we do not have them to our ears for 8hrs a day for four years.

Just another thought - clock radios/alarm clocks average 25-50 MG - most kids do spend atleast 6 hours per day with in arms length!!! Super duper double standard here!!! Don't you think more people would have leukemia according to Mr. Collins references if the EMF studies were true.

Um, no double standard here.

d204mom said:

I don't either. I discounted houses within sight of high power lines immediately. Wouldn't even go inside.

I don't allow anything that plugs in to be within 6 feet of my kids' bed. No alarm clocks no electric blankets, etc. That would be long term exposure to sleep next to every night.

[Arch]

anonofthenorth said:

I have to question whether Mr Collins actually wrote this letter.
....
Again, I just don't think Mr Collins could have written this letter.

To me, it read like a rushed stream of various thoughts thrown together in haste that should have at least been peer-reviewed.

[mandmmom]

hillmom said:

Actually credible would mean that I took the readings that I could legally - I'm fairly certain you won't be interested in the readings along Eola rd since the distance from the power lines is too great, those technically are the only ones I can take. Brach Brodie is far more exposed to public access - I did not sneak. Walked it in broad daylight along the public right of way.

I can't take readings on the North perimeter which is what I'm sure you are interested in. Go to the site - every few feet on Mid West Gen's property trespassing signs are posted and it is a pretty hefty crime - not risking going to jail! Thanks but no thanks!

Environ is a credible company - they've done the tests. They reported higher readings than the 2.1 average. Are you sure you aren't the one that is one sided - how quick you are to say someone isn't credible when you don't like what you hear - how typical of a group that hasn't done their homework!

Are you saying you are not 1 sided? Do you have a child that will be attending a school in 204? I am not affiliated with any group, but you are trying to slam the group filing the lawsuit by saying they have not done their homework. I don't think you have done your homework either, b/c you did not take a reading at AME...More importantly, I don't think our SB has done their homework and they should have, b/c they are the ones making the decisions....if you are not 1 sided, I hope you are slamming them for not doing their homework.

You are passionate, I am passionate....we all are passionate, b/c the bottom line it is our children. Not slamming you, I just think you are biased towards 1 side (and that is ok, b/c we all are)...I really think we need an independent person (not from IL or any ties to here) doing this....it would definitely put to rest at least 1 side of the argument (not sure which side, but I don't think it will ever happen).

[rural]

archwinsome said:

anonofthenorth said:

I have to question whether Mr Collins actually wrote this letter.
....
Again, I just don't think Mr Collins could have written this letter.

To me, it read like a rushed stream of various thoughts thrown together in haste that should have at least been peer-reviewed.

By which, an environmental expert or another attorney?

[hillmom]

rural said:

So, Hillmom, those quaint little electric lines on the wooden poles that run along the street in front of my house emit more EMF radiation than the big ominous ones?

How I'm not growing and antenna yet is a mystery to me!

YEP!!! Aren't you scared!

Oh by the way I know it wasn't you but someone mentioned the whole air conditioning thing - that would have applied to the Eola site if the Peaker plant was operational or would still be there - all of it including the tank is being removed. The eola site readings for EMF aren't from the power lines - they are too far! Natural gas line has nothing to do with air conditioning. BB does have the wooden lines though along the side that are effected by the airconditioning usage again lower voltage - much higher currency moving thru to produce the neccessary energy. Good point whoever that was BB could be more dangerous during hot times. They should probably find all that info out about site plan layout etc before they proceed with the lawsuit.

[d204mom]

hillmom said:

macy said:

Hillmom,

Where did you get this information from? Can you please place the information on this site.

I am not being sarcastic when I say this - with my MG meter! Very extensive background in electrical engineering and instruction. Readings were taken on January 21, 2008.

Interesting date - January 21. So you were doing a survey for the new mall?