|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:08:55 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 9:08:55 GMT -6
I don't take lightly the fact that our school board will use $150 million to build a high school and yet our taxes may skyrocket even higher after damage awards are determined for the debacle with BB. Add to that the effect on our taxes and our district's reputation if ANYONE sues the district for what they perceive are health issues related to EMF or other hazards at the Eola site. I am very fearful that the amount of our tax increase which was told to us during the referendum will pale in comparison to what it will become years down the road. I don't take that lightly. Has anyone sued the pairie path? It's been right next to the powerlines/pipelines/MWGEN site for longer than I've been here. I haven't heard of any complaints of illness as a result of using the prairie path, but thousands of people do use it each year. Your fears are unfounded and may possibly be the result of being bombarded with worse case scenario thinking. This is just my opinion, I know there are many, many, many, others on the site who have opposing views, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from them soon.  Hmm.. difference being one does not have to use the PP. People have the right to public education. Is D204 going to allow for objections to boundaries? They used to have a form that you just filled out and signed saying why you need to go to a different school other than your assignment and you had to provide your own transportation to/from. From what I have heard, they are allowing no such thing. As a result, people's public education forces them to go to a site that has elevated hazards beyond the levels of acceptability for many people for many reasons. Now, if someone wants, we can start a thread about real versus perceived hazards. Make sure you come prepared to that one because I'm sitting on a doozy. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:10:49 GMT -6
Post by rural on Apr 25, 2008 9:10:49 GMT -6
I can't really speak for Sleepless. However, sharing most of her positions in the post, I believe the group of people she is referring to is the group of people suing the District. I, personally, do not take lightly the fact that, as a taxpayer, I am being sued. It pisses me off. What I don't understand is why more people are not appreciating the fact that the situation in this district is now like a dog chasing it's tail. IMO, the SB has chased it's tail for years now. If we all knew the amount of money they have spent on this debacle it would probably "curl our hair" - or was it ears? They told the voters they could afford BB but then ran, not walked away, and purchased a site with multiple concerns in a mad rush. I think people have every right to be concerned with their actions. I think that was "melt your ears." |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:13:31 GMT -6
Post by fryfox on Apr 25, 2008 9:13:31 GMT -6
This should be on another thread probably, but last night Shawn Collins addressed the environmental issues in regards to Build Smart. He said that this Capital group came up with the guidelines and you are not allowed to use state funds for construction if you are building on powerlines or near EMF hazards. His point was, it's not o.k. to build there if you are using state funds, but it is O.K. if you are using your taxpayers' dollars?!!! Sure seems like a major issue to me.
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:15:17 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 9:15:17 GMT -6
This should be on another thread probably, but last night Shawn Collins addressed the environmental issues in regards to Build Smart. He said that this Capital group came up with the guidelines and you are not allowed to use state funds for construction if you are building on powerlines or near EMF hazards. His point was, it's not o.k. to build there if you are using state funds, but it is O.K. if you are using your taxpayers' dollars?!!! Sure seems like a major issue to me. The state wants to protect its investment and eliminate as much as possible any hazards to kids and targets for lawsuits. Shame the 'trickle down' theory didn't apply here. Let's tie this back to unity. We will all be united in the taxes we will forever have to pay as a result of never ending lawsuits due to that location. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:15:28 GMT -6
Post by snerdley on Apr 25, 2008 9:15:28 GMT -6
Sleepless, Your note above sounds very heartfelt, and I share many of the same sentiments. But when I read a post of yours from today under the LTE 4/25 thread on the green board, I have to scratch my head. I won't copy and paste your comments, and I can't comment over there because I am not signed up. But to be honest, I have trouble reconciling what you say one place and say another. Your post today on the other board seems to follow the same format of blaming "a group of people". Do you mean the people who disagree with our SB? I don't want to jump to conclusions, so I would be interested in a reply. IMO the SB is squarely to blame for the entire predicament we find ourselves in. I'm not even going to rehash all the reasons I feel that way, but they've been more than expressed many times. There simply is no other avenue for people who disagree with their actions other than the lawsuit. Everything else was tried prior to the filing of the suit. In our country, citizens do have rights. People who feel their rights have been disregarded can take action. This is what has happened. It is an unfortunate situation - I will give you that. But at least the decision will be made by an impartial person based on the rule of law. I think "who to blame" represents the real divide. Some feel a "small group" of "entitled" "elitist" "prejudiced" people are to blame and others feel this mess was created entirely by the SB. I think we all in the end want what we feel is best and fair for our children. Maybe we can all just focus on that. I can't really speak for Sleepless. However, sharing most of her positions in the post, I believe the group of people she is referring to is the group of people suing the District. I, personally, do not take lightly the fact that, as a taxpayer, I am being sued. It pisses me off. What I don't understand is why more people are not appreciating the fact that the situation in this district is now like a dog chasing it's tail. I'm not trying to argue or stir the pot. I just want to point out that IMO Sleepless seems to have a habit of blaming certain people as well as posting certain names on blogs, etc. And that is not condusive to getting along. In addition, there may be 9 people's names on the suit, but there are ALOT of people who agree in principle with the merits of the NSFOC case. We can agree to disagree as well as discuss the facts about the case and situation. But I just get tired of the finger-pointing. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:16:29 GMT -6
Post by snerdley on Apr 25, 2008 9:16:29 GMT -6
IMO, the SB has chased it's tail for years now. If we all knew the amount of money they have spent on this debacle it would probably "curl our hair" - or was it ears? They told the voters they could afford BB but then ran, not walked away, and purchased a site with multiple concerns in a mad rush. I think people have every right to be concerned with their actions. I think that was "melt your ears." Gosh - I have got to get that right. Someone should put that in the all time best quotes thread! |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:28:09 GMT -6
Post by slp on Apr 25, 2008 9:28:09 GMT -6
I don't take lightly the fact that our school board will use $150 million to build a high school and yet our taxes may skyrocket even higher after damage awards are determined for the debacle with BB. Add to that the effect on our taxes and our district's reputation if ANYONE sues the district for what they perceive are health issues related to EMF or other hazards at the Eola site. I am very fearful that the amount of our tax increase which was told to us during the referendum will pale in comparison to what it will become years down the road. I don't take that lightly. Has anyone sued the pairie path? It's been right next to the powerlines/pipelines/MWGEN site for longer than I've been here. I haven't heard of any complaints of illness as a result of using the prairie path, but thousands of people do use it each year. Your fears are unfounded and may possibly be the result of being bombarded with worse case scenario thinking. This is just my opinion, I know there are many, many, many, others on the site who have opposing views, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from them soon. The key word is 'perceived' . For the sake of argument, lets assume you are right and there is no real risk with being surrounded by powerlines and high pressure gas mains. BUT the fact that these issues are being wildly debated now and are in the media with respect to the placement of the third high school, someone inevitably will believe that the illness their child has relates to the 3rd high school site at Eola. They will point to numerous studies and they will point to the public's concerns which were ignored by the school board. They will also point to the Build Smart program and how the those rules are devised and why. In a perfect world this wouldn't occur, but in reality it is a great probability. I think it is naive to think otherwise based on the outcry from the public regarding this site AND the pull out by MidWest Gen. due to the fear of litigation . |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:52:30 GMT -6
Post by d204mom on Apr 25, 2008 9:52:30 GMT -6
Has anyone sued the pairie path? It's been right next to the powerlines/pipelines/MWGEN site for longer than I've been here. I haven't heard of any complaints of illness as a result of using the prairie path, but thousands of people do use it each year. Your fears are unfounded and may possibly be the result of being bombarded with worse case scenario thinking. This is just my opinion, I know there are many, many, many, others on the site who have opposing views, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from them soon. The key word is 'perceived' . For the sake of argument, lets assume you are right and there is no real risk with being surrounded by powerlines and high pressure gas mains. BUT the fact that these issues are being wildly debated now and are in the media with respect to the placement of the third high school, someone inevitably will believe that the illness their child has relates to the 3rd high school site at Eola. They will point to numerous studies and they will point to the public's concerns which were ignored by the school board. They will also point to the Build Smart program and how the those rules are devised and why. In a perfect world this wouldn't occur, but in reality it is a great probability. I think it is naive to think otherwise based on the outcry from the public regarding this site AND the pull out by MidWest Gen. due to the fear of litigation . One sick child plus one site selection report from 2006. What jury would need more? Everything else would just be noise - the district would have experts saying that it's not been proven harmful and the sick child's family would have experts saying it's not proven safe. Remember folks - it would be a civil trial. The jury would only have to think the sick child's family was 51% right. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 9:57:55 GMT -6
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 9:57:55 GMT -6
The key word is 'perceived' . For the sake of argument, lets assume you are right and there is no real risk with being surrounded by powerlines and high pressure gas mains. BUT the fact that these issues are being wildly debated now and are in the media with respect to the placement of the third high school, someone inevitably will believe that the illness their child has relates to the 3rd high school site at Eola. They will point to numerous studies and they will point to the public's concerns which were ignored by the school board. They will also point to the Build Smart program and how the those rules are devised and why. In a perfect world this wouldn't occur, but in reality it is a great probability. I think it is naive to think otherwise based on the outcry from the public regarding this site AND the pull out by MidWest Gen. due to the fear of litigation . One sick child plus one site selection report from 2006. What jury would need more? Everything else would just be noise - the district would have experts saying that it's not been proven harmful and the sick child's family would have experts saying it's not proven safe. Remember folks - it would be a civil trial. The jury would only have to think the sick child's family was 51% right. Bingo... And the district has the money to pay (the taxpayers) for it over and over again. March a sick kid into court and you're basically going to pay.. it's just a matter of how much each time. |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 10:02:58 GMT -6
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 10:02:58 GMT -6
EMF Hazards at the Eola site?
In my past life, I was a physicist (2 Masters and a PhD) - and as a result of working with all kinds of radiation, theory and practice, for over 20 years, I do know a thing or two about it.
Do people realize that the Earth's magnetic field is around 300-500mG? And we are quibbling about 2-3 mG here? Some argue that it's not the same as the 2-3 mG is an alternating field, but a static field 100x that? We should be dropping dead like flies....
EMF effects on biological tissue are controversial, but far from conclusive. The pot was stirred in 1979 based on a flawed report of alleged correlation between childhood leukemia and proximity to power lines, which has since been put under serious attack. A 100+ studies after that have still not established the critical cause-effect relationship or a credible mechanism needed for this to be called "science".
I am sure someone will trot out a set of publications that "prove" that EMF radiation "causes" cancer - I humbly point out that that is not the way controversy is resolved in science. The entire totality of data has to be examined - and the methodology and systematic errors for each study has to be analyzed to derive any conclusion. I'd be equally happy to trot out another set of publications that refute the first set if I believed that is the way determine truth.
Unfortunately, in science, it is very difficult to prove a universal negative, so the notion persists and is impossible to shake loose. I would probably give more credence to reports of excessive cell phone use being dangerous than power lines, or being in front of computers too long, due to sheer distance between the source and biological tissue.
Any safety guidelines adopted by any agency or government are based on lack of knowledge of what the effect is, not any established causal mechanism between EMF and the host of medical conditions it allegedly causes. Fear of litigation is the primary motivation for agencies to adopt this, as hard evidence of health hazards is highly questionable.
So we have a situation not unlike Pascal's Gambit about the existence of God:
"Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose." - source Wikipedia
(Reader: Substitute "EMF hazards" for "God" in the original)
Most household appliances create more EMF that power lines and substations because of an oldie but a goodie - the inverse square law that governs gravity and electromagnetism, and makes these fields die very rapidly with distance.
So calling out proximity to power lines a health hazard is what we call FUD, and I have much disdain for that tactic.
Arch - you're right - this should probably be a new thread on real and percieved hazards of Eola, and yes, I will come prepared. Lets look at the data together. EMF, contaminants, railroad tracks, earthquakes, gas lines. I don't care much for personal attacks - but facts are and should be up for debate. Feel free to re-post this in a new thread and we can continue there.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 10:05:54 GMT -6
Post by slp on Apr 25, 2008 10:05:54 GMT -6
again, the key word is 'perceived'
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 10:26:09 GMT -6
Post by JB on Apr 25, 2008 10:26:09 GMT -6
EMF Hazards at the Eola site? In my past life, I was a physicist (2 Masters and a PhD) - and as a result of working with all kinds of radiation, theory and practice, for over 20 years, I do know a thing or two about it. Do people realize that the Earth's magnetic field is around 300-500mG? And we are quibbling about 2-3 mG here? Some argue that it's not the same as the 2-3 mG is an alternating field, but a static field 100x that? We should be dropping dead like flies.... Page 10 of pdf. Q. Doesn’t the earth produce EMF? A. Yes. The earth produces EMF, mainly in the form of static fields, similar to the fields generated by DC electricity. Electric fields are produced by air turbulence and other atmospheric activity. The earth’s magnetic field of about 500 mG is thought to be produced by electric currents flowing deep within the earth’s core. Because
these fields are static rather than alternating, they do not induce currents in
stationary objects as do fields associated with alternating current. Such static fields can induce currents in moving and rotating objects. .....although the spin you are attempting probably would induce current flow |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 10:31:59 GMT -6
Post by slp on Apr 25, 2008 10:31:59 GMT -6
EMF Hazards at the Eola site? In my past life, I was a physicist (2 Masters and a PhD) - and as a result of working with all kinds of radiation, theory and practice, for over 20 years, I do know a thing or two about it. Do people realize that the Earth's magnetic field is around 300-500mG? And we are quibbling about 2-3 mG here? Some argue that it's not the same as the 2-3 mG is an alternating field, but a static field 100x that? We should be dropping dead like flies.... Page 10 of pdf. Q. Doesn’t the earth produce EMF? A. Yes. The earth produces EMF, mainly in the form of static fields, similar to the fields generated by DC electricity. Electric fields are produced by air turbulence and other atmospheric activity. The earth’s magnetic field of about 500 mG is thought to be produced by electric currents flowing deep within the earth’s core. Because
these fields are static rather than alternating, they do not induce currents in
stationary objects as do fields associated with alternating current. Such static fields can induce currents in moving and rotating objects. .....although the spin you are attempting probably would induce current flow yea, that's what I was gonna say too. ;D |
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 25, 2008 13:29:34 GMT -6
Post by momind204 on Apr 25, 2008 13:29:34 GMT -6
Great post Sleepless! I think there are many people out there who are a little teal too.
It is most unfortunate that after you've gone to the trouble of explaining your position on both boards that other posters still feel the need to call you out on your posts on green. I think with your teal leanings, there would be a natural tendency to post a little more strongly about the NSFOC on green and a little more strongly about the SB on blue because the BS coming back at you (on either board) would be less. Just because you choose your words more carefully given your audience, I don't think it makes you a bad person or a shifty poster. I think it makes you considerate and smart.
Thanks for opening the door to this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Unity
Apr 26, 2008 21:44:48 GMT -6
Post by voiceofreason on Apr 26, 2008 21:44:48 GMT -6
There is another group of individuals who are disgruntled. The teachers and staff of 204; they were under the impression that the site for MVHS was 'tested' and safe. They only learned that NO testing whatsoever was performed on the AME site as the EPA has not been on site. (Teachers at last NSFOC meeting discovered this) The employees of 204 have been deceived and are looking elsewhere in light of the fact that Dr. D's new initiatives on Special Education and Contract renewal on the horizon.
|
|
