|
|
Post by researching on Apr 25, 2008 12:15:24 GMT -6
Ok. Here we go. This topic is kind of like watching a game of Atari's Pong. Back and forth. A quick search on the connection between EMF's and leukemia yields a long list of scientific "he said, she said" type of documents. Here are a few: ... (deleted for brevity) This was just page one of my google search. Of the above listed only ONE denies ill effects from EMF's. One. It is my STRONG opinion that there is enough doubt to concede that the current property is totally unsuitable for a school. Any school. ETA - Thanks player for posting. I love the thought provoking topics on this board. They inspire me to educate myself and I really appreciate it! Researching, I admire your desire to get to the bottom of this, but I implore you to not use Google hits as a metric to decide what "reality" is and what "truth" is!!!!! Look at some review articles... heres is one that points to others by the APS, NEIHS,... www.hps.org/hpspublications/articles/powerlines.htmlIf childhood luekemia and EMFs have a cause-effect relationship, then nothing short of becoming Amish-like, and shunning all electricity and mechanization, can save us. EMF from power line proximity is in the noise. There are much more serious sources of EMF that we are exposing our kids to as we speak. But, I think you nailed it - the topic is controversial in the literature because it is very difficult to establish cause/effect and even more difficult to prove that there is no cause/effect. I realize that you may have made your mind up, and I respect your right to do that. But this is not a matter to ajudged by Google or the media - scientific inquiry has a trusted way of converging, and right now, the totality of data shown no definitive effect. That being said, entire industries have been started to combat this, as have a healthy stream of research grant money. Cheers. Thanks for the response player and I basically agree with what you are saying. I will also state that we purchased our house on a lot specifically away from the power lines. Obviously I have my concerns. My specific point is that, because of the concerns (about this and MANY other things), this site should have been forever excluded from consideration and we absolutely should not have purchased it. |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 12:32:59 GMT -6
I do know that my Aunt developed a platelet disorder from the EMF's transmitted by her computer. Concerned2: I am truly sorry to hear of your Aunt's platelet disorder. I wish her and your family the best. However, I am sceptical of the determination of the cause - as that would be a first in over 25 years of research. If her condition can be unambiguously established as due to 60Hz EMF exposure, and was diagnosed as such by the attending medical team, that is noteworthy of publication in scientific literature - I would expect to see that in the New England Journal of Medicine. If this is more than speculation by the attending physician, please encourage him to contribute this to the scientific community. It would advance our body of knowledge significantly and help others in the future. Best Regards. |
|
|
|
Post by jftb on Apr 25, 2008 12:38:46 GMT -6
Little concerned about Concerned2's aunt's platelet disorder considering the amount of time I read these boards at my computer every day!!!!! Yikes!
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 25, 2008 12:43:32 GMT -6
Little concerned about Concerned2's aunt's platelet disorder considering the amount of time I read these boards at my computer every day!!!!! Yikes! Or on my crackberry reading it on the train. Yeah, I admit I do that ;D |
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 13:15:30 GMT -6
Little concerned about Concerned2's aunt's platelet disorder considering the amount of time I read these boards at my computer every day!!!!! Yikes! Or on my crackberry reading it on the train. Yeah, I admit I do that ;D Oh yeah - computers and crackberries (and I am hooked to both!) concern me a lot more. The integrated dose is much higher there. researching: I started to look at some of the publications you pointed me to from Google. Reading the publication and looking at the headline is an interesting exercise. The fundamental issue is that this is tough science to measure. Most authors look at correlations, and in fact the first publication in your list, the authors outright state that it is hard to establish cause effect relationships. Here's the problem with correlation analyses: It is easy to establish that the number of crimes is strongly correlated to the number of places of worship in a given neighbourhood - i.e. more PoW's, more crime. It is tempting to conclude that religion, therefore, causes crime. As you can see this is a slippery slope. From the British Medical Journal article: "The annual incidence of childhood leukaemia in England and Wales is about 42 per million; the excess relative risks at distances of 0-199 m and 200-599 m are about 0.69 and 0.23, respectively, giving excess rates of 28 and 10 per million. (These two estimates allow for the fact that the incidence for England and Wales is itself partly based on cases occurring in the vicinity of power lines.) We estimate that of the 9.7 million children in the population (2003 estimate), at birth about 80 000 would have lived within 199 m of a line and 320 000 between 200 and 599 m. Thus, of the 400- 420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines, though this estimate is imprecise.We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation." - BMJ. Herein lies the second problem - statistics. 5 cases of of 420 is not statistically significant. Is there a real cause-effect relationship? Tough to say - the authors have their doubts. They also point out that beyond 60m, the EMF strength dies to less than 4microTesla, and therefore are very perplexed as to how they see any affect at all beyond 200m. I respect your desire to not take a chance and stay away from power lines - a sound Pascal's Gambit. Can't go wrong with that. My desier here is not to convince anyone that Eola is the perfect site or that Brach-Brodie is the one - just want to share what I know to ensure that we all make fact based decisions, not ones clouded by mis-information. I agree with Arch that in our litiguous society, fact sometimes has no purchase - but I can't let this slide by silent consent. But if every site was held up to the same standards - we would find BB, Macom, Eola,... all have similar issues. There are NO "safe" bets to build any school. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 25, 2008 13:23:03 GMT -6
Or on my crackberry reading it on the train. Yeah, I admit I do that ;D Oh yeah - computers and crackberries (and I am hooked to both!) concern me a lot more. The integrated dose is much higher there. researching: I started to look at some of the publications you pointed me to from Google. Reading the publication and looking at the headline is an interesting exercise. The fundamental issue is that this is tough science to measure. Most authors look at correlations, and in fact the first publication in your list, the authors outright state that it is hard to establish cause effect relationships. Here's the problem with correlation analyses: It is easy to establish that the number of crimes is strongly correlated to the number of places of worship in a given neighbourhood - i.e. more PoW's, more crime. It is tempting to conclude that religion, therefore, causes crime. As you can see this is a slippery slope. From the British Medical Journal article: "The annual incidence of childhood leukaemia in England and Wales is about 42 per million; the excess relative risks at distances of 0-199 m and 200-599 m are about 0.69 and 0.23, respectively, giving excess rates of 28 and 10 per million. (These two estimates allow for the fact that the incidence for England and Wales is itself partly based on cases occurring in the vicinity of power lines.) We estimate that of the 9.7 million children in the population (2003 estimate), at birth about 80 000 would have lived within 199 m of a line and 320 000 between 200 and 599 m. Thus, of the 400- 420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines, though this estimate is imprecise.We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation." - BMJ. Herein lies the second problem - statistics. 5 cases of of 420 is not statistically significant. Is there a real cause-effect relationship? Tough to say - the authors have their doubts. They also point out that beyond 60m, the EMF strength dies to less than 4microTesla, and therefore are very perplexed as to how they see any affect at all beyond 200m. I respect your desire to not take a chance and stay away from power lines - a sound Pascal's Gambit. Can't go wrong with that. My desier here is not to convince anyone that Eola is the perfect site or that Brach-Brodie is the one - just want to share what I know to ensure that we all make fact based decisions, not ones clouded by mis-information. I agree with Arch that in our litiguous society, fact sometimes has no purchase - but I can't let this slide by silent consent. But if every site was held up to the same standards - we would find BB, Macom, Eola,... all have similar issues. There are NO "safe" bets to build any school. Cheers. Thanks again. I believe that the reasons stated above are the reason that EMF alone have not be the single reason for exclusion of this site. There are a multitude of environmental concerns that I think we should have avoided. Thanks again for the time you have spent on this.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 25, 2008 13:30:10 GMT -6
Thanks again. I believe that the reasons stated above are the reason that EMF alone have not be the single reason for exclusion of this site. There are a multitude of environmental concerns that I think we should have avoided. Thanks again for the time you have spent on this. Yup. A month or so ago many of us said FINE, take EMF off the table and move on down the list. Let me know when anyone wants to do pipelines and show that having a building inside of 300 feet of them is 'safe'. However, you can pick any other hazard first before those if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 25, 2008 13:34:07 GMT -6
Thanks again. I believe that the reasons stated above are the reason that EMF alone have not be the single reason for exclusion of this site. There are a multitude of environmental concerns that I think we should have avoided. Thanks again for the time you have spent on this. Yup. A month or so ago many of us said FINE, take EMF off the table and move on down the list. Let me know when anyone wants to do pipelines and show that having a building inside of 300 feet of them is 'safe'. However, you can pick any other hazard first before those if you want. Yep. The Build Smart guidlines seemed to challenge the SB as to how many of those guidelines they could ignore when selecting this site. |
|
|
|
Post by momof156graders on Apr 25, 2008 13:40:42 GMT -6
Don't foget the RR issues. In another situation that might be the thing people would be going nuts over, but here there are so many issues it gets P.S.'ed
A RR track on the site that may be increasing traffic by 43 trains a day right next to the school is a major issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by player on Apr 25, 2008 13:45:08 GMT -6
Thanks again. I believe that the reasons stated above are the reason that EMF alone have not be the single reason for exclusion of this site. There are a multitude of environmental concerns that I think we should have avoided. Thanks again for the time you have spent on this. Yup. A month or so ago many of us said FINE, take EMF off the table and move on down the list. Let me know when anyone wants to do pipelines and show that having a building inside of 300 feet of them is 'safe'. However, you can pick any other hazard first before those if you want. Ok! Pipelines next! In a nutshell - no question, no pipeline is better that any pipeline. So if Brach-Brodie is reference, undoubtedly, its is superior in this respect. Why it isn't the site is a matter of much debate, mostly financial, which I'd love to get clarification on too, but thats for a different thread. I have a lot of opinions and questions on that.... ;D So the question in my mind is, keeping Brach-Brodie out of the picture for now, is Eola unacceptable from a risk perspective? The arguments I have seen are along the lines of - it could explode, or - an earthquake could dislodge it, etc. But in Chicago, the darn town is riddled with gas lines! There are lines everywhere, including in the vicinity of many educational institutions. While none is better, I am not seeing this as being compelling. Living in a city is risky! I'm more that willing to look at this afresh, in the context of relative risk. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 25, 2008 13:47:30 GMT -6
Don't foget the RR issues. In another situation that might be the thing people would be going nuts over, but here there are so many issues it gets P.S.'ed A RR track on the site that may be increasing traffic by 43 trains a day right next to the school is a major issue. Another ugly distraction - what is the deal with the train whistles? Since Diehl is a grade crossing do they have to blow their whistles at that crossing or is it a quiet crossing? Will the windows on that side of the building be soundproofed? |
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Apr 25, 2008 13:51:32 GMT -6
What my Aunt told me, was that is had something to do with how the room her computer was in was constructed and how the EMF's were given off her computer. I am not an expert al all on EMF's, but she told me it was medically proven that it was from the EMF's and that they took readings from her room and the EMF's were high. She has now moved her computer into antoher room and yes I too am concerned about how much time I sit on my computer.
EMF's or not it is not the right place to put the HS for MANY reasons, which I am too lazy to type.
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Apr 25, 2008 13:59:22 GMT -6
Yup. A month or so ago many of us said FINE, take EMF off the table and move on down the list. Let me know when anyone wants to do pipelines and show that having a building inside of 300 feet of them is 'safe'. However, you can pick any other hazard first before those if you want. Ok! Pipelines next! In a nutshell - no question, no pipeline is better that any pipeline. So if Brach-Brodie is reference, undoubtedly, its is superior in this respect. Why it isn't the site is a matter of much debate, mostly financial, which I'd love to get clarification on too, but thats for a different thread. I have a lot of opinions and questions on that.... ;D So the question in my mind is, keeping Brach-Brodie out of the picture for now, is Eola unacceptable from a risk perspective? The arguments I have seen are along the lines of - it could explode, or - an earthquake could dislodge it, etc. But in Chicago, the darn town is riddled with gas lines! There are lines everywhere, including in the vicinity of many educational institutions. While none is better, I am not seeing this as being compelling. Living in a city is risky! I'm more that willing to look at this afresh, in the context of relative risk. Cheers. I am certainly not the environmental poster. Never have been. Never will be. Something strikes me a bit odd about this post. Since you are taking all other options off the table (much like Mark did) what are you comparing risk to? Or is this one of those... "This is the best we can do arguements...." If it is, I will answer with an equally abvivalent.. "I think we can do better. IMHO." |
|
|
|
Post by slp on Apr 25, 2008 14:06:02 GMT -6
I am sure it's because it is Friday, but the big pressing concern/question for player from me at this point is....What's up with the 'cheers'? Why did one post only get a 'regards' and not a 'cheers'?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 25, 2008 14:08:22 GMT -6
Yup. A month or so ago many of us said FINE, take EMF off the table and move on down the list. Let me know when anyone wants to do pipelines and show that having a building inside of 300 feet of them is 'safe'. However, you can pick any other hazard first before those if you want. Ok! Pipelines next! In a nutshell - no question, no pipeline is better that any pipeline. So if Brach-Brodie is reference, undoubtedly, its is superior in this respect. Why it isn't the site is a matter of much debate, mostly financial, which I'd love to get clarification on too, but thats for a different thread. I have a lot of opinions and questions on that.... ;D So the question in my mind is, keeping Brach-Brodie out of the picture for now, is Eola unacceptable from a risk perspective? The arguments I have seen are along the lines of - it could explode, or - an earthquake could dislodge it, etc. But in Chicago, the darn town is riddled with gas lines! There are lines everywhere, including in the vicinity of many educational institutions. While none is better, I am not seeing this as being compelling. Living in a city is risky! I'm more that willing to look at this afresh, in the context of relative risk. Cheers. okay , within the parameters you've framed, why would it be if we were using any federal funds whatsoever, Buildsmart Illinois would prohibit us buidling on that site for 3 separate reasons ( all are environmental in nature) . So if we are using our tax dolloars no one cares, but if we are using Federal funds, they would not let us build there. It is all about relavant risk. They want funds protected against loss, and people who do nothing but calculate the odds assess risk factors. This is not a salt storage shed, or a low density use of the land, these are children, in mass amounts we are talking about. Why would be want to take that risk ? Individuals can do as they like. People in Southern California build houses on hillsides they know have a mugh higher risk of mudslides etc. that will wipte them out. They play the odds because it is a site they want. I would be willing to bet a lot of them will tell you, yes I understand the chance, but nothing has ever happened in this exact area -- and they are those you see on TV one day blaming a municipality for the issue, or chalkingit up to bad luck. Luck happens, good and bad, but we can somtimes control the chances of which way that will fall. I believe we are making the wrong bet here. |
|
