Testing at Portola High School
- Thread starter esquire22
- Start date
esquire22 said:
You certainly have to question why they wouldnt do further testing of the interior, when the perimeters have tested positive. It cannot be a money issue as the testing is a fraction compared to the cost of building there.
I think its clear the motives for keeping this issue hidden, as there is so much money involved. As such I see why they would want to downplay this. My biggest question is for those who knowingly buy homes in the PS, PP and Beacon Park area. If you didnt know about this contamination, then thats one thing, but to know about this dangerous chemical contamination and still buy there? Then you are a fool. Clearly the developers have no idea how widespread this contamination is and likely has no way of ensuring residents in the area are safe from these chemicals. The land directly below your house doesnt have to be contaminated for you to be affected by these chemicals unfortunately. Even worse, most of the harmful effects of these chemicals will be seen years and years down the line.
J
jmoney74
Guest
Please use a more reliable source. I think everyone would be concerned.. but should come from another publication that doesn't have an agenda.
The Motor Court Company
Well-known member
irvine community news and views is so biased that I rather listen to my neighbor's dog's advice. It is run by pro Agran people (you know, Agran is the guy who and his cronies "stole" hundreds of millions from the great park fund). Agran wanted a different site for the 5th HS (probably to enrich his contractor friends) that he lost. he has been bitter since.
and 2016 is the election year again for Irvine. you can bet on irvine community news and views to go suddenly active and post a lot of pro Agran articles
and 2016 is the election year again for Irvine. you can bet on irvine community news and views to go suddenly active and post a lot of pro Agran articles
esquire22 said:
J
jmoney74
Guest
hello said:
The site has gone through clean up. Now, if there is more leftover and IUSD plus city officials are Completely ignoring it.. then there is a problem. The article fails to relay any facts.. just pushing out a lot of scare tactics. I'd like to see an OC register article regarding this.. because this source is trying to create fear.
jmoney74 said:
What you say here is really misleading. ONLY the found contamination was removed. Saying the site was cleaned up suggests that the site was actually tested, which is the purpose of the very article you dispute.
jmoney74 said:
how do you know if there is any left over if they wont test?
jmoney74 said:
There are definitely agendas on both sides. Sure I'm sure there is some scare tactics but to say there is no facts? They found contaminated soil. They removed that soil but they wont test the school. Those are facts and those issues are the main driving points of this article. To say there is no fact is simply false... makes you seem like you have an agenda as well.
jmoney74 said:
Why because only the OC register can be right? Any chance that other publications could have agendas? Never seen a major publication write things that were found to be false or misleading?
At the end of the day, even if they tested multiple areas and found no other contamination I would still avoid this area. You simply cant test everywhere and the fact they found multiple sites of contamination during construction suggests there are likely other areas as well. Why subject your family to unnecessary risks. Like I said, I never plan on moving in that area so I could care less. However if I lived there, I would be at least a little concerned and involved. Being oblivious does no one any good but perhaps the developers of this site.
iacrenter
Well-known member
According to IUSD both Portola High and BP Elementary are scheduled to open in the Fall of 2016. So it doesn't matter what people say or want. IUSD is going ahead regardless. I personally would be more concerned about the location of the elementary school since it sits on ground zero of the superfund site and the students are younger and more vulnerable to toxins.
https://www.iusd.org/district_services/facilities_planning_and_construction/new_construction.html
Here is a webcam link to current construction at Portola HS:
http://oxblue.com/open/iusd/HighSchool
https://www.iusd.org/district_services/facilities_planning_and_construction/new_construction.html
Here is a webcam link to current construction at Portola HS:
http://oxblue.com/open/iusd/HighSchool
J
jmoney74
Guest
hello said:
Who is the other side?
iacrenter
Well-known member
gasman said:jmoney74 said:
Talk Irvine. jk >
I have yet to see the "other side" in the media. I believe the "other side" she is referring to are the respective camps moving forward with the project (city of irvine, five points, IUSD, etc.).
There is a lot of incentive for the "other side" not to delay the school: pressure to decrease crowding at IUSD, potential sales loss at GP, cost of additional testing / delayed construction.
J
jmoney74
Guest
iacrenter said:gasman said:jmoney74 said:
Talk Irvine. jk >
I have yet to see the "other side" in the media. I believe the "other side" she is referring to are the respective camps moving forward with the project (city of irvine, five points, IUSD, etc.).
There is a lot of incentive for the "other side" not to delay the school: pressure to decrease crowding at IUSD, potential sales loss at GP, cost of additional testing / delayed construction.
You mean.. the gubbermint? I suppose.. but why is this the only publication that runs against it? seems like if there is any remote credibility.. OC Register would be all over this.. you would think one investigator would be all over this (be a nice boost in their career).
fishfinder333
New member
The fact that the environmental report isn't released to public tells me IUSD has something to hide.
jmoney74 said:iacrenter said:gasman said:jmoney74 said:
Talk Irvine. jk >
I have yet to see the "other side" in the media. I believe the "other side" she is referring to are the respective camps moving forward with the project (city of irvine, five points, IUSD, etc.).
There is a lot of incentive for the "other side" not to delay the school: pressure to decrease crowding at IUSD, potential sales loss at GP, cost of additional testing / delayed construction.
You mean.. the gubbermint? I suppose.. but why is this the only publication that runs against it? seems like if there is any remote credibility.. OC Register would be all over this.. you would think one investigator would be all over this (be a nice boost in their career).
This is not a one sided fight. The fact that argan is one one side pushing for an agenda suggests there is another side pushing against his agenda. The groups that have something to lose are IUSD and Five points community.
I am not sure why your so focused on the OC register not covering this. The absence of an article from a specific publication proves nothing... nor disproves anything.