Nothing to See Here

[Arch]

rj said:

I've had Nicor out every other year to inspect it, thank you.

So they like dig up the street and your yard to inspect the gas lines? that has to cost a bundle, as that is the only feasible way to inspect an underground gas main.

They check where it comes out of the ground, up to the meter and inside.

[rj]

They check where it comes out of the ground, up to the meter and inside.

I see. So how do you know the underground pipes are safe?

[sleeplessinnpvl]

casey said:

wvhsparent said:

a few facts missing...How many miles of pipeline does this encompass? Millions......
How many were a result of careless excavating, probably a huge majority ( I would guess over 90%)

Give me those numbers and maybe we can talk further.

Again a nice post engineered to a certain position.

I think we can agree that neither one of us are experts but let's face it why should anyone be "guessing". Again, who's signing off this MWGEN site as being completely environmentally sound? Maybe the Dash can get the Good Reverend (he honestly called him that!) to give it his blessing ;D.

I think a lot of people would feel better (maybe never be totally OK but I know I would at least feel better) if they published more reports on things from experts, not just their own opinions. Show us that our concerns have been investigated, not that they are going ahead willy-nilly w/o any regard to our kids' safety and hoping it's going to be OK.

The problem is that you can't predict these things. The school could have just as big a probability of being demolished by a tornado. We all could blow up in our homes if we lit a cigarette by a gas leak in our home. So what is the probability of our kids being killed in an explosion here? And is that probability the same as other probabilities we expose our kids to? If the chance of an explosion is less than a chance that a tornado would strike, then I would be OK with my kid going there. Just my opinion though. I think based on Plainfield many years ago, the tornado thing has a better chance of happening.

[wvhsparent]

Thanks for that sleepless...that is the point I have been making for quite a while now.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

Arch, I am not trying to belittle your concerns. If you don't like the site, by all means, send your kids elsewhere. I really need to see if this site is extremely dangerous to the kids and I personally don't think it is. If I had several posters on this site that were expressing their concerns or better yet, EXPERTS that don't have kids who were going to attend there come in with red flags, then yes, I would be concerned. I don't see that happening and I hope the SB does investigate so it can calm everyone's concerns. I would really like to hear from unbiased experts though.

I really think we should build the new high school on top of Arch's house. We all know that is a safe site since Nicor comes out biannually to check on it. That would also solve Arch's commute woes.

[rj]

I think a lot of people would feel better (maybe never be totally OK but I know I would at least feel better) if they published more reports on things from experts, not just their own opinions.

It all depends on who is paying for the experts what the results of the study are. If MWGEN/ SD204 are paying, the experts will deem it a safe site. If Arch is paying there will be a 1 in 10 chance the children will all burn up within the first year of classes. Somewhere in between there is reality.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

OK, you have a point there. The community does have a hard time trusting the school board. And if they use "experts" like the "experts" we had with the BB land trial, I am pretty doubtful we will ever really know how safe the new site will be.

[doctorwho]

rj said:

I think a lot of people would feel better (maybe never be totally OK but I know I would at least feel better) if they published more reports on things from experts, not just their own opinions.

It all depends on who is paying for the experts what the results of the study are. If MWGEN/ SD204 are paying, the experts will deem it a safe site. If Arch is paying there will be a 1 in 10 chance the children will all burn up within the first year of classes. Somewhere in between there is reality.

sorry, If I am sending kids there - I don't want somewhere in between

[doctorwho]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Arch, I am not trying to belittle your concerns. If you don't like the site, by all means, send your kids elsewhere. I really need to see if this site is extremely dangerous to the kids and I personally don't think it is. If I had several posters on this site that were expressing their concerns or better yet, EXPERTS that don't have kids who were going to attend there come in with red flags, then yes, I would be concerned. I don't see that happening and I hope the SB does investigate so it can calm everyone's concerns. I would really like to hear from unbiased experts though.

I really think we should build the new high school on top of Arch's house. We all know that is a safe site since Nicor comes out biannually to check on it. That would also solve Arch's commute woes.

finally a MS or HS in MY neighborhood-- hell, in my zip code

[Arch]

Which is safer?

A site w/ RR tracks, 6 active pipelines and at least 16 high voltage power lines bordering 50% of the property, and an electric substation

or

A site with 4 high voltage lines bordering 25% of the property, no transit pipelines and no railroad tracks and no substation.

Which has a higher probability for something bad happening?

[Arch]

rj said:

I think a lot of people would feel better (maybe never be totally OK but I know I would at least feel better) if they published more reports on things from experts, not just their own opinions.

It all depends on who is paying for the experts what the results of the study are. If MWGEN/ SD204 are paying, the experts will deem it a safe site. If Arch is paying there will be a 1 in 10 chance the children will all burn up within the first year of classes. Somewhere in between there is reality.

If you would be so kind as to point out the inaccurate or false information I have put forth, I will gladly correct or retract it.

[sushi]

Arch, the people in TG live RIGHT UNDER the biggest set of power lines I have ever seen; crossing the entire neighborhood, even right next to the pool. Maybe that explains things.
I'm not saying I like power lines, just wondering why it's "safe" there.

[rj]

archwinsome said:

Which is safer?

A site w/ RR tracks, 6 active pipelines and at least 16 high voltage power lines bordering 50% of the property, and an electric substation

or

A site with 4 high voltage lines bordering 25% of the property, no transit pipelines and no railroad tracks and no substation.

Which has a higher probability for something bad happening?

Obviously the second choice is safer, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be an option anymore.

[rj]

archwinsome said:

If you would be so kind as to point out the inaccurate or false information I have put forth, I will gladly correct or retract it.

I apologize if that came across as an insult or attack Arch. I am not saying you put out any inaccurate or false information, although some may have a touch sensationalism added for effect.

What I am saying is if you paid for a study looking for the outcome showing a threat, then that is what you would get. If the SD paid for a study with the outcome showing the site safe, that is what they would get. Experts for hire usually side with the party paying the bill.

[Arch]

rj said:

archwinsome said:

If you would be so kind as to point out the inaccurate or false information I have put forth, I will gladly correct or retract it.

I apologize if that came across as an insult or attack Arch. I am not saying you put out any inaccurate or false information, although some may have a touch sensationalism added for effect.

What I am saying is if you paid for a study looking for the outcome showing a threat, then that is what you would get. If the SD paid for a study with the outcome showing the site safe, that is what they would get. Experts for hire usually side with the party paying the bill.

If I paid for a study, it would put out the raw data. Any conclusion would be qualified as such but supported by citing the raw data.

People could then examine the raw data and draw their own conclusion, whether it agreed with mine or not.

That is what is missing from this site. They did an EMF study back on Oct 30th and it showed numbers higher than what was said in the Jan 22 Administrative presentation to the school board.

Also presented was inaccurate information regarding amount and number of times Diesel Fuel Oil was used at the site. Also inaccurately put forth was the mention of ONE natural gas line out by the railroad tracks nut NO mention of the ones directly through the middle of the property. I've put forth data and SOURCES of that data so everyone can check for themselves and conclude whether they were telling the truth or stating misleading/false things at that meeting.


Now, please tell us again who is putting out MISLEADING information. If mine is misleading, show me. I provided data, documentation, maps and said here they are, and yes, they do fail and often without warning. Loss of property and life is often the result when they fail near places where people are.