School Negligence in Health and Safety?

A place to discuss issues relating to the Rockford School District, which serves the majority of Greenfield.

School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby nikidog » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:06 pm

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.
nikidog
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby yesyes » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:32 am

MOVE....then community would be better off! :D
yesyes
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:25 am

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby wastingmoney » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:57 pm

Yes, we would be better without all the trailer trash in rockford too. Of course they voted for it - they don't have to PAY for it.
wastingmoney
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby Reasonable » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:10 pm

nikidog, you may have put together too many words and complex sentences for YesYes to understand. If you look at YesYes's responses to anything, one or two lines at most and spewing nonsense. Maybe YesYes is a school staffer and has been exposed to too much C02 and other health hazards and thus has turned into a grade schooler throwing tantrums. Yours and other's concerns about why health and safety hazards have not been addressed are legitimate questions as well as why the schools are in such bad repair. The only contribution YesYes has made is to point fingers at a specific community and ask people to move. I think some people on this board are asking questions and would like some thoughtful answers. YesYes, it would be nice if you could you contribute to a useful discussion. Also, I would have liked to vote Yes but there were projects lumped in the referendum that I did not agree with so I had to vote no. Don't assume that a no vote meant no to every single project on the list.
Reasonable
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:03 am

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby yesyes » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:26 am

Wow- I am officially done arguing against such clearly ignorant people. Have a great day. Best of luck as you find some other lies and issues to corrupt.
yesyes
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:25 am

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby Reasonable » Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:50 pm

yesyes wrote:Wow- I am officially done arguing against such clearly ignorant people. Have a great day. Best of luck as you find some other lies and issues to corrupt.

There is a difference between discussing and arguing in my mind; arguing assumes one is right and others are wrong. Discussing is trying to see/understand both sides of a topic even if you don't change your opinion. Clearly you do not want to acknowledge that both the vote no and vote yes people have valid points. I'm sure you will do fine in life with an attitude that appears to say "my way, or the highway". Good luck to you and I hope you stay living in the school district to help pay the enormous debt. Good luck to all of us in footing the bill.
Reasonable
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:03 am

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby wastingmoney » Sun Nov 11, 2012 12:56 am

yesyes wrote:Wow- I am officially done arguing against such clearly ignorant people. Have a great day. Best of luck as you find some other lies and issues to corrupt.


The words of someone that knows her positions are indefensible, and has been bested.
You are clearly out of your league arguing with nikidog. Better stick with someone on your intelectual level. Try a fifth grader. ... oh wait, they're pretty smart if the don't go to rockford schools......
wastingmoney
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby Shorty1182 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:24 am

My husband and I moved to Greenfield a couple years ago. We live in a very nice neighborhood, and we have been VERY happy with both Greenfield and Rockford. I'd love to see the community grow--more businesses moving in (and I don't mean more thrift shops), and I'd love to see the community pull together to support Rockford Schools. We have a 20 month old, and we don't know where we're going to send him to school yet, but we really hope it will be Rockford for convenience and community sake. It makes me sad reading these posts from BOTH sides of the referendum argument. I definitely do not agree that Rockford schools are full of "trailer park trash" as one person wrote. That is HORRIBLE to say. I do not like to call ANYONE that whether they deserve it or not. EVERY school system has its issues and problem students, but PLEASE do not put an entire school down because of a very small percentage of problem students. This is a very ignorant attitude.

My husband and I voted for the referendum. I'm NOT ashamed to say that. Yes, we disagreed with some of the stuff on that referendum, but in order to grow a better community, the schools need to be stronger--they need to have something to offer that neighboring schools do not have. It's one of the best ways to get people to move into the area. The more people the area attracts, the better off the community AND the schools. Our taxes are going to jump considerably. We live on acreage and have a very nice house. But for us (and we did jump back and forth between voting yes or no), we feel good with our decision. Things will never change if everyone has a negative attitude. And the "Yes" voters need to see the other side's way of thinking, too. We are ALL already paying so much in taxes and with the Bush tax cuts expiring, it's only going to get worse. It's hard to justify voting to raise your own taxes in order to pay for a turf field (one area that the hubby and I totally disagree with). I hope that we can all move past any bitterness and just work together to make Rockford and Greenfield as great a place to live as possible. We moved to the area for that "small town" feel and sense of community. And for the most part, we've been happy. But like I said, earlier, it just saddens me that people can talk to each other like they have in this forum. We've all taught our children to respect others and their opinions. Let's follow our own teachings.
Shorty1182
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:56 pm

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby greenfarce » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:39 pm

Yes, there are a lot of "trailer trash" in the district - they pay nothing and take. The problem with the other group of kids is they are NOT a "very small percentage" - they are significant, they act like a gang, and they are allowed to get away with it. Wishing it away does not make it any better. It is reality, and has been for over 15 years. It is not an ignorant attitude, it is a fact of this school system. Just because you don't know the reality of it, doesn't mean you can dismiss it.

So you voted for this tax increase. How about the one coming next year when they come back for the Operating levy? Did that enter into your thought process. There was a reason they had to get this one through quick - no one would ever vote for both of them. Now they can come back with renewed threats of closing schools (that we just authorized them to spend MILLIONS on), and fire more teachers (like they do every time they don't get their way). Too bad they never think of getting rid of all these administrators.

And I wouldn't be too hard on the thrift stores (or should I say Store now since one has already been run out of business). It is probably the only thing that has opened in this town in years. This IS a business hostile community. Always has been, probably always will be. Now there is even more of a tax disincentive to open shop here.

Seriously - how bad does a town have to be that there is a brand new building (sitting next to subway) that has NEVER seen a business in it SINCE IT WAS BUILT - I don't even remember how long it has been there, but memory says it must be over 10 years now.
greenfarce
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 8:15 pm

Re: School Negligence in Health and Safety?

Postby Shorty1182 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:45 pm

Ha. I kind of wondered about that empty space, too, next to Subway. Granted I've only even heard of Greenfield for the first time two years ago when we were looking for acreage to build on, so I am not aware of how long that building has been around. But yes, it's very sad that it's empty. What a prime location for a restaurant, bakery, etc--right off of 55. And that gas station that just reopened past Casey's on the left heading towards Buffalo would do wonders if it had a McDonalds or some other food place in it. That would definitely bring in some money. Easy in and out on your way home from work! Rockford certainly has the potential to be a great small town, but even being here for only two years, I can see that not just the schools, but the entire city seems to have been mis-managed. Such a shame. I'm hoping that the westward expansion of the suburbs will bring with it some hope for Rockford and Greenfield in the next 10 years or so.
Shorty1182
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:56 pm

Next

Return to Rockford School District

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron