Dangerous levels of Radon found in 28 MCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

+1 PP

[Anonymous]

I really wish the "Parents' Coalition" weren't involved. I wouldn't believe them if they told me it was raining outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really wish the "Parents' Coalition" weren't involved. I wouldn't believe them if they told me it was raining outside.

^^^The "Parents' Coalition" seems to have made a request to MCPS under the Maryland Public Information Act. As I'm sure they know, because they've made plenty of such requests, the MPIA does not mean "MCPS has to answer all of your questions for free". The MPIA means that you make a request for documents that already exist, and then MCPS has to provide them within a certain period of time, for no more than a certain fee. If the "Parents' Coalition" thinks that MCPS's fee is too high or that MCPS is taking too long, then they can complain to the Public Access Ombudsman in the Office of the Attorney General.

If you want to make your own request for records under the Maryland Public Information Act (for example, all MCPS records related to radon testing in your child's school between 2010 and the present), then start reading here: http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/Appendix_I.pdf

The whole Maryland Public Information Act manual is available here: http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/pia.htm

And the MPIA contact for MCPS is Brian K. Edwards, more information here: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7/1000 vs 0/1000! Yes I would, especially when remediation is easy and not that costly. Worse is that they IGNORED and did not disclose the issue so long term exposure was guaranteed. This is just another environmental hazard. They are additive and when you throw in cell/wifi, pesticides/GMOs, flouride, chlorine, etc. etc. etc...javascript:void(0);

This is hysteria. Fluoride and chlorine and GMOs? Get off the internet; it's making you a hypochondriac. And stop reading Dr. Mercola. He's a quack.

Your opinion is greatly appreciated. Obviously health is a great concern for you and your family.
Ok, I am going off topic, but in regards to EPA we need to open our eyes to the environmental standards in our country as compared to others and wonder why companies like Gatorade/MARS/Kelloggs have different recipes for us vs EU, etc. Why many EU countries, Russia, etc are banning GMOs go avoid Round-Up on their dinner table etc. THE EPA allows 700 parts per billion glyphosate (RoundUp) in our water. The EU allows 0.1PPB!
Therefore, if the EPA sets a radon limit of 4.0, it probably should be .4!

Before getting too hyper, you may want to contact the right agency; FDA or USDA manages food, not EPA. If your question is limited to Roundup go to EPA.

Also, some EU standards are lower than the US and some higher. It doesn't do to generalize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I talked to the director of building services last week after this report showed up (before it hit the news) and got the specific report for our school Fallsmead ES. Half of the classrooms were 4.0 or above. The test was performed in 2012 people! THis is what the news story missed! Done in 2012 and they did NOTHING! Their protocol per the director was to retest as he saw no issues with levels between 4-6 even though the EPA recommends remediation for levels over 4 and to consider remediation for levels 2-4. He was looking for records of retesting at Fallsmead ES and found none. I asked him how the protocol was formulated outside of EPA recommendations, why retesting and/or remediation was never done, to which I got no answers. Also, why was no public notification done as I would have liked to choose to keep my son out of school. I have the classroom by classroom report ofr our school and my son spent his first grade in the room with the highest level in the school. We are not happy with this and someone should lose their job as it was either covered up purposefully or neglected to to incompetence. Not sure which is worse!. Parents pressured them into retesting TODAY.

If 1,000 people who never smoked were exposed to 8 pCi/L of radon over a lifetime, about 15 people could get lung cancer.

http://www2.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon

You'd keep your son out of school for that?

(At a lifetime exposure of 4 pCi/L of radon for non-smokers, about 7 out of 1,000 people could get lung cancer.)

a 1.5% increase in cancer rate is huge. Especially for something that is COMPLETELY avoidable. Remediating for radon is not that hard. It's a freaking pipe and a fan.
PP above, what's the contact info for the building services person you contacted?

The increase in risk is not 1.5 percent unless your child will be spending the rest of his/her lifetime in that particular classroom. People need to do better risk assessment. I can guarantee your kid does about 100 things each and every day that put them at greater risk.

Actually, you're failing to recognize the different impacts on children because of rapid cell development. I'm well versed in risk assessment. While there are riskier things we do (ride in cars, certainly) that does not excuse being subjected to an increased risk above the federal limits.

You keep spouting off inaccurate statistic after inaccurate statistic. Well versed in being an alarmist I would agree with.

You're wrong. I've misstated no statistic. Rapid cell development is absolutely an issue with small children. Because of it, environmental hazards affect them differently than adults. Nothing about that is controversial, in both the fields of epidemiology and toxicology. And there is nothing fringe or "hysterical" about considering radon to be a health hazard. It has been long recognized as such by EPA. Why are you so determined to defend the safety of schools being above the federal limits? That's bizarre

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, you're failing to recognize the different impacts on children because of rapid cell development. I'm well versed in risk assessment. While there are riskier things we do (ride in cars, certainly) that does not excuse being subjected to an increased risk above the federal limits.

The risk to children is higher, but not because of "rapid cell development". Because of differences in lung shape and size and breathing rate.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=8&po=7

Yes, that's another reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wish the "Parents' Coalition" weren't involved. I wouldn't believe them if they told me it was raining outside.

^^^The "Parents' Coalition" seems to have made a request to MCPS under the Maryland Public Information Act. As I'm sure they know, because they've made plenty of such requests, the MPIA does not mean "MCPS has to answer all of your questions for free". The MPIA means that you make a request for documents that already exist, and then MCPS has to provide them within a certain period of time, for no more than a certain fee. If the "Parents' Coalition" thinks that MCPS's fee is too high or that MCPS is taking too long, then they can complain to the Public Access Ombudsman in the Office of the Attorney General.

If you want to make your own request for records under the Maryland Public Information Act (for example, all MCPS records related to radon testing in your child's school between 2010 and the present), then start reading here: http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/Appendix_I.pdf

The whole Maryland Public Information Act manual is available here: http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/pia.htm

And the MPIA contact for MCPS is Brian K. Edwards, more information here: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/

Oh please. In no universe is over $300 a reasonable fee for mailing a damned copy. You are being ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to do our own test. Suspect the principal and teacher will agree.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh please. In no universe is over $300 a reasonable fee for mailing a damned copy. You are being ridiculous.

You're right. Fortunately, nobody is saying that it is. Including MCPS.

Here is the language in the statute about fees:

§ 4-206. FEES.
(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) “Indigent” means an individual’s family household income is less than 50% of the median family income for the State as reported in the Federal Register.
(3) “Reasonable fee” means a fee bearing a reasonable relationship to the recovery of actual costs incurred by a governmental unit.
(b) (1) Subject to the limitations in this section, the official custodian may charge an applicant a reasonable fee for:
(i) the search for, preparation of, and reproduction of a public record prepared, on request of the applicant, in a customized format; and
(ii) the actual costs of the search for, preparation of, and reproduction of a public record in standard format, including media and mechanical processing costs.
(2) The staff and attorney review costs included in the calculation of actual costs incurred under this section shall be prorated for each individual’s salary and actual time attributable to the search for and preparation of a public record under this section.
(c) The official custodian may not charge a fee for the first 2 hours that are needed to search for a public record and prepare it for inspection.
(d) (1) If another law sets a fee for a copy, an electronic copy, a printout, or a photograph of a public record, that law applies.
(2) The official custodian may charge for the cost of providing facilities for the reproduction of the public record if the custodian did not have the facilities.
(e) The official custodian may waive a fee under this section if:
(1) the applicant asks for a waiver; and
(2) (i) the applicant is indigent and files an affidavit of indigency; or
(ii) after consideration of the ability of the applicant to pay the fee and other relevant factors, the official custodian determines that the waiver would be in the public interest. (2) if an appeal is noted, the appeal is dismissed or adjudicated.

[Anonymous]

"The MPIA means that you make a request for documents that already exist,"

But Brain Edwards did not do that. He created a brand new document and dated it Nov 2015. Now he wants $300 to supply the documents that were originally requested. How did Bran create the Nov doc if he didn't already hav the $300 worth of docs? The $300 figure is scam. He already pulled docs, created the report and now he is faking a response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The MPIA means that you make a request for documents that already exist,"

But Brain Edwards did not do that. He created a brand new document and dated it Nov 2015. Now he wants $300 to supply the documents that were originally requested. How did Bran create the Nov doc if he didn't already hav the $300 worth of docs? The $300 figure is scam. He already pulled docs, created the report and now he is faking a response.

Exactly. They want fees to cover attorney time to lawyer up the report. BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The MPIA means that you make a request for documents that already exist,"

But Brain Edwards did not do that. He created a brand new document and dated it Nov 2015. Now he wants $300 to supply the documents that were originally requested. How did Bran create the Nov doc if he didn't already hav the $300 worth of docs? The $300 figure is scam. He already pulled docs, created the report and now he is faking a response.

You're right, MCPS apparently created a new document. Why? I don't know. Maybe they wanted to be responsive!

However, I don't know what records MCPS used to create the new document, and neither do you. I also don't know what the MPIA request is for -- do you? -- and so I don't know what records would be responsive to that request. Certainly it does happen that entities subject to the MPIA play games with MPIA fees. MCPS might be doing so here, or they might not. If the MPIA requester thinks that they are playing games here, then the MPIA requester has options, including:

1. complain to the ombudsman
2. request a fee waiver
3. find a person who qualifies as indigent under the MPIA to make the MPIA request

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The MPIA means that you make a request for documents that already exist,"

But Brain Edwards did not do that. He created a brand new document and dated it Nov 2015. Now he wants $300 to supply the documents that were originally requested. How did Bran create the Nov doc if he didn't already hav the $300 worth of docs? The $300 figure is scam. He already pulled docs, created the report and now he is faking a response.

Exactly. They want fees to cover attorney time to lawyer up the report. BS.

That doesn't make sense, and not only because $335 doesn't pay for a lot of attorney time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The MPIA means that you make a request for documents that already exist,"

But Brain Edwards did not do that. He created a brand new document and dated it Nov 2015. Now he wants $300 to supply the documents that were originally requested. How did Bran create the Nov doc if he didn't already hav the $300 worth of docs? The $300 figure is scam. He already pulled docs, created the report and now he is faking a response.

Exactly. They want fees to cover attorney time to lawyer up the report. BS.

That doesn't make sense, and not only because $335 doesn't pay for a lot of attorney time.

About two hours of govt lawyer time. And I suspect it's spread out based on whatever carefully worded report they're writing. They should just produce the actual results they got from the testing lab.