• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Hanes Middle School sits on top of a pool of toxic waste

wakephan09 said:
I'm pretty certain my 4th grade battles with homeless drug-addicts in the Brunson creek as Safety Patrol put me at more risk than the poisonous chemicals at Hanes.
Click to expand...

The creek muskrats were the size of beagles. They either got that big from eating said homeless or Brunson is also on a toxic plume, in which case double💴💵💸💶💷💰
 
http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_41334266-be34-11e4-bf0e-f761aec7e208.html

Thank you, alarmist W-S Journal reporter. Thanks for the ridiculous amount of unnecessary panic you created.

And now we have the first look at real data since this PR mess started last month. Results: There are toxic gases in the soil (which stands to reason), but the amount of toxic gases in the classroom air is not dangerous.

“The indoor air results we got are within the expected range of concentrations in indoor environments for buildings not impacted by subsurface (contaminants),” Service said. “The data do suggest there is contribution from subsurface sources in the indoor air, but in very low concentrations – well below any … screening levels.”

And note the poor choice of misleading words for the subtitle. Instead of going with something reassuring to the public like "Classroom air deemed safe based on most recent tests", she takes the negative slant with "Tests show vapor levels higher in soil than buildings". Seriously? Did anyone really think the vapor levels in the contaminated soil would be lower than the vapor levels in the classrooms?

I'm not against the move from Hanes/Lowrance (I have 1 kid at Hanes, 1 kid finished there in '14) and having that site re-purposed. But clearly, this move could have waited until late June. Pathetic.
 
Dkin said:
http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_41334266-be34-11e4-bf0e-f761aec7e208.html

Thank you, alarmist W-S Journal reporter. Thanks for the ridiculous amount of unnecessary panic you created.

And now we have the first look at real data since this PR mess started last month. Results: There are toxic gases in the soil (which stands to reason), but the amount of toxic gases in the classroom air is not dangerous.

“The indoor air results we got are within the expected range of concentrations in indoor environments for buildings not impacted by subsurface (contaminants),” Service said. “The data do suggest there is contribution from subsurface sources in the indoor air, but in very low concentrations – well below any … screening levels.”

And note the poor choice of misleading words for the subtitle. Instead of going with something reassuring to the public like "Classroom air deemed safe based on most recent tests", she takes the negative slant with "Tests show vapor levels higher in soil than buildings". Seriously? Did anyone really think the vapor levels in the contaminated soil would be lower than the vapor levels in the classrooms?

I'm not against the move from Hanes/Lowrance (I have 1 kid at Hanes, 1 kid finished there in '14) and having that site re-purposed. But clearly, this move could have waited until late June. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I have an 8th grader at Hanes now and my older son finished there in 2012. Making a knee-jerk decision to move everyone before the end of the school year, without waiting until they had current, reasonably reliable data, was very ill-advised in my view. (Admittedly, this is easy for me to say since I don't bear any responsibility for the health and safety for the students).
 
I get not wanting to make knee-jerk reactions, but the school board was up against parents who were likely not sending their kids back to that school, ever.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. Seems like the school board has mismanaged the situation all along.
 
Dkin said:
http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_41334266-be34-11e4-bf0e-f761aec7e208.html

Thank you, alarmist W-S Journal reporter. Thanks for the ridiculous amount of unnecessary panic you created.

And now we have the first look at real data since this PR mess started last month. Results: There are toxic gases in the soil (which stands to reason), but the amount of toxic gases in the classroom air is not dangerous.

“The indoor air results we got are within the expected range of concentrations in indoor environments for buildings not impacted by subsurface (contaminants),” Service said. “The data do suggest there is contribution from subsurface sources in the indoor air, but in very low concentrations – well below any … screening levels.”

And note the poor choice of misleading words for the subtitle. Instead of going with something reassuring to the public like "Classroom air deemed safe based on most recent tests", she takes the negative slant with "Tests show vapor levels higher in soil than buildings". Seriously? Did anyone really think the vapor levels in the contaminated soil would be lower than the vapor levels in the classrooms?

I'm not against the move from Hanes/Lowrance (I have 1 kid at Hanes, 1 kid finished there in '14) and having that site re-purposed. But clearly, this move could have waited until late June. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

What Dkin said to the word. Pos rep.
 
The biggest travesty of all this is starting Monday I have to get out of bed like an hour earlier to take my kid to the new Hanes location. No one should have to start school at 7:20 am!
 
Limited access to both sites, combined with the recent weather, and the expectation that the entire move occurs over this weekend with the teachers doing most of the work with only a few weeks notice - they really should have just waited til next year.
 
Dkin said:
http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_41334266-be34-11e4-bf0e-f761aec7e208.html

Thank you, alarmist W-S Journal reporter. Thanks for the ridiculous amount of unnecessary panic you created.

And now we have the first look at real data since this PR mess started last month. Results: There are toxic gases in the soil (which stands to reason), but the amount of toxic gases in the classroom air is not dangerous.

“The indoor air results we got are within the expected range of concentrations in indoor environments for buildings not impacted by subsurface (contaminants),” Service said. “The data do suggest there is contribution from subsurface sources in the indoor air, but in very low concentrations – well below any … screening levels.”

And note the poor choice of misleading words for the subtitle. Instead of going with something reassuring to the public like "Classroom air deemed safe based on most recent tests", she takes the negative slant with "Tests show vapor levels higher in soil than buildings". Seriously? Did anyone really think the vapor levels in the contaminated soil would be lower than the vapor levels in the classrooms?

I'm not against the move from Hanes/Lowrance (I have 1 kid at Hanes, 1 kid finished there in '14) and having that site re-purposed. But clearly, this move could have waited until late June. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Good analysis of how reporters, who rarely have science training, handle scientific topics and data. Always lookimng for the alarmist angle. "If it bleeds, it leads." And what better scare story than exposing children to "toxic substances" at school.
 
bym051d said:
I get not wanting to make knee-jerk reactions, but the school board was up against parents who were likely not sending their kids back to that school, ever.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. Seems like the school board has mismanaged the situation all along.
Click to expand...

this is highly spot on.

The issue is almost more of a PR one than a science one. They have a program that is highly rated, literally the top magnet school of its kind in the country according to one ranking. I can see where the board would want to continue that success. But if you tell parents of any race and in any neighborhood "Hey, we've got this great school but it sits on a toxic plume," you're gonna lose a sizable X amount of parents who just won't do it. So to keep the program going, there's really no way to keep it in that building regardless of how the tests turn out.

I mean you had scientist parents who were blasting the school - I don't know if they were right or wrong but that brought out a whole lot of fear and anger. And then you had testimony from parents whose kids had cancer. We'll never know if the cancer was related, but that was the end of the PR campaign right there because who would take that risk?
 
WinkinDeac said:
this is highly spot on.

The issue is almost more of a PR one than a science one. They have a program that is highly rated, literally the top magnet school of its kind in the country according to one ranking. I can see where the board would want to continue that success. But if you tell parents of any race and in any neighborhood "Hey, we've got this great school but it sits on a toxic plume," you're gonna lose a sizable X amount of parents who just won't do it. So to keep the program going, there's really no way to keep it in that building regardless of how the tests turn out.

I mean you had scientist parents who were blasting the school - I don't know if they were right or wrong but that brought out a whole lot of fear and anger. And then you had testimony from parents whose kids had cancer. We'll never know if the cancer was related, but that was the end of the PR campaign right there because who would take that risk?
Click to expand...

Who would take that risk until June or beyond?
 
Dkin said:
http://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...cle_41334266-be34-11e4-bf0e-f761aec7e208.html

Thank you, alarmist W-S Journal reporter. Thanks for the ridiculous amount of unnecessary panic you created.

And now we have the first look at real data since this PR mess started last month. Results: There are toxic gases in the soil (which stands to reason), but the amount of toxic gases in the classroom air is not dangerous.

“The indoor air results we got are within the expected range of concentrations in indoor environments for buildings not impacted by subsurface (contaminants),” Service said. “The data do suggest there is contribution from subsurface sources in the indoor air, but in very low concentrations – well below any … screening levels.”

And note the poor choice of misleading words for the subtitle. Instead of going with something reassuring to the public like "Classroom air deemed safe based on most recent tests", she takes the negative slant with "Tests show vapor levels higher in soil than buildings". Seriously? Did anyone really think the vapor levels in the contaminated soil would be lower than the vapor levels in the classrooms?

I'm not against the move from Hanes/Lowrance (I have 1 kid at Hanes, 1 kid finished there in '14) and having that site re-purposed. But clearly, this move could have waited until late June. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Reporters don't write headlines, or generally have anything to do with them.
 
Changing their mascot from the Dragons to:

two_headed_king_rex_by_louisetheanimator-d5r9057.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top