Dangerous levels of Radon found in 28 MCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

WTOP mentioned tonights meeting at Fallsmead. The TV crews are already there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Your 1.5 percent increased risk statement was incorrect as was the 1 in 1000 number. There is more than one poster saying the risk is negligible. It's called accurate risk assessment.

[Anonymous]

Question is will anything reasonable be done from here on out?

[Anonymous]

They will blame Starr and ignore the taxpayers concerns

[Anonymous]

Anyone here went to the meeting today at 6 pm?

[Anonymous]

They basically said, sorry - we don't why we never retested after 2012. We will test again soon. Yikes! The staff at Fallsmead want an inquiry done to find out how this slipped thru the cracks.

[Anonymous]

MCPS information about radon testing:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/maintenance/default.aspx?id=458858

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Your 1.5 percent increased risk statement was incorrect as was the 1 in 1000 number. There is more than one poster saying the risk is negligible. It's called accurate risk assessment.

That's silly. You're responding to more than one person, and I'm the one who mentioned differential effects on children, not the other stats. But the risk is obviously not negligible, or EPA wouldn't have set the limit lower than that level. You are clearly not an expert in this area. The people who set the limits are. And further, those limits don't represent a zero- risk level. They represent what EPA seems to be an acceptable risk level. There are many risks that we as a community can do nothing about (I can't lower car exhaust emissions except from my own car). But radon remediation in a school is not hard and not very expensive. There's absolutely no reason not to do it, particularly where radon is exceeding the federal limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Your 1.5 percent increased risk statement was incorrect as was the 1 in 1000 number. There is more than one poster saying the risk is negligible. It's called accurate risk assessment.

That's silly. You're responding to more than one person, and I'm the one who mentioned differential effects on children, not the other stats. But the risk is obviously not negligible, or EPA wouldn't have set the limit lower than that level. You are clearly not an expert in this area. The people who set the limits are. And further, those limits don't represent a zero- risk level. They represent what EPA seems to be an acceptable risk level. There are many risks that we as a community can do nothing about (I can't lower car exhaust emissions except from my own car). But radon remediation in a school is not hard and not very expensive. There's absolutely no reason not to do it, particularly where radon is exceeding the federal limits.

The risk at 4.0 from a classroom is pretty much zero. Look at the actual statistics and how long they presuppose one is exposed to the room.

[Anonymous]

Only on DCUM would there be a person sticking up for MCPS and their 3 year oversight on high radon levels. They were above the rated levels regardless of how mild you may think they are. MCPS did NOTHING to resolve it or retest for 3 years. Someone secretly gave a news source this issue and that is the only reason MCPS is now looking to retest or improve. Otherwise it would still be swept under the carpet. That is scary no matter how tame you think high levels of radon are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Your 1.5 percent increased risk statement was incorrect as was the 1 in 1000 number. There is more than one poster saying the risk is negligible. It's called accurate risk assessment.

That's silly. You're responding to more than one person, and I'm the one who mentioned differential effects on children, not the other stats. But the risk is obviously not negligible, or EPA wouldn't have set the limit lower than that level. You are clearly not an expert in this area. The people who set the limits are. And further, those limits don't represent a zero- risk level. They represent what EPA seems to be an acceptable risk level. There are many risks that we as a community can do nothing about (I can't lower car exhaust emissions except from my own car). But radon remediation in a school is not hard and not very expensive. There's absolutely no reason not to do it, particularly where radon is exceeding the federal limits.

The risk at 4.0 from a classroom is pretty much zero. Look at the actual statistics and how long they presuppose one is exposed to the room.

The risk at 4.0 is certainly not zero. The risk at 2.0 is not even zero. You're being ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would there be a person sticking up for MCPS and their 3 year oversight on high radon levels. They were above the rated levels regardless of how mild you may think they are. MCPS did NOTHING to resolve it or retest for 3 years. Someone secretly gave a news source this issue and that is the only reason MCPS is now looking to retest or improve. Otherwise it would still be swept under the carpet. That is scary no matter how tame you think high levels of radon are.

MCPS must go on this blog and write things.

MCPS is not accountable. Look at what they are doing with wifi- sweeping this under the rug too and plain lying . Just like they do with radon. so sad for the kids. I fought it was a great school district till I had a little time to see the leaves in the tress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The risk at 4.0 from a classroom is pretty much zero. Look at the actual statistics and how long they presuppose one is exposed to the room.

The risk at 4.0 is certainly not zero. The risk at 2.0 is not even zero. You're being ridiculous.

Pretty much zero, not actually zero. There is no such thing as actually-zero risk. (I'm not the PP you're responding to.)

If 1,000 people who never smoked were exposed to 4 pCi/L over a lifetime, about 7 people could develop lung cancer. (The EPA says that this risk of getting lung cancer compares to the risk of dying in a car crash.)

If 1,000 people who never smoked were exposed to 2 pCi/L over a lifetime, about 4 people could develp lung cancer. (The EPA says that reducing radon levels below 2 pCi/L is difficult.)

If 1,000 people who never smoked were exposed to 1.3 pCi/L (the average indoor radon level) over a lifetime, about 2 people could develop cancer.

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

(I do not work for MCPS. I have never worked for MCPS. I have never worked in education at all.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would there be a person sticking up for MCPS and their 3 year oversight on high radon levels. They were above the rated levels regardless of how mild you may think they are. MCPS did NOTHING to resolve it or retest for 3 years. Someone secretly gave a news source this issue and that is the only reason MCPS is now looking to retest or improve. Otherwise it would still be swept under the carpet. That is scary no matter how tame you think high levels of radon are.

Nobody is "sticking up for MCPS". The PPs you're objecting to are simply saying that this is not cause for panic.

[Anonymous]

These levels are not safe. This is crazy. MCPS should have done something years ago. SHAME on MCPS