EMF DATA - don't fall for the scare tactic

[hillmom]

casey said:

mustangsix said:

Why does everyone ignore the fact that Macom does not own all the land and cannot produce a parcel next week or next month? Naperville Park District has legal issues with them. That isn't working out anytime soon. And the way it was presented like it was a 'no brainer' by Macom leads me to believe I wouldn't want to work with that character on a bar mitzvah let alone a major land deal.

And how exactly do you know that? From all that I've learned Macom is good to go. The Park District issues have been resolved. You can confirm that with the Park District or Macom.

The SB doesn't want to make MACOM work but don't blame it on Macom. Your comment about not wanting to work with "that character" is the EXACT reason the SB members won't pursue Macom. They have their own egos at stake and don't want to work with PL.

I've heard they are still in litigation - just FYI if they are neither can talk about the other anyway.

[yeson321]

archwinsome said:

twhl said:

This is only 1 factor that needs consideration. So it is not just "EMF" issue, but I will not list the others to save time. It is interesting that in the original evaluation, AME was considered dangerous to sell BB but now it is not. Specific to EMF, the new report states that affect on health is inconclusive, however this report has been published to support AME, not to challenge the site or to suggest it might be OK, but it is OK. It is also interesting that the actual data was available on the day it was taken (10/30/07) however the email report was not generated until 1/14/08, why the 2 1/2 month delay? The date on the 1/9/08 property layout also suggests monkey business, why the delay? The report "subject matter" suggests this is a revised report, can the Adm produce the original report? This subject like all contributing factors need to be published, and not only be discussed in Executive Session. Where are the same test reports for the other properties?

Interesting to note also the climate on the test dates. Spring and fall usually have the lowest electrical usage because people are not running ACs or Heaters as much. Low Demand = lower EMF.

Exactly what I have been asking, but never get an answer. What impacts do weather and usage have on the readings? How hard is this to answer? Why not include the electronic report in their disclosures of the land? Will the school be retested before it is open to determine the real risks once everything is built?

[MustangSix]

hillmom said:

casey said:

And how exactly do you know that? From all that I've learned Macom is good to go. The Park District issues have been resolved. You can confirm that with the Park District or Macom.

The SB doesn't want to make MACOM work but don't blame it on Macom. Your comment about not wanting to work with "that character" is the EXACT reason the SB members won't pursue Macom. They have their own egos at stake and don't want to work with PL.

I've heard they are still in litigation - just FYI if they are neither can talk about the other anyway.

I did check with the Naperville Park via a friend and they said Nville ws not prepared to do a deal and Macom did not have authority to include that into the deal. Hmmm...

[d204mom]

hillmom said:

casey said:

And how exactly do you know that? From all that I've learned Macom is good to go. The Park District issues have been resolved. You can confirm that with the Park District or Macom.

The SB doesn't want to make MACOM work but don't blame it on Macom. Your comment about not wanting to work with "that character" is the EXACT reason the SB members won't pursue Macom. They have their own egos at stake and don't want to work with PL.

I've heard they are still in litigation - just FYI if they are neither can talk about the other anyway.

Who is in litigation? What are you talking about? Bridge litigation is over.

[yeson321]

hillmom said:

The lines by the AME site while admittedly ugly are less dangerous than just about anything in your home. Just some facts:
The AME site range .32 - 7.2 MG with measurements of .36 MG at the closest spot from the school to closest power line - by this point the ugly substation is not even a factor or being picked up on the meter.

My Electric Outlets - 4 mg
My cell phone when talking - over 100 mg (thanks blackberry)
My daughters cell phone when talking - 80-90 MG
My home cordless phone - 15mg when just sitting on the docking station
My home - range from 1 - 4 mg
Driving on the road next to wooden power lines on 1/20 4-10 mg
Hairdryer 40-50 MG
The alarm clock by your bedside with in reach of your head- 25-50 mg (tested several at the store)
Average tube tv - over 100mg
The freezer's at grocery store when you put your hand in - over 100 mg

Lets call all the pictures and the Godzilla noise for what it really is - a scare tactic hoping people that people don't know enough about what is going on will be tricked into thinking this school site is more dangerous than everything we willing subject our kids to daily. When we all take our kids cell phones away and I see your alarm clocks, hair dryers, and non-plasma tvs on the curb for garbage pick up lets talk about the .36 at the closest corner to the building.

Instead of deflecting questions by throwing out this data that is not an apples-to-apples comparison with consistent exposure while at the high school site, please answer the following questions - this is what we really need to know:

1.) How does weather impact the readings?
2.) How does usage impact the readings?
3.) What are the different impacts on a child vs an adult?
4.) Will the school be retested prior to opening?
5.) Were the readings taken based on the current school site blue print?

Thanks!

[MustangSix]

Thanks for this post. EMFs are not an issue. The gas line is not an issue. What will be the next scary item found? An old Indian graveyard?[/quote]

Ok Indian graveyard - that's pretty funny! I guess I honestly don't care where they put the school - I'm ok with whatever and it will all work out. I've gotten worked up in the past over getting moved in and out of schools and it was really all for naught.

[WeBe204]

mustangsix said:

hillmom said:

I've heard they are still in litigation - just FYI if they are neither can talk about the other anyway.

I did check with the Naperville Park via a friend and they said Nville ws not prepared to do a deal and Macom did not have authority to include that into the deal. Hmmm...

I checked with my friend and they sadi it was free and clear. Not really.. Just an example that second hand info is interesting to chat about. Documented facts coming from the source are a lot more interesting.

[hmmm]

Here's a crazy idea...How about sticking to the SB's ORIGINAL findings on this land and NOT risk anyone's health unnecessarily? How many of us would buy or build a house on this land? How many SB members would?

[hmmm]

One more idea...How about a land swap? Move the Crouse Education Center and all 204 Administration to AME and put MV on their land?

[Arch]

hmmm said:

One more idea...How about a land swap? Move the Crouse Education Center and all 204 Administration to AME and put MV on their land?

It's called: Eat your own dogfood.

I like this idea. Administration all goes to AME, CEC area becomes MVHS.


Nice short way to drive the point home. Good post

[gatordog]

Useful references for EMF hazard understanding. (One can draw their own conclusions.)

Illinois does not have standard or requirements for set back distances for schools from power lines. California does. Info from California Dept of Ed. Seems like a well thought out and developed policy.

www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/powerlinesetback.asp

The summary info is:

Overhead transmission line easement setbacks
100 feet for 50-133kV line (interpreted by CDE up to <200kV)
150 feet for 220-230 kV line
350 feet for 500-550 kV line

The MV layout meets these standards.

Furthermore,
I got some EMF hazard info from the City of Naperville Dept of Public Utilities. These are general effects on populations, including children. (not just school-specific). Its good to have some local experts point the public to quality and well-presented information.

Probably the best general description is:
www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/emf2002.pdf

Others, more technical are:
www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/emf2002.pdf
www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/niehs-report.pdf
www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/publichealthtoxicology/documents/pdf/highfinal.PDF
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1519884

[jftb]

Naperville Park District has never been asked to negotiate their price for the land at Macom. They are open to selling at the right price.

[supermomof4]

mustangsix said:

Thanks for this post. EMFs are not an issue. The gas line is not an issue. What will be the next scary item found? An old Indian graveyard?

Ok Indian graveyard - that's pretty funny! I guess I honestly don't care where they put the school - I'm ok with whatever and it will all work out. I've gotten worked up in the past over getting moved in and out of schools and it was really all for naught. [/quote]

good point.

Great site selection - looks to balance the district and provide relief to the overcrowded schools with the 2009 opening date! School Board should approve without question.

[magneto]

gatordog said:

Useful references for EMF hazard understanding. (One can draw their own conclusions.)

Illinois does not have standard or requirements for set back distances for schools from power lines. California does. Info from California Dept of Ed. Seems like a well thought out and developed policy.

www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/powerlinesetback.asp

The summary info is:

Overhead transmission line easement setbacks
100 feet for 50-133kV line (interpreted by CDE up to <200kV)
150 feet for 220-230 kV line
350 feet for 500-550 kV line

The MV layout meets these standards.

Furthermore,
I got some EMF hazard info from the City of Naperville Dept of Public Utilities. These are general effects on populations, including children. (not just school-specific). Its good to have some local experts point the public to quality and well-presented information.

Probably the best general description is:
www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/emf2002.pdf

Others, more technical are:
www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/emf2002.pdf
www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/emf/docs/niehs-report.pdf
www.vdh.virginia.gov/epidemiology/publichealthtoxicology/documents/pdf/highfinal.PDF
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1519884

So in other words, If this school were being built in California - known for having some real restrictive laws, it would have been OK?

[Arch]

magneto said:

So in other words, If this school were being built in California - known for having some real restrictive laws, it would have been OK?

Not according to their pipeline laws it would not.

Having approximately 40,000 cubic feet of natural gas running under part of the property (that is the volume when not under pressure) is nothing to take lightly.

On a snail flow of 5 inches per second (way underestimated) that is almost 2 million gallons of natural gas in a day.

Let's assign a very real number to it. I have heard that these lines can sometimes operate up to 80PSI. What is the pressure on this one? With that we can fugire out how much volume is really under there at any one given time and can figure out how much would flow by during the course of a school day.

Anyone?