ALL Schools WEST of the Willamette River - CLOSED;.... UPDATE - Posted: Thu. 18th, 09:35 AMSo it's another day off school. (Apropos of this Oregonian article from this morning). The article notes that Oregon already has a shorter school year than most states...
Thursday, December 18, 2008
So Close
Until 9:34am, school was on this Thursday for the first time in a week -- albeit two hours late. Then, at 9:35am came this announcement from PPS:
Sunday, December 14, 2008
A Snowy Day at Rieke
Around 8:00 this morning, the snow began to fall... And by 4:15, the district announced that there would be no school on Monday... [Edited Monday: And no school on Tuesday either!...] [Edited Tuesday: And no school on Wednesday either!...]
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Field Reopens!
Two papers came home Wednesday with good news for all: The field is open for play once again! The documents were a press release from PPS and Parks, and a letter from Multnomah County Health conveying the information that parents heard at Tuesday's PTA meeting: There is no substantial risk of lead exposure from the field (certainly nothing worse than the kind of thing that our kids see everyday from background lead in the environment). Everyone is so pleased with the cooperation shown by all of the relevant agencies, and we thank them very much for their hard work.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
PTA Field Update
Here are my very unofficial notes from the December 8, 2008 PTA meeting report on the field. There will be formal announcements in coming weeks. In essence, extensive testing has revealed almost no risk of exposure from lead in the field, and those in the know are recommending that the field be reopened to regular use without restrictions. More detail after the jump.
Multnomah County Health Officer Gary Oxman and others came to talk about the field; along with Andy Fridley, PPS; Lisa Camelli, Parks & Rec.; Greg Wariner, Mult. Co. Lead Poisoning Prevention.
Mark Fulop, Multnomah County Health, came to talk about what kind of testing was conducted on the field. After last meeting, all who came talked together and designed testing protocol for field. Used CDC, EPA, CPSC guidance; though those protocols were thin, they followed those and looked at their own approaches to make sure that parent concerns were addressed.
Based on this meeting, there was substantial additional testing. The field was marked into a grid of 25 yard by 25 yard boxes (5 x 3 boxes, with far west boxes a little small). Within each segment, they did two parallel wipe tests at center of each segment, which convey bioavailability information. CPSC protocol used for one test (you pull off little pieces of obvious material), and the other protocol was done on the other wipe -- leaving solids on the wipe. They also did composite bulk samples of grass itself. Took clippings from five locations in each box. Center, then 5 yards in each direction. Pulled 5 samples in same locations of the infill material. Did bulk samples on all those. Only other testing was a single leach test on green turf material -- i.e. it would tell you if there was a groundwater problem. Then also a composite bulk test and wipe test on white striping. Testing done on October 24 (after period of wet weather).
They also did one additional pair of wipes in five high use areas (in front of goals, and in center). Over 80 samples on esntire field. BES lab (near St. Johns) was used, except for Greg's infield samples (a double sample), and random soil samples from outside the field area, which were sent to BTS lab (located in Virginia). One or two other samples (not the initial PBS report) were done by WyEast.
BTS results consistently lower than BES results. So confirmed BES lab results were conservative.
Gary O. -- results using CPSC standard protocol wipe test (i.e., picking off the obvious pieces) were all below actionable range. CSPC says action level is 150 ug per square meter. Our results were low of 12, high of 57ug per m^3. Infill sample -- EPA standard of 400 ppm (mg / kg dry weight). Low of 29 to high of 69. Still below 400 level.
Non-standard "worst case" results -- the parallel wipe tests but not using CPSC protocol, and not picking off the obvious pieces. When not picking those off, there were 5 of 21 samples, or 24%, that were mildly elevated = 179 to 324 (so 1.5 to 2x level). Highest levels were in SW and NW corners. Curious -- not the most worn areas.
Last time, the high value was 654. Unable to duplicate.
Note: For bulk tests, new field is below the action level if below 5000ppm. Here, not ever above that -- though it's worn, so they tested. In those tests, never below 3000 ppm.
At this point, Mult Co health assessment is "no significant risk of exposure to children using field. Recommend reopen the field for normal use. Parks and PPS evaluating recommendation. At this point, see no reason to keep field closed. Confident this does not represent a risk for significant exposure. You all can have your field back."
Typical background level in soil throughout the state is 30ppm.
Greig W. -- "If you live in a house built before 1978, I can almost guarantee you that similar tests conducted in your home will = higher levels than the levels here." Also important is the fact that the samples of the Rieke field here is basically testing for lead that isn't particularly "available" in biological terms. Very different from household dust.
Oxman: Weight of evidence is strong that there's no real risk of exposure. Sure, if a 6-month old is crawling on field with wet hands, you should probably wipe them. Same thing is true if you're in your back yard, or your 1906 craftsman home ... Considering this is intermittent use by older kids, and very little hand-to-mouth exposure, it's "very hard to conjure up situation in which there is any significant risk of exposure." Social and health benefits of using field compared with miniscule chance of lead poisoning weights very heavily in favor of reopening field.
PPS: Just got a letter from Mark and Gary today. Andy has recommended reopening. COO is aware of that. Needs to go up through Superintendent, and the Board needs to know. Hopefully if not tomorrow, Thursday will make announcement. Will send something to the school to notify; that can go to parents. Lisa -- Park will pull together summary report & historical background on this and other tests in Oregon.
Rick Siefert (www.hillsdalenews.com) asked whether there should be a message to go to parents about precautions on the use of the field. Gary Oxman: Not at this point, no different than kids playing in the average day care backyard. No different than "kids should wash their hands before they eat." Plain good hygiene.
PPS / Parks will collectively issue press release regarding the field. Discussion about replacement will have to come later, and will be expensive. At this time, Parks happy to work with community re funding. In the interim, at least, it is safe. If anyone wants to talk about replacement, Bob Downing (Parks) is the person to talk about this with them.
One more question: Would anyone here speaking be worried about letting their kids play on the field? None of them indicated any concern at all.
Multnomah County Health Officer Gary Oxman and others came to talk about the field; along with Andy Fridley, PPS; Lisa Camelli, Parks & Rec.; Greg Wariner, Mult. Co. Lead Poisoning Prevention.
Mark Fulop, Multnomah County Health, came to talk about what kind of testing was conducted on the field. After last meeting, all who came talked together and designed testing protocol for field. Used CDC, EPA, CPSC guidance; though those protocols were thin, they followed those and looked at their own approaches to make sure that parent concerns were addressed.
Based on this meeting, there was substantial additional testing. The field was marked into a grid of 25 yard by 25 yard boxes (5 x 3 boxes, with far west boxes a little small). Within each segment, they did two parallel wipe tests at center of each segment, which convey bioavailability information. CPSC protocol used for one test (you pull off little pieces of obvious material), and the other protocol was done on the other wipe -- leaving solids on the wipe. They also did composite bulk samples of grass itself. Took clippings from five locations in each box. Center, then 5 yards in each direction. Pulled 5 samples in same locations of the infill material. Did bulk samples on all those. Only other testing was a single leach test on green turf material -- i.e. it would tell you if there was a groundwater problem. Then also a composite bulk test and wipe test on white striping. Testing done on October 24 (after period of wet weather).
They also did one additional pair of wipes in five high use areas (in front of goals, and in center). Over 80 samples on esntire field. BES lab (near St. Johns) was used, except for Greg's infield samples (a double sample), and random soil samples from outside the field area, which were sent to BTS lab (located in Virginia). One or two other samples (not the initial PBS report) were done by WyEast.
BTS results consistently lower than BES results. So confirmed BES lab results were conservative.
Gary O. -- results using CPSC standard protocol wipe test (i.e., picking off the obvious pieces) were all below actionable range. CSPC says action level is 150 ug per square meter. Our results were low of 12, high of 57ug per m^3. Infill sample -- EPA standard of 400 ppm (mg / kg dry weight). Low of 29 to high of 69. Still below 400 level.
Non-standard "worst case" results -- the parallel wipe tests but not using CPSC protocol, and not picking off the obvious pieces. When not picking those off, there were 5 of 21 samples, or 24%, that were mildly elevated = 179 to 324 (so 1.5 to 2x level). Highest levels were in SW and NW corners. Curious -- not the most worn areas.
Last time, the high value was 654. Unable to duplicate.
Note: For bulk tests, new field is below the action level if below 5000ppm. Here, not ever above that -- though it's worn, so they tested. In those tests, never below 3000 ppm.
At this point, Mult Co health assessment is "no significant risk of exposure to children using field. Recommend reopen the field for normal use. Parks and PPS evaluating recommendation. At this point, see no reason to keep field closed. Confident this does not represent a risk for significant exposure. You all can have your field back."
Typical background level in soil throughout the state is 30ppm.
Greig W. -- "If you live in a house built before 1978, I can almost guarantee you that similar tests conducted in your home will = higher levels than the levels here." Also important is the fact that the samples of the Rieke field here is basically testing for lead that isn't particularly "available" in biological terms. Very different from household dust.
Oxman: Weight of evidence is strong that there's no real risk of exposure. Sure, if a 6-month old is crawling on field with wet hands, you should probably wipe them. Same thing is true if you're in your back yard, or your 1906 craftsman home ... Considering this is intermittent use by older kids, and very little hand-to-mouth exposure, it's "very hard to conjure up situation in which there is any significant risk of exposure." Social and health benefits of using field compared with miniscule chance of lead poisoning weights very heavily in favor of reopening field.
PPS: Just got a letter from Mark and Gary today. Andy has recommended reopening. COO is aware of that. Needs to go up through Superintendent, and the Board needs to know. Hopefully if not tomorrow, Thursday will make announcement. Will send something to the school to notify; that can go to parents. Lisa -- Park will pull together summary report & historical background on this and other tests in Oregon.
Rick Siefert (www.hillsdalenews.com) asked whether there should be a message to go to parents about precautions on the use of the field. Gary Oxman: Not at this point, no different than kids playing in the average day care backyard. No different than "kids should wash their hands before they eat." Plain good hygiene.
PPS / Parks will collectively issue press release regarding the field. Discussion about replacement will have to come later, and will be expensive. At this time, Parks happy to work with community re funding. In the interim, at least, it is safe. If anyone wants to talk about replacement, Bob Downing (Parks) is the person to talk about this with them.
One more question: Would anyone here speaking be worried about letting their kids play on the field? None of them indicated any concern at all.
Run for Technology?
At the 12/8 PTA meeting, Principal Russell asked whether Rieke might want to consider doing a "Run for Technology" in the Spring, rather than Run for the Arts. We generally receive approximately $14K from the Spring Young Audiences Run for the Arts, which is generally used for a couple of visiting artists (at approximately $4-5K each) and a three assemblies with special presentations (close to $1K each). If we could maintain the arts program at the school through volunteer and other programs, we might purchase new computers for the tech lab and other places in the school. The assembled group agreed to talk about it more, perhaps after sending out some inquiries to the general groups. In particular, there was a proposal to have people look into identifying alternative (less expensive) arts progams first, and then to make the decision about whether to go a different direction. If you have views, post them here, or let PTA know, or talk with Principal Russell.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Making My Head Itch
On Wednesday (12/3), apparently, families in some classrooms received information indicating that there had been several incidences of lice, and suggesting that they take precautions to limit the spread.
I have to say that this information came to my attention only because I saw a little article in The Oregonian on December 10 (page B02; see here as well). (Yeah, yeah, I backdated the post.) While I appreciate the need to limit the number of "panicky" parents, and while I may be overreacting myself (everything I see (take a look at that piece from Oregon Live) says that it's just one of those things that happens among kids of this age, presents no particular health risk, and can be eliminated by an attention to detail and cleaning over the course of a few weeks) it seems like the kind of thing that might have nevertheless deserved mention in the Rapper or at the PTA meeting on Tuesday. Certainly more attention by families to daily hat-wearing-and-sharing decisions might help limit any risk of further spread, and it's certainly the kind of news that would be best to learn before the local newspaper tells everyone.
I know this has occasionally been an issue in the past here (and probably at every darn elementary school in the nation), so I expect it will all blow over (comb over?) soon enough.
I have to say that this information came to my attention only because I saw a little article in The Oregonian on December 10 (page B02; see here as well). (Yeah, yeah, I backdated the post.) While I appreciate the need to limit the number of "panicky" parents, and while I may be overreacting myself (everything I see (take a look at that piece from Oregon Live) says that it's just one of those things that happens among kids of this age, presents no particular health risk, and can be eliminated by an attention to detail and cleaning over the course of a few weeks) it seems like the kind of thing that might have nevertheless deserved mention in the Rapper or at the PTA meeting on Tuesday. Certainly more attention by families to daily hat-wearing-and-sharing decisions might help limit any risk of further spread, and it's certainly the kind of news that would be best to learn before the local newspaper tells everyone.
I know this has occasionally been an issue in the past here (and probably at every darn elementary school in the nation), so I expect it will all blow over (comb over?) soon enough.