The flyer “Vote YES for the Rockford Area Schools Bond Referendum” I received from the Vote Yes for the Future Committee mentions several “Health & Safety Concerns” of the Rockford Schools, including “elevated CO2 levels in the high school band room,” “Asbestos abatement needed,” and “Auditorium lights and the theater curtains are a fire hazard,” among other concerns.
As for the “Abestos abatement needed,” evidently there is asbestos in one or more of the schools. This is an obvious health risk for students and staff. If we’re talking about “abatement,” then the asbestos is bad enough that it needs to be removed.
Even in the presence of asbestos, it doesn’t always need to be removed. In fact, according to the EPA, it is “not necessarily” hazardous to have asbestos material in a school (http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ais20quests.pdf).
The EPA states “Undamaged asbestos that is properly managed in place poses little health risk to students or teachers.” However, “Asbestos can pose a hazard to students, teachers, and school employees when it is disturbed and becomes airborne and therefore breathable.” The EPA doesn’t always advocate the abatement, or removal, of asbestos. “It has been EPA’s long-standing policy that undamaged non-friable asbestos is best left undisturbed and managed in place. Removing asbestos often has the potential to create a greater health risk than leaving it undisturbed.”
If the district is talking of removing the asbestos, then it sounds like the asbestos is damaged, friable, and the material containing the asbestos has become “disturbed” enough that the asbestos has become “airborne and therefore breathable.” If this is NOT the case, then asbestos abatement would actually “create a greater health risk” in the school.
So, either the asbestos really does need abatement (removal) because it is already a “hazard to students, teachers, and school employees,” due to its having become “airborne,” in which case, the district is knowingly exposing students and staff to asbestos, or the school has “undamaged non-friable asbestos,” in which case it would be safer for the district to leave the asbestos alone.
Is the district is already exposing students and staff to hazardous asbestos (abatement needed) or does it plan to expose students and staff to a potential “greater health risk” in the future (doing abatement where abatement is not really required)?
In the first case the district is being completely negligent about the asbestos and knowingly exposing staff and students to a hazard that can cause serious, long-term damage to the lungs, i.e. Mesothelioma. In the second case, the district is making decision that the EPA advises against and risking unnecessary future harm to students and staff. Either, way it doesn’t look good for the district.
The statement the “Auditorium lights and the theater curtains are a fire hazard” raises an obvious question. If these lights and curtains are a fire hazard, have they been removed? If not, why not? While I think theater, concerts, and other school performances are good for students and the community, the concern about a potential fire in the school trumps school performances.
I would certainly vote to help fund new curtains and lighting in the auditorium, ones that do not pose a fire hazard. However, if the district has not yet removed the current curtains and lights, then they are knowingly putting students, staff, and performance viewers at risk. If this is the case, they are being negligent in failing to prevent a fire where they can knowingly take steps to prevent a potential fire by removing the materials that pose a fire hazard.
In response to the high school band room's “elevated CO2 level,” The Wisconsin Department of Health Servics has a helpful site on indoor carbon dioxide levels at http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm. Basically, the level of carbon dioxide within a building, measured in PPM (parts per million), is “related to how much fresh air is being brought into the building.” So long as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are operating within guidelines,” carbon dioxide levels in buildings is generally not a problem. However, “high CO2 levels indicate the need to examine the HVAC system.” It sound like then, the district needs a better-functioning HVAC in the high school band room.
That sounds like a reasonable request for taxpayers to fund the repair or replacement of an HVAC system to keep CO2 levels at a safe level in the band room.
After all, “Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects,” including “headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins and needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and convulsions,” depending on how the CO2 level is. The “typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange” is 350-1,000 PPM. Evidently, the high school band room must have CO2 levels somewhere above this range.
At levels greater than 5,000 PPM “toxicity and oxygen deprivation” may occur. 5,000 PPM is also “the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures, “ and my assumption would be that this is also the limit for schools and other public buildings.
At levels greater than 40,000 PPM, exposure is “immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.”
I wonder if anyone knows what the CO2 level is for the high school band room.
Certainly, if it is at greater than 40,000 PPM, and exposure is thus “immediately harmful” to staff and students, then the school has an obligation to not use that room until the CO2 problem is fixed. I rather doubt is at that level, since I would think the school would be legally required to close off that room at those kind of levels.
Still, it’s possible that the district is exposing high school students and staff to toxic levels of CO2. It is possible to have high levels of C02 without risking “toxicity,” if the range is 1,000 PPM to 5,000 PM. At these levels, however, there are still health effects like “headaches, sleepiness,” along with “Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate, and slight nausea.”
Either way, if the mentioned band room is still in use, then the district is knowingly exposing students and staff to either toxic levels of CO2 or to levels that can cause health problems. If this is the case, then the district is being negligent with student and staff safety.
Obviously, high levels of CO2 can negatively affect student performance, i.e. sleepiness, poor concentration, and loss of attention. So, as a taxpayer, I would readily help fund the necessary HVAC changes to bring the CO2 levels back to a normal, safe range in the band room. This affects both student safety and academic performance.
However, if this has been a problem for the district, why haven’t they done anything about it yet, especially since, to at least some degree, it’s most likely negatively impacting the health of staff and students and students’ learning capabilities?
Why should I trust a district that appears to be gambling like this with student and staff health and safety?
Of course, as I note in another post, given the district’s “Title 9 violations,” I don’t want to give another dime to the district, not even for these health and safety needs. In some way(s) they have discriminated against female students or staff (committed Title 9 violations), and it also appears that they are not taking the proper steps to keep students and staff safe.
At this rate, close the district. Students and staff would be better off.