|
Post by doctorwho on May 3, 2008 13:05:04 GMT -6
Yes, it does provide a little more insight into you! Thanks. Many of us, including myself, have become pretty skeptical lately. It's hard not to be considering the climate in this district. One more question, do you mind letting us know which part of the district you live in? Most of us on this board have been quite candid about where we reside. I would completely understand if you do not want to share that information. Thanks again for your candidness. macy: Sure. Eola would be the closest site for my kids as the crow flies, which is why I am very interested in understanding the risks with this site. From a schoolbus perspective, BB or Eola for MVHS would be about the same. My kids would go the WVHS if BB was the site. I believe WVHS is an excellent school, and was quite happy with BB for MVHS as long as the overcrowding at WVHS was alleviated. So my stance really is I don't care where you build it with acceptable safety, as long as you do, in a fiscally responsible fashion and a timely fashion. We can debate that on a different thread. I am sure many will read more into my location, than is pertinent - well, so be it. I have nothing to hide. Cheers. to be fair howver as you have stated this is pretty much an even -Steven deal either way for you once past the safety issue. For many of us besides the safety issue ( which I am glad more people are looking into ) - the either / or is quite far from a level playing field. 9 minutes /11 minutes / 30+ minutes drive time to and from school as 3 choices - this is kind of one of those tests where one has to choose what does not belong in the sequence of responses. That will color opinions on everything involved, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on May 3, 2008 13:56:54 GMT -6
Honestly, though, I must say it is a very unbiased approach to the issue. ETA: Arch is still right that no line is best. However, this information points out that the difference between the two may not be as large a gap as originally presented. There is in fact no way to know if Player's analysis is unbiased. And like anything else it is probably debatable. I just skimmed it (too long - sorry). My days of research and debate are over for now while we wait for the outcome of mediation or the judge's ruling. We do know that the judge is unbiased. So I will rely on that. The whole idea of someone suddenly getting so interested (right as we near possible legal rulings) they are going into that level of detail and analysis and in the end always shooting down the concerns of others seems suspicious to me. But again, if I'm wrong, my sincere apologies. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by cornholio on May 3, 2008 14:13:14 GMT -6
How does the age of the pipelines affect this data?
|
|
|
Post by player on May 3, 2008 14:25:05 GMT -6
How does the age of the pipelines affect this data? cornholio: The best info I could find was that pipes installed before 1950 have 4 times the likelihood or corrosion damage than those after. One of the pipes under Eola was installed in 1951. In my opinion this is too close for comfort, I'd be much more comfortable changing them, like Arch suggested.
|
|
|
Post by snerdley on May 3, 2008 14:39:46 GMT -6
I'd be more comfortable if they built on a site where such pipes don't exist.
Say....maybe the site they marketed to the voters!
Afterall, they eliminated the Eola site in the 05 site selection report due to environmental concerns.
|
|
we4
Junior
Girls Can't Do What?
Posts: 245
|
Post by we4 on May 3, 2008 15:24:43 GMT -6
Player,
I just got to read through all of this and wow. I felt like I was reading a text book again ;D. Lots of info. Thank you for taking the time to research this. I will not forget about Arch. Thank you also Arch. Both of you have done a great job informing us mere mortals.
Any chance you could research how to get kids to clean up their rooms? I'd send you a box of wine. ;D
|
|
|
Post by player on May 3, 2008 16:06:39 GMT -6
macy: Sure. Eola would be the closest site for my kids as the crow flies, which is why I am very interested in understanding the risks with this site. From a schoolbus perspective, BB or Eola for MVHS would be about the same. My kids would go the WVHS if BB was the site. I believe WVHS is an excellent school, and was quite happy with BB for MVHS as long as the overcrowding at WVHS was alleviated. So my stance really is I don't care where you build it with acceptable safety, as long as you do, in a fiscally responsible fashion and a timely fashion. We can debate that on a different thread. I am sure many will read more into my location, than is pertinent - well, so be it. I have nothing to hide. Cheers. to be fair howver as you have stated this is pretty much an even -Steven deal either way for you once past the safety issue. For many of us besides the safety issue ( which I am glad more people are looking into ) - the either / or is quite far from a level playing field. 9 minutes /11 minutes / 30+ minutes drive time to and from school as 3 choices - this is kind of one of those tests where one has to choose what does not belong in the sequence of responses. That will color opinions on everything involved, IMHO. doctorwho: You're right. I don't have too much vested in Eola vs BB once I am convinced on safety issues. I realize that your challenges are very different from mine. My concern is to get a viable solution for overcrowding in place in a timely manner. I wish you the best. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by player on May 3, 2008 16:25:02 GMT -6
Player, I just got to read through all of this and wow. I felt like I was reading a text book again ;D. Lots of info. Thank you for taking the time to research this. I will not forget about Arch. Thank you also Arch. Both of you have done a great job informing us mere mortals. Any chance you could research how to get kids to clean up their rooms? I'd send you a box of wine. ;D we4: The day I figure that mystery out, I figure I'll become a multi-billionare overnight. I will buy myself a nice little island in the Pacific with lots of help to clean rooms and I won't have to deal with pipelines! I can then spend my sunset years calculating probabilities for hurricanes ad typhoons. ;D So much as I'd love a box of wine, wild horses couldn't get me to take that bit of research on.
|
|
|
Post by friend on May 3, 2008 17:43:38 GMT -6
Player,
Many thanks for sharing your research. I am from Owen "west." While I feel completely slighted by the split in my ES, becoming a minority at MS and driving far (again) to MVHS, the reality is that the SB has bought the AME property and we need to know that it is reasonably safe for all who attend and will work there. At some point we will need to acceept it and move on. I have not completely decided how I feel about the safety aspect of this property yet. I am still fact finding. I have missed your postings on your thoughts of the EMF's. That is still a concern for me.
Reagding the ACV's. What if the SD does not have ACV's installed or move/replace the pipelines? Do you still we should still build there?
As a parent who has already been experiencing the longer commute in this district at the ES level, I can honestly tell you that I would commute even further if it meant a safer site for all involved. Yes, I said I would commute further north of this site if it meant we could build a HS away from the pipelines and the eletrical sub-station. I am not happy about what the future holds driving down Eola in all that traffic. I am not looking forward to the times when you get there and you realize that due to time reagrding the round trip from home to school & traffic that you find yourself looking for the local coffee shop to kill time. I have done that many times just in going to Owen. Having just shared my isses with traveling far, I would than expect that the place be 100% free of these concerns. And that is what bothers me the most. I am told to travel farther (again) and be faced with questionable environmental concerns.
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 3, 2008 17:45:48 GMT -6
I just took this off the green board. (see below) Let me clarify for you rural if you mistook my post. Many on here, not just me, had a gut feeling Player was someone involved from the district. I felt the need to ask to clarify. In no way was I trying to smite anyone. I did not call Player out as a mole. I simply asked what many were misassuming. Good lord, what's wrong about asking an honest question? Frankly, I believed Player's response and take his/her posts more seriously now. _________________________________________ rural Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 431 Karma: 1,340 Re: Build Smart bombshell by "Player" « Reply #16 Today at 1:36pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No worries. She's politely smiting Player as we post. Calling her out as a mole from the SB to which Player is emphatically denying.
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 3, 2008 17:57:49 GMT -6
Well, that's good Macy. I did say you were being polite, and I apologize if you are offended by my post. I would be more than happy to remove it if it bothers you.
|
|
|
Post by macy on May 3, 2008 18:01:45 GMT -6
Well, that's good Macy. I did say you were being polite, and I apologize if you are offended by my post. I would be more than happy to remove it if it bothers you. You can leave it up. I just wanted to clarify that I was not trying to out anyone, simply stating what many of us on this board, incorrectly assumed about Player.
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on May 3, 2008 18:07:36 GMT -6
Someone should call the people that wrote the Build Smart guidelines and tell them they're a bunch of morons! Why in the world would they recommend not building schools next to pipelines when, statistically, it's perfectly safe?
|
|
|
Post by friend on May 3, 2008 18:11:02 GMT -6
Is there land north of I-88 on eola where this HS could have gone?
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on May 3, 2008 18:14:25 GMT -6
Is there land north of I-88 on eola where this HS could have gone? That would be even further from the center of population. According to player's statistics, minimizing commuting miles should have been our top priority. Risk of Heart Disease - 1 in 350 Risk of Cancer - 1 in 510 All Accidents - 1 in 2,560 Motor Vehicles - 1 in 5,030Homicides - 1 in 11,500 Drowning - 1 in 47,600 Fires/Burns - 1 in 51,600 Civil Aviation accident - 1 in 192,300 Significant MVHS - 1 in 200,000 pipeline incident Lightning strike - 1 in 2,454,000
|
|