Why does anyone live in Spring Valley?

[Anonymous]

I think they did a study and found Spring Valley Residents to be actually healthier than other neighborhoods in DC...but has more to do with affluence and access to better medical care....

[Anonymous]

I am not anti-Spring Valley but as a DC lifer who grew up nearby and went to school with many kids who lived there, I am well aware of a lot of folks who had really odd cancers and nervous system disorders as well as there being a number of issues with the kids of those kids. Could be coincidence but...

[Anonymous]

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Home/Spring-Valley/

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/SpringValley/Overview%20Map_Arsenic%20Remediation-Public.pdf

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/SpringValley/Overview%20Map%20Geophys%20-%20Public.pdf

http://www.jhsph.edu/offices-and-services/practice-and-training/_images/Major-FUDS-areas.jpg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Home/Spring-Valley/

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/SpringValley/Overview%20Map_Arsenic%20Remediation-Public.pdf

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/SpringValley/Overview%20Map%20Geophys%20-%20Public.pdf

http://www.jhsph.edu/offices-and-services/practice-and-training/_images/Major-FUDS-areas.jpg

Jeez. The findings leak into parts of AU Park too.

[Anonymous]

This is a pretty good article on it too. Note to the PP who said "no one has gotten sick". Read this again. Several mention rare blood disorders & cancer. One had multiple childhood friends die (in their 50's)


https://www.washingtonian.com/2013/02/28/the-toxic-waste-pit-next-door/

[Anonymous]

Also....
https://www.facebook.com/SpringValleyWWI/posts/1143338962421422

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Home/Spring-Valley/

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/SpringValley/Overview%20Map_Arsenic%20Remediation-Public.pdf

http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/SpringValley/Overview%20Map%20Geophys%20-%20Public.pdf

http://www.jhsph.edu/offices-and-services/practice-and-training/_images/Major-FUDS-areas.jpg

Jeez. The findings leak into parts of AU Park too.

They don't "leak" into AU Park - it is well known that the very southern tip of AU Park was part of the of the FUDS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also....
https://www.facebook.com/SpringValleyWWI/posts/1143338962421422

I'm confused why ACA would have eliminated her ppo and treatment?

[Anonymous]

Pardon me, as a neurosurgeon, for weighing in here. Each year about 80,000 brain tumors are diagnosed in the country. There are believed to be about 700,000 people with a brain tumor at any given time. Assuming a population of 315,000,000, this means that 1 in every 450 people has a brain tumor.

Spring Valley is probably about 4000-5000 people. Thus, we should expect to see 10 people in Spring Valley with a brain tumor at present. Given the focality of this issue, people living elsewhere that once lived in Spring Valley may perhaps believe their tumor is a result of their previous residence. Bald statistics already suggest approximately 10 Spring Valley residents have a brain tumor for reasons completely unrelated to toxic chemicals. The misattribution of other cases to Spring Valley serves to further paint what is likely a deeply misleading portrait of ill health.

You may call me a naysayer, but these are just statistics and logic. I'm not trying to represent any side in this discussion other than facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pardon me, as a neurosurgeon, for weighing in here. Each year about 80,000 brain tumors are diagnosed in the country. There are believed to be about 700,000 people with a brain tumor at any given time. Assuming a population of 315,000,000, this means that 1 in every 450 people has a brain tumor.

Spring Valley is probably about 4000-5000 people. Thus, we should expect to see 10 people in Spring Valley with a brain tumor at present. Given the focality of this issue, people living elsewhere that once lived in Spring Valley may perhaps believe their tumor is a result of their previous residence. Bald statistics already suggest approximately 10 Spring Valley residents have a brain tumor for reasons completely unrelated to toxic chemicals. The misattribution of other cases to Spring Valley serves to further paint what is likely a deeply misleading portrait of ill health.

You may call me a naysayer, but these are just statistics and logic. I'm not trying to represent any side in this discussion other than facts.

You need some of idea of who the impacted population is to calculate the rates of major health events. I'm not sure anyone thinks it's all of Spring Valley, but there are clearly some areas that have a very high density of buried munitions and were likely also used for testing. Those areas, as far as I know, have not been looked at in anything like a rigorous way. Please correct me and point to the rigorous look at this if it exists.

I'm not sure you're wrong, but I don't see enough of a close look to feel that any particular take on the safety of those areas is established.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you find AU park too pedestrian and cramped and you're looking for a DC address as far away from all the rest of chocolate city as possible. Same reasons people have always chosen SV. Wide open and isolated is rare in the nice parts of the city.

Plus, free cancer!!!

There hasn't been one proven impact case and Spring Valley is much bigger than the suspected contamination zone. besides this isn't like some superfund site in the hood or industrial sites EOTP, the full resources of gov will eventually make the area back up to SV standards. Even if something was to happen the claimant impact valuations for residents there would be through the roof due to the caliber of the owners. A litigator's dream and the visibility and influence will just make the whole process more comprehensive

You're getting at a good point. Not only hasn't there been a single proven case, I don't believe a single claim has been litigated. In a neighborhood full of Big Law partners, that's a good indication that any case wouldn't withstand serious scrutiny (ya know, something more stringent than a City Paper writer/intern).

The legal standard is different than any possible risk. There are munitions buried there. Any normal person would proceed with caution.

All risk is relative, there are rapists illegals in MoCo schools and yet people send there kids there. Old bombs deep under ground while not ideal are not top of the risk pyramid. I suspect it is still safer than living on hill east and honestly it is doubtful there will ever be a real incident. Most people in old cities would be surprised what is under their feet, what do you think is under much of France?

This post confirms my hunch that Spring Valley is full of Republicans; they tend to discount environmental risks, yet worry about "illegal rapists" etc.

MySpace. People we know there are Republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pardon me, as a neurosurgeon, for weighing in here. Each year about 80,000 brain tumors are diagnosed in the country. There are believed to be about 700,000 people with a brain tumor at any given time. Assuming a population of 315,000,000, this means that 1 in every 450 people has a brain tumor.

Spring Valley is probably about 4000-5000 people. Thus, we should expect to see 10 people in Spring Valley with a brain tumor at present. Given the focality of this issue, people living elsewhere that once lived in Spring Valley may perhaps believe their tumor is a result of their previous residence. Bald statistics already suggest approximately 10 Spring Valley residents have a brain tumor for reasons completely unrelated to toxic chemicals. The misattribution of other cases to Spring Valley serves to further paint what is likely a deeply misleading portrait of ill health.

You may call me a naysayer, but these are just statistics and logic. I'm not trying to represent any side in this discussion other than facts.

You need some of idea of who the impacted population is to calculate the rates of major health events. I'm not sure anyone thinks it's all of Spring Valley, but there are clearly some areas that have a very high density of buried munitions and were likely also used for testing. Those areas, as far as I know, have not been looked at in anything like a rigorous way. Please correct me and point to the rigorous look at this if it exists.

I'm not sure you're wrong, but I don't see enough of a close look to feel that any particular take on the safety of those areas is established.

Yes and no.

I'm unaware of any study of just a select group of, say, 15 homes. But, underlying your comments is, at some level, a betrayal of our understanding of epidemiology. If you look close enough and far enough for anything, you'll find it. Take prostate cancer for example. 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed with it. But, if you were to test every male at death, perhaps half would display prostate cancer. (See "Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies," International Journal of Cancer, 2015.) Increased PSA testing, for example, will lead to over-detection (and over-treatment).

We can buttress this argument with an appeal to probability. Let's suppose there are 600 homes in Spring Valley and there are four residents per home, on average. Both estimates are likely conservative. Suppose all homes were constructed 80 years ago. While the average duration of a mortgage is between 6-7 years, suggesting homes change ownership somewhere near this range, let's continue being conservative and suppose homes only sell every 20 years on average. These numbers mean the average home in Spring Valley has housed 16 residents over its lifetime. (This is quite conservative due to the compounding of our conservative assumptions; the real number is probably something like 25.)

Upon reading the linked articles, it seems reasonable to me that all 16 residents of each home would ascribe their maladies to the time they lived in Spring Valley. Anecdotal reports like those exemplified by the Washingtonian article and the Facebook page produce a dramatic but entirely unsubstantiated picture of health.

Lastly, I return to my earlier point. We as a profession understand epidemiology. This understanding is utterly lacking in the histrionics displayed in these posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pardon me, as a neurosurgeon, for weighing in here. Each year about 80,000 brain tumors are diagnosed in the country. There are believed to be about 700,000 people with a brain tumor at any given time. Assuming a population of 315,000,000, this means that 1 in every 450 people has a brain tumor.

Spring Valley is probably about 4000-5000 people. Thus, we should expect to see 10 people in Spring Valley with a brain tumor at present. Given the focality of this issue, people living elsewhere that once lived in Spring Valley may perhaps believe their tumor is a result of their previous residence. Bald statistics already suggest approximately 10 Spring Valley residents have a brain tumor for reasons completely unrelated to toxic chemicals. The misattribution of other cases to Spring Valley serves to further paint what is likely a deeply misleading portrait of ill health.

You may call me a naysayer, but these are just statistics and logic. I'm not trying to represent any side in this discussion other than facts.

You need some of idea of who the impacted population is to calculate the rates of major health events. I'm not sure anyone thinks it's all of Spring Valley, but there are clearly some areas that have a very high density of buried munitions and were likely also used for testing. Those areas, as far as I know, have not been looked at in anything like a rigorous way. Please correct me and point to the rigorous look at this if it exists.

I'm not sure you're wrong, but I don't see enough of a close look to feel that any particular take on the safety of those areas is established.

So, for clarity, would you personally be willing to live there with your children? Just wondering if you'd take the risk? (regardless of cost)

Yes and no.

I'm unaware of any study of just a select group of, say, 15 homes. But, underlying your comments is, at some level, a betrayal of our understanding of epidemiology. If you look close enough and far enough for anything, you'll find it. Take prostate cancer for example. 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed with it. But, if you were to test every male at death, perhaps half would display prostate cancer. (See "Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies," International Journal of Cancer, 2015.) Increased PSA testing, for example, will lead to over-detection (and over-treatment).

We can buttress this argument with an appeal to probability. Let's suppose there are 600 homes in Spring Valley and there are four residents per home, on average. Both estimates are likely conservative. Suppose all homes were constructed 80 years ago. While the average duration of a mortgage is between 6-7 years, suggesting homes change ownership somewhere near this range, let's continue being conservative and suppose homes only sell every 20 years on average. These numbers mean the average home in Spring Valley has housed 16 residents over its lifetime. (This is quite conservative due to the compounding of our conservative assumptions; the real number is probably something like 25.)

Upon reading the linked articles, it seems reasonable to me that all 16 residents of each home would ascribe their maladies to the time they lived in Spring Valley. Anecdotal reports like those exemplified by the Washingtonian article and the Facebook page produce a dramatic but entirely unsubstantiated picture of health.

Lastly, I return to my earlier point. We as a profession understand epidemiology. This understanding is utterly lacking in the histrionics displayed in these posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pardon me, as a neurosurgeon, for weighing in here. Each year about 80,000 brain tumors are diagnosed in the country. There are believed to be about 700,000 people with a brain tumor at any given time. Assuming a population of 315,000,000, this means that 1 in every 450 people has a brain tumor.

Spring Valley is probably about 4000-5000 people. Thus, we should expect to see 10 people in Spring Valley with a brain tumor at present. Given the focality of this issue, people living elsewhere that once lived in Spring Valley may perhaps believe their tumor is a result of their previous residence. Bald statistics already suggest approximately 10 Spring Valley residents have a brain tumor for reasons completely unrelated to toxic chemicals. The misattribution of other cases to Spring Valley serves to further paint what is likely a deeply misleading portrait of ill health.

You may call me a naysayer, but these are just statistics and logic. I'm not trying to represent any side in this discussion other than facts.

You need some of idea of who the impacted population is to calculate the rates of major health events. I'm not sure anyone thinks it's all of Spring Valley, but there are clearly some areas that have a very high density of buried munitions and were likely also used for testing. Those areas, as far as I know, have not been looked at in anything like a rigorous way. Please correct me and point to the rigorous look at this if it exists.

I'm not sure you're wrong, but I don't see enough of a close look to feel that any particular take on the safety of those areas is established.

So, for clarity, would you personally be willing to live there with your children? Just wondering if you'd take the risk? (regardless of cost)

Yes and no.

I'm unaware of any study of just a select group of, say, 15 homes. But, underlying your comments is, at some level, a betrayal of our understanding of epidemiology. If you look close enough and far enough for anything, you'll find it. Take prostate cancer for example. 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed with it. But, if you were to test every male at death, perhaps half would display prostate cancer. (See "Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies," International Journal of Cancer, 2015.) Increased PSA testing, for example, will lead to over-detection (and over-treatment).

We can buttress this argument with an appeal to probability. Let's suppose there are 600 homes in Spring Valley and there are four residents per home, on average. Both estimates are likely conservative. Suppose all homes were constructed 80 years ago. While the average duration of a mortgage is between 6-7 years, suggesting homes change ownership somewhere near this range, let's continue being conservative and suppose homes only sell every 20 years on average. These numbers mean the average home in Spring Valley has housed 16 residents over its lifetime. (This is quite conservative due to the compounding of our conservative assumptions; the real number is probably something like 25.)

Upon reading the linked articles, it seems reasonable to me that all 16 residents of each home would ascribe their maladies to the time they lived in Spring Valley. Anecdotal reports like those exemplified by the Washingtonian article and the Facebook page produce a dramatic but entirely unsubstantiated picture of health.

Lastly, I return to my earlier point. We as a profession understand epidemiology. This understanding is utterly lacking in the histrionics displayed in these posts.

You asked "So, for clarity, would you personally be willing to live there with your children? Just wondering if you'd take the risk? (regardless of cost)"

While I have not reviewed everything in detail and my specialized knowledge is limited, I wouldn't anticipate having any concerns. (That's all for now. Work time.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pardon me, as a neurosurgeon, for weighing in here. Each year about 80,000 brain tumors are diagnosed in the country. There are believed to be about 700,000 people with a brain tumor at any given time. Assuming a population of 315,000,000, this means that 1 in every 450 people has a brain tumor.

Spring Valley is probably about 4000-5000 people. Thus, we should expect to see 10 people in Spring Valley with a brain tumor at present. Given the focality of this issue, people living elsewhere that once lived in Spring Valley may perhaps believe their tumor is a result of their previous residence. Bald statistics already suggest approximately 10 Spring Valley residents have a brain tumor for reasons completely unrelated to toxic chemicals. The misattribution of other cases to Spring Valley serves to further paint what is likely a deeply misleading portrait of ill health.

You may call me a naysayer, but these are just statistics and logic. I'm not trying to represent any side in this discussion other than facts.

You need some of idea of who the impacted population is to calculate the rates of major health events. I'm not sure anyone thinks it's all of Spring Valley, but there are clearly some areas that have a very high density of buried munitions and were likely also used for testing. Those areas, as far as I know, have not been looked at in anything like a rigorous way. Please correct me and point to the rigorous look at this if it exists.

I'm not sure you're wrong, but I don't see enough of a close look to feel that any particular take on the safety of those areas is established.

So, for clarity, would you personally be willing to live there with your children? Just wondering if you'd take the risk? (regardless of cost)

Yes and no.

I'm unaware of any study of just a select group of, say, 15 homes. But, underlying your comments is, at some level, a betrayal of our understanding of epidemiology. If you look close enough and far enough for anything, you'll find it. Take prostate cancer for example. 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed with it. But, if you were to test every male at death, perhaps half would display prostate cancer. (See "Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies," International Journal of Cancer, 2015.) Increased PSA testing, for example, will lead to over-detection (and over-treatment).

We can buttress this argument with an appeal to probability. Let's suppose there are 600 homes in Spring Valley and there are four residents per home, on average. Both estimates are likely conservative. Suppose all homes were constructed 80 years ago. While the average duration of a mortgage is between 6-7 years, suggesting homes change ownership somewhere near this range, let's continue being conservative and suppose homes only sell every 20 years on average. These numbers mean the average home in Spring Valley has housed 16 residents over its lifetime. (This is quite conservative due to the compounding of our conservative assumptions; the real number is probably something like 25.)

Upon reading the linked articles, it seems reasonable to me that all 16 residents of each home would ascribe their maladies to the time they lived in Spring Valley. Anecdotal reports like those exemplified by the Washingtonian article and the Facebook page produce a dramatic but entirely unsubstantiated picture of health.

Lastly, I return to my earlier point. We as a profession understand epidemiology. This understanding is utterly lacking in the histrionics displayed in these posts.

You asked "So, for clarity, would you personally be willing to live there with your children? Just wondering if you'd take the risk? (regardless of cost)"

While I have not reviewed everything in detail and my specialized knowledge is limited, I wouldn't anticipate having any concerns. (That's all for now. Work time.)

We know a pediatric oncologist who lives in SV with his young children. I've asked him - he knew about the munitions and still bought there. He doesn't have any concerns.