irvinehomeshopper
Well-known member
Classic behavior of addicts justifying why their habit is not harmful to their health. This is my confession. I am a certified addict.
The Motor Court Company said:
Lambert Ranch in Irvine
- Thread starter lcms2002
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
do you know how to read? i wrote that the apex site in vegas doesnt do that. you seem to love google searches so instead of asking if i understand what a land fill is, why not learn about the apex site in vegas? at that site, the mountains are *replaced* with trash mountains. so they are growing but replacing them. third party companies use the rock or whatever the mountains are made of
i have no idea if bowerman works this way. there is never a 100% safe thing. as SGIP put it, living on previous farmland doesnt mean no health risk as they used all sorts of chemicals over years and years. same with former corporate sites like One Ford Road which was a ford aerospace plant. any idea how many toxic materials were used at plants like that? that might as well be a former military base....
Maybe that's where Wild Rivers is going to re-open at? /kidding
The Motor Court Company
Well-known member
In all fairness, I will not buy most tracts within Portola Springs due to the close proximity to the landfill, Las Ventanas included. For me, I pick on LR the most because it's the most expensive one and one of the rare new home projects in Irvine that touts 3500+ sq ft homes and premium view lots. There is nothing against LR except its location. I like everything TNHC has done (community design, floor plans, non-stucco exterior, no-mello-roos) and wish them the best.
In other words, it is very interesting to see what happens to a well designed, executed and rare product but located in one of the worst locations imaginable. In a way it is like the opposite of buying an old looking Turtle Rock tract home.
In other words, it is very interesting to see what happens to a well designed, executed and rare product but located in one of the worst locations imaginable. In a way it is like the opposite of buying an old looking Turtle Rock tract home.
rkp said:
irvinehomeshopper
Well-known member
FCBs will buy a dated house in TRock without a doubt.
The Motor Court Company said:
irvinehomeshopper
Well-known member
Do you really know what the term land fill means. Trash fills up the land and can you explain to me how the land remains the same elevation when 2000 tons of trash on a weekly basis is being added to the land. Did you see the layering of contours at the La Puente landfill. The only way a landfill remains flat is when the slumdog millionaires in Mumbai kept digging in the trash and removing them from the premise. In India trash dumps never gain height but in America trash dumps only get higher!
FCBs will buy a dated house in TRock without a doubt.
FCBs will buy a dated house in TRock without a doubt.
rkp said:
The Motor Court Company said:
an old article from BBC...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/146634.stm
Babies are more likely to suffer from serious birth defects such as spina bifida and heart malformations if their mothers live close to toxic waste landfill dumps, scientists have discovered.
BBC environment correspondent, Robert Pigott, reports on the findings
A team of researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found women who live less than two miles from industrial landfill dumps are a third more likely to have children with serious birth defects.
They say the link makes it imperative that better monitoring of the health risks of landfill sites is introduced.
Scrutinised European sites
The BBC's Richard Hannaford on the risk of landfill sites
The scientists investigated the rates of birth defects around 21 industrial landfill sites in the UK, Belgium, France, Denmark and Italy.
They identified 1,089 cases of defects in live and still births and abortions where the mother had lived within 4.2 miles of landfills.
A further 2,366 children of women who lived within the same zone were identified who were born without malformations.
Analysis showed that children whose mothers lived within 1.8 miles of the dumps were 33% more likely to have birth defects than those whose mothers lived between 1.8 and 4.2 miles from the sites.
The risks fell the farther women lived from the landfill sites.
Account was taken of differences in mothers' ages and socio-economic status.
Both factors have been linked with the risk of birth defects.
Increased risks
[ image: Scientists looked at women living near industrial dumps]
Scientists looked at women living near industrial dumps
The researchers said in an article in the Lancet medical journal: "We have found increased risks of many types of congenital anomaly near the landfill sites, although not all of these findings were significant.
"There was a significantly overall increased risk of neural-tube defects, malformations of the cardiac septa (hole-in-the-heart), and malformations of the great arteries and veins in residents near the landfill sites in our study."
But it was not clear whether the increased risk of birth defects was caused by living near toxic waste or by some other factor, the researchers said.
They recommended environmental health monitoring for landfill sites and other pollution sources, which would include registers of birth defects and assessment of exposure to chemicals.
The team said: "Our results show the need for further investigation of the potential environmental and health risks of landfill sites and for a more systematic environmental health surveillance system in Europe."
'Don't be alarmed'
Lead researcher Dr Helen Dolk stressed that there was no firm evidence that landfill sites were causing the increase in birth defects, and that it was not known to what extend people were exposed to toxic chemicals.
She said: "If we had this kind of information and there was a correlation then it could get alarming, but we're not there yet. We need more studies.
"In general we should be carrying out more surveillance rather than leaving it almost to chance."
Dr Dolk said US studies indicated a link between landfill sites and birth defects, but never such a strong correlation.
She said it was possible that people could be exposed to toxic chemicals through gaseous emissions, dust particles, or through contamination of water supplies.
Difficult to interpret
Commenting on the study, Professor Goran Pershagen, of the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Stockholm, said it was difficult to interpret the results.
He stressed that no-one knew how much exposure, if any, the women had had to chemicals from the landfill sites.
He wrote: "Overall the evidence is very limited, and the results clearly point to the need for further study."
'Extremely worrying'
[ image: Health risks should be better monitored say researchers]
Health risks should be better monitored say researchers
The environmental group Friends of the Earth called for immediate action to assess the full extent of the landfill danger, and to reduce the amount of toxic waste the UK produces.
FoE said there were about 8,000 landfill sites in Britain, of which 2,000 were still having material dumped in them.
FoE senior waste campaigner Mike Childs said: "This research is extremely worrying. Friends of the Earth has warned for a number of years that landfill sites are toxic timebombs.
"There are thousands of landfill sites around the country, and no-one has a clue what toxic chemicals are dumped in many of them.
"The government must urgently conduct detailed health studies around rubbish dumps in the UK. Furthermore, we also need to tackle the source of the pollution. The government must act to reduce the amount of toxic waste produced by industry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/146634.stm
Babies are more likely to suffer from serious birth defects such as spina bifida and heart malformations if their mothers live close to toxic waste landfill dumps, scientists have discovered.
BBC environment correspondent, Robert Pigott, reports on the findings
A team of researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found women who live less than two miles from industrial landfill dumps are a third more likely to have children with serious birth defects.
They say the link makes it imperative that better monitoring of the health risks of landfill sites is introduced.
Scrutinised European sites
The BBC's Richard Hannaford on the risk of landfill sites
The scientists investigated the rates of birth defects around 21 industrial landfill sites in the UK, Belgium, France, Denmark and Italy.
They identified 1,089 cases of defects in live and still births and abortions where the mother had lived within 4.2 miles of landfills.
A further 2,366 children of women who lived within the same zone were identified who were born without malformations.
Analysis showed that children whose mothers lived within 1.8 miles of the dumps were 33% more likely to have birth defects than those whose mothers lived between 1.8 and 4.2 miles from the sites.
The risks fell the farther women lived from the landfill sites.
Account was taken of differences in mothers' ages and socio-economic status.
Both factors have been linked with the risk of birth defects.
Increased risks
[ image: Scientists looked at women living near industrial dumps]
Scientists looked at women living near industrial dumps
The researchers said in an article in the Lancet medical journal: "We have found increased risks of many types of congenital anomaly near the landfill sites, although not all of these findings were significant.
"There was a significantly overall increased risk of neural-tube defects, malformations of the cardiac septa (hole-in-the-heart), and malformations of the great arteries and veins in residents near the landfill sites in our study."
But it was not clear whether the increased risk of birth defects was caused by living near toxic waste or by some other factor, the researchers said.
They recommended environmental health monitoring for landfill sites and other pollution sources, which would include registers of birth defects and assessment of exposure to chemicals.
The team said: "Our results show the need for further investigation of the potential environmental and health risks of landfill sites and for a more systematic environmental health surveillance system in Europe."
'Don't be alarmed'
Lead researcher Dr Helen Dolk stressed that there was no firm evidence that landfill sites were causing the increase in birth defects, and that it was not known to what extend people were exposed to toxic chemicals.
She said: "If we had this kind of information and there was a correlation then it could get alarming, but we're not there yet. We need more studies.
"In general we should be carrying out more surveillance rather than leaving it almost to chance."
Dr Dolk said US studies indicated a link between landfill sites and birth defects, but never such a strong correlation.
She said it was possible that people could be exposed to toxic chemicals through gaseous emissions, dust particles, or through contamination of water supplies.
Difficult to interpret
Commenting on the study, Professor Goran Pershagen, of the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Stockholm, said it was difficult to interpret the results.
He stressed that no-one knew how much exposure, if any, the women had had to chemicals from the landfill sites.
He wrote: "Overall the evidence is very limited, and the results clearly point to the need for further study."
'Extremely worrying'
[ image: Health risks should be better monitored say researchers]
Health risks should be better monitored say researchers
The environmental group Friends of the Earth called for immediate action to assess the full extent of the landfill danger, and to reduce the amount of toxic waste the UK produces.
FoE said there were about 8,000 landfill sites in Britain, of which 2,000 were still having material dumped in them.
FoE senior waste campaigner Mike Childs said: "This research is extremely worrying. Friends of the Earth has warned for a number of years that landfill sites are toxic timebombs.
"There are thousands of landfill sites around the country, and no-one has a clue what toxic chemicals are dumped in many of them.
"The government must urgently conduct detailed health studies around rubbish dumps in the UK. Furthermore, we also need to tackle the source of the pollution. The government must act to reduce the amount of toxic waste produced by industry.
irvinehomeshopper said:
do you know how to read? i wrote that the apex site in vegas doesnt do that. you seem to love google searches so instead of asking if i understand what a land fill is, why not learn about the apex site in vegas? at that site, the mountains are *replaced* with trash mountains. so they are growing but replacing them. third party companies use the rock or whatever the mountains are made of
i have no idea if bowerman works this way. there is never a 100% safe thing. as SGIP put it, living on previous farmland doesnt mean no health risk as they used all sorts of chemicals over years and years. same with former corporate sites like One Ford Road which was a ford aerospace plant. any idea how many toxic materials were used at plants like that? that might as well be a former military base....
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
On the toll road noise issue:
Just because you don't hear it at that time... doesn't mean you won't in the future.
It's ultimately what turned us off of Las Ventanas. We went there during different times of the day, like when you go to sleep at 11pm or trying to sleep at 6am, and you'll be surprised how much noise is generated. I would have done a 2am noise run but the other times already convinced me that it's not something I want to deal with.
Granted, LR is much farther than LV... so I do think that's less of an impact. And many people don't mind the noise (Serra has their $1m+ homes closer to the toll road)... but you will occasionally hear that Harley, big truck or rice rocket zooming up or down even that far away.
Just because you don't hear it at that time... doesn't mean you won't in the future.
It's ultimately what turned us off of Las Ventanas. We went there during different times of the day, like when you go to sleep at 11pm or trying to sleep at 6am, and you'll be surprised how much noise is generated. I would have done a 2am noise run but the other times already convinced me that it's not something I want to deal with.
Granted, LR is much farther than LV... so I do think that's less of an impact. And many people don't mind the noise (Serra has their $1m+ homes closer to the toll road)... but you will occasionally hear that Harley, big truck or rice rocket zooming up or down even that far away.
irvinehomeshopper
Well-known member
@RKP
Bowerman was once a location for concrete manufacturing due to its proximity to Irvine. There was once a crator and that hole was already filled quickly within a few years of taking in most of OC's trash. Its current elevation is already higher than the home development nearby. It is no longer a place of a concrete plant. Trash will only get piled higher and higher. But don't worry it will be covered by a top layer of dirt and planted trees so you won't even know it is a trash pile underneath it. Since you won't see it so it does not exist in the Ostrich world. Do you see a reservoir just beneath the dump. It is the water managed by IRWD. IHO asked about it.
Bowerman was once a location for concrete manufacturing due to its proximity to Irvine. There was once a crator and that hole was already filled quickly within a few years of taking in most of OC's trash. Its current elevation is already higher than the home development nearby. It is no longer a place of a concrete plant. Trash will only get piled higher and higher. But don't worry it will be covered by a top layer of dirt and planted trees so you won't even know it is a trash pile underneath it. Since you won't see it so it does not exist in the Ostrich world. Do you see a reservoir just beneath the dump. It is the water managed by IRWD. IHO asked about it.
irvinehomeshopper
Well-known member
Ostriches are very forgetful so here is the reminder again and check out your drinking water source. Do you think IRWD will ever talk about the water near the landfill?
waitin4ever
New member
For once i agree with Indie 100%.
In fact after coming back from india last year I was so happy with what
300/sq ft buys you here in Irvine. Agreed it used to be lot lower just a
few years back.
In fact after coming back from india last year I was so happy with what
300/sq ft buys you here in Irvine. Agreed it used to be lot lower just a
few years back.
IndieDev said:
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
I don't think any municipal water district uses a standing water pool as a water source for drinking water... maybe someone who works for one can verify this.irvinehomeshopper said:
Maybe that's where Wild Rivers is going to re-open at? /kidding
irvinehomeshopper
Well-known member
Irvine lake and San Joaquin are the primary water sources. That reservoir just right below the landfill is there for something. It could be for agricultural use and get fed to you by ways of strawberries.
IRWD serves not just irvine but a lot of OC. IHS, you never share the amazing area you live in that has everything going for it and no negatives. I just hope its not one of these as the water you drink is the same as those near the landfill...
"IRWD encompasses approximately 179 square miles and serves all of the city of Irvine, plus portions of Costa Mesa, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Tustin and unincorporated areas of Orange County."http://www.irwd.com/about-us/irwd-basics/map.html
"IRWD encompasses approximately 179 square miles and serves all of the city of Irvine, plus portions of Costa Mesa, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Tustin and unincorporated areas of Orange County."http://www.irwd.com/about-us/irwd-basics/map.html
irvinehomeshopper
Well-known member
You too. I dump my E waste and shrimp paste jars in to the same bin. No one ever check the contents in the waste bins.
test said: