|
|
Post by rural on Mar 30, 2008 15:46:39 GMT -6
I can't decide which is more disturbing: the story or the site where you found it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 30, 2008 15:57:48 GMT -6
I can't decide which is more disturbing: the story or the site where you found it. Either is irrelevant except the fact that people do DUMB things around them and they do cause lots of bad problems when it happens. That's what $150 million buys us.. lots of nice life/death hazards that take only minutes to go from benign to OH CRAP! |
|
|
|
Post by rj on Mar 30, 2008 16:08:23 GMT -6
If anyone happens to see a 16 year old roaming around MV with an underground pipeline locater, cordless drill and a 6 foot carbide bit, please call 911 immediately. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 30, 2008 16:23:42 GMT -6
If anyone happens to see a 16 year old roaming around MV with an underground pipeline locater, cordless drill and a 6 foot carbide bit, please call 911 immediately. ;D Now, now. He may not have a 6' bit, he may just have a shovel. |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Mar 30, 2008 16:23:49 GMT -6
Maybe the AME/MGEN site is safe, it would just be logical that we are sure of that before we spend 140M. I just don't get the "trust us, it seems fine" thing. What person in their right mind would be OK with that, especially after they essentially implied that the site would be IEPA approved? I didn't take that to mean it would be approved after we built eveything but the tennis courts. There is no contingency for a problem and that's unreasonably irresponsible. I am 100% OK with the AME/MGEN site if it is approved by the IEPA prior to us building on it. I would even be fine buying the land contingent on the approval. But once you start building on it, you have no contingency and you are in a position of a financial disaster if you're wrong. That's my problem with this. It's a big problem. what about BB breaks CA law? And put the gun down while we are discussing this situation please. First off AE, what gun? Or is this another case of censuring anyone who dares question the masses? Now that that is out of the way, according to CA standards, a school should not be built on former farm land because of the toxic fertilizers/ pesticides dumped into the soil over the years, many of them before the EPA regulated them. Surely you remember DDT and the other carcinogenic chemicals that have since been banned by the EPA? Well, they don't evaporate, they end up in the ground, all the way into the water table. That being said, it doesn't appear that the CA law regarding school siting is a buffet, where you choose what suits you and leave the rest, so BB is just as unfit for a school as the AME/MWGEN site. As a matter of fact, if you want to stand by the CA standard, there probably isn't a safe place for a school in the district. |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 30, 2008 16:25:23 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Mar 30, 2008 16:28:33 GMT -6
This is off topic, but WHAT in the world would you guys do if your kid did something like that? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 30, 2008 16:30:26 GMT -6
Anyone can top Columbine, NIU and VA Tech in a matter of minutes and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
Each of those places 1 hour prior to their incidents would have had the same NAY sayers lambasting about how that could never happen there at their location.
Keep in mind, we're paying $150 million for this 'privilege'.
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 30, 2008 16:35:31 GMT -6
This is off topic, but WHAT in the world would you guys do if your kid did something like that? First of all I would thank god neither was electrocuted. I would thank god no one got hurt. And then I have no idea.. I mean this is not the first time in history probably good and smart kids did something stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by steckmom on Mar 30, 2008 16:36:42 GMT -6
Maybe the AME/MGEN site is safe, it would just be logical that we are sure of that before we spend 140M. I just don't get the "trust us, it seems fine" thing. What person in their right mind would be OK with that, especially after they essentially implied that the site would be IEPA approved? I didn't take that to mean it would be approved after we built eveything but the tennis courts. There is no contingency for a problem and that's unreasonably irresponsible. I am 100% OK with the AME/MGEN site if it is approved by the IEPA prior to us building on it. I would even be fine buying the land contingent on the approval. But once you start building on it, you have no contingency and you are in a position of a financial disaster if you're wrong. That's my problem with this. It's a big problem. First off AE, what gun? Or is this another case of censuring anyone who dares question the masses? Now that that is out of the way, according to CA standards, a school should not be built on former farm land because of the toxic fertilizers/ pesticides dumped into the soil over the years, many of them before the EPA regulated them. Surely you remember DDT and the other carcinogenic chemicals that have since been banned by the EPA? Well, they don't evaporate, they end up in the ground, all the way into the water table. That being said, it doesn't appear that the CA law regarding school siting is a buffet, where you choose what suits you and leave the rest, so BB is just as unfit for a school as the AME/MWGEN site. As a matter of fact, if you want to stand by the CA standard, there probably isn't a safe place for a school in the district. I don't know. Maybe Arch has finally gotten to me. How can the site ever be safe given the pipelines? Won't there be others, including the NSFOC, that feel that way? |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 30, 2008 16:37:46 GMT -6
"I think it's pretty funny because the pranks this year weren't really anything so this would have been big," said junior Haley Bork.
Ah, yes, the fine education received by students in D204.
Is there an Italian Job class?
They were able to cut the surveillance cameras and had snipped a cable to the backup generator before being spotted.
|
|
|
|
Post by rj on Mar 30, 2008 16:40:30 GMT -6
Sorry Arch, using a kid drilling an above ground pipeline to push your fear mongering agenda is a stretch considering the AME pipelines are underground. For that matter, most of your examples of pipeline tragedies involved above ground pipelines, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good agenda.  |
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 30, 2008 16:50:07 GMT -6
"I think it's pretty funny because the pranks this year weren't really anything so this would have been big," said junior Haley Bork. Ah, yes, the fine education received by students in D204. Is there an Italian Job class? They were able to cut the surveillance cameras and had snipped a cable to the backup generator before being spotted. Yeah, I found that quote a bit humerous/disturbing. Apparently, long gone are the days of TP'ing the school or putting dishwasher soap in the fountains  |
|
|
|
Post by rural on Mar 30, 2008 16:53:38 GMT -6
Didn't one class steal the bell that doesn't ring?
|
|
|
|
Post by WeBe204 on Mar 30, 2008 16:57:52 GMT -6
Maybe the AME/MGEN site is safe, it would just be logical that we are sure of that before we spend 140M. I just don't get the "trust us, it seems fine" thing. What person in their right mind would be OK with that, especially after they essentially implied that the site would be IEPA approved? I didn't take that to mean it would be approved after we built everything but the tennis courts. There is no contingency for a problem and that's unreasonably irresponsible. I am 100% OK with the AME/MGEN site if it is approved by the IEPA prior to us building on it. I would even be fine buying the land contingent on the approval. But once you start building on it, you have no contingency and you are in a position of a financial disaster if you're wrong. That's my problem with this. It's a big problem. First off AE, what gun? Or is this another case of censuring anyone who dares question the masses? Now that that is out of the way, according to CA standards, a school should not be built on former farm land because of the toxic fertilizers/ pesticides dumped into the soil over the years, many of them before the EPA regulated them. Surely you remember DDT and the other carcinogenic chemicals that have since been banned by the EPA? Well, they don't evaporate, they end up in the ground, all the way into the water table. That being said, it doesn't appear that the CA law regarding school siting is a buffet, where you choose what suits you and leave the rest, so BB is just as unfit for a school as the AME/MWGEN site. As a matter of fact, if you want to stand by the CA standard, there probably isn't a safe place for a school in the district. This is of course a broken record. But once again Fence you have pretty much crystallized my stance on this. For me this unrealistic 2009 date is causing the admin/board to move in less than cautious way. I'll just add a tad bit of spite.. The righteous will tell you it is best for the kids to get this done NOW so the kids will not have potential over crowding in 2009. That trumps anything else. So selfless  Some of us will be here a lot longer than if you jsut have kids in middle school... |
|
Some of us will be here a lot longer than if you jsut have kids in middle school...