|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 7, 2008 13:51:53 GMT -6
I do think that's interesting, MT4. I never heard any comparidon to the other schools??? Where did you hear that? I remember thinking that if the "average" EMFs on Eola, as an empty site, were equivalent to"normal household averages", with all the aplliances and wiring present, I assumed once the school was built on the site with all it's electrical wiring, the building EMFs would go higher? Do a 3AM power cut elsewhere and take a reading. Simple enough  |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Apr 7, 2008 14:10:17 GMT -6
I went back and reread the EMF report on ipsd.org and the report says the EMFs in a typical home are 1-4mG. I am assuming this means a standing structure that has electric service, aplliances, etc in it. The readings of the empty land at Eola ranged .32-7.2mG, and the second report said the readings above the 20" pipeline running under the property was 8.23-12.0mG.
Wouldn't it seem reasonable that once a school was built on the property, wired, filled with computers, lights etc that the EMFs would go higher than the empty land?
ETA - The first report says the highest reading was 7.2mG, but the second report said the highest reading was 12.0mG. Wondering why the discrepancy beween the reports?
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 7, 2008 16:26:18 GMT -6
I went back and reread the EMF report on ipsd.org and the report says the EMFs in a typical home are 1-4mG. I am assuming this means a standing structure that has electric service, aplliances, etc in it. The readings of the empty land at Eola ranged .32-7.2mG, and the second report said the readings above the 20" pipeline running under the property was 8.23-12.0mG. Wouldn't it seem reasonable that once a school was built on the property, wired, filled with computers, lights etc that the EMFs would go higher than the empty land? ETA - The first report says the highest reading was 7.2mG, but the second report said the highest reading was 12.0mG. Wondering why the discrepancy beween the reports? I am no EMF expert but have been trying to educate myself lately as to what these readings mean. Does anyone have information on what temperature (degrees) it was outside during the time in which the readings were taken? From what I can gather, the most accurate measurements would be during high energy use days in which the temperature was above 80 degrees. I think the district readings were taken at the end of October. Does anyone know if this really makes a difference in the readings? Edit to add: Concerned2... I have found in what little research I've done that EMF levels most definitely have an effect on health for those with auto-immune disease. |
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Apr 7, 2008 16:32:10 GMT -6
I went back and reread the EMF report on ipsd.org and the report says the EMFs in a typical home are 1-4mG. I am assuming this means a standing structure that has electric service, aplliances, etc in it. The readings of the empty land at Eola ranged .32-7.2mG, and the second report said the readings above the 20" pipeline running under the property was 8.23-12.0mG. Wouldn't it seem reasonable that once a school was built on the property, wired, filled with computers, lights etc that the EMFs would go higher than the empty land? ETA - The first report says the highest reading was 7.2mG, but the second report said the highest reading was 12.0mG. Wondering why the discrepancy beween the reports? I am no EMF expert but have been trying to educate myself lately as to what these readings mean. Does anyone have information on what temperature (degrees) it was outside during the time in which the readings were taken? From what I can gather, the most accurate measurements would be during high energy use days in which the temperature was above 80 degrees. I think the district readings were taken at the end of October. Does anyone know if this really makes a difference in the readings? It has to make a difference. The sd wasn't even looking at this land prior to October so I don't see why they would have tested it in warm weather. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 7, 2008 16:44:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 7, 2008 16:50:18 GMT -6
Thanks Arch...
I would be more confident in the measurements if they had been taken on a day when energy use was at a higher level.
I have seen the readings for the Macom site from the city of Naperville. In the report, the city made a point of stating the temperature was 80 degrees.
The readings were much lower than the Eola site. In fact, the highest reading, taken directly underneath one of the power lines that would have been moved, was lower than the highest reading at the Eola site.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 7, 2008 17:04:19 GMT -6
I've also been trying to catch up on the dangers of the underground pipelines. It appears that the backyards of homeowners that are adjacent to the AME site are set back at least 180 yards from the property.
Why would that be? Could it be that the pipelines are dangerous?
Edit: Obvious sarcasm in my post. I had not seen any posts that spoke to the greater length in the backyards that back up to the site. Does anyone know if this is true? Why is it that the houses that back up to the site are set 180 yds away?
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 7, 2008 17:17:23 GMT -6
Arch,
You are going to the meeting, right? Can you give us an update when you get home?
Although, somehow, I already know what BS they are going to try and feed us.
Been there, done that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 7, 2008 17:21:37 GMT -6
Here now.
They are going over some findings of phase1 and 2... doing 2 now...
Releases were documented in 93, 94, 96, 02
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Apr 7, 2008 17:29:24 GMT -6
 Glad you are going. Although I realize the district hasn't even presented the phase II results, I'm a "little" skeptical and am feeling that I can't completely trust the information they provide us. Yes... I'm bitter, can you blame me? In my opinion, much information that has been put out to residents has been nothing but "spin" and not the complete truth. Arch.. I'm glad you are going to the meeting as you have a handle on the environmental issues and will be able to read into anything that is conveniently left out. Funny thing, I went away on Spring Break for a week and stayed completely away from this issue. I thought I'd come back with a softer view. That didn't happen, the more I thought about what has occurred during the past three years in 204, the madder I got. I really think the Eola site is a bad decision for the district.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 7, 2008 17:32:59 GMT -6
They brushed past the pipeline section as quickly as possible but did not mention anything about the PIR (Gee, I wonder why)... I might have to later when they are all done. I'll make sure it's by the press people  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 7, 2008 17:42:56 GMT -6
I'll make sure they see the trucks that were approx 600 feet away from a 30" pipe. Our building will be under 300 feet away. Crater at the top, trucks down by the river...  Close up of the trucks that were cooked... further away than the MV building will be to the pipelines through the middle of the property... in fact, the building will be under HALF the distance that these trucks were to the pipeline.  A 36" pipe has a larger PIR than the 30" that blew above. We have 2 36" pipes and a 20" pipe in the middle. Joy! |
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Apr 7, 2008 18:20:37 GMT -6
Thanks Arch for attending and posting the information.
|
|
|
|
Post by MustangSix on Apr 7, 2008 21:44:50 GMT -6
I continue to find it interesting that we assume that this will blow up - and if we ar really worried about saving young lives - should we not be focused on kids driving. I say don't let kids drive to school; make them take the bus! Let's lobby for drivers licenses at 18 or even 21. I'm just saying we all know more kids are killed by driving than this 'what if malarkey .. maybe...' Sure it could happen and tomorrow a plane could fall out of the sky and the next day .... sorry, but I'm not into catastrophizing.
It shows an underlying agenda that really has no relation to saving kids lives - or we would be out there saving lives. And not carping like we are some kind of environmental experts. We aren't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 7, 2008 21:50:18 GMT -6
I continue to find it interesting that we assume that this will blow up - and if we ar really worried about saving young lives - should we not be focused on kids driving. I say don't let kids drive to school; make them take the bus! Let's lobby for drivers licenses at 18 or even 21. I'm just saying we all know more kids are killed by driving than this 'what if malarkey .. maybe...' Sure it could happen and tomorrow a plane could fall out of the sky and the next day .... sorry, but I'm not into catastrophizing. It shows an underlying agenda that really has no relation to saving kids lives - or we would be out there saving lives. And not carping like we are some kind of environmental experts. We aren't. The pipes there are over 50 years old. One was put in in 1951 and another in 1957 and the third in 1970. Many start having problems by age 30. The one pictured above was approx 50 years old. Stick the school someplace not near them and if it has an accident, big deal.. no kids harmed. That's a bad thing why? |
|
