The problem is that the money ran out and the “temporary buildings” became permanent. It was also mandated that most of the new school buildings in our state be portable buildings as they were so much cheaper.
It is now 20 years later.
If I were a teacher assigned to one of these old portable, I would refuse to teach in one. I would not allow my child to be in one all day as he probably has the 1 out of 10 genetic pre-disposition to get my disease.
There is a lot written about the problems with these portables on the Internet. They focus on the inside pollutants though my disease was primarily caused by a "filthy environment" including inhaling dried urine and rat feces, I still found them informative and scary as the portable are known to cause my disease.
This report was written in the late 1990’s:
Reading, Writing and Risk
Air Pollution Inside California’s Portable Classrooms
To quote the summary from their site:
This California report examines the air pollution risk levels in the State's portable school facilities, the State's response, and recommendations for protecting children's and teachers' health in these types of classrooms. The report reveals that over two million California students spend the school day in buildings that may be harmful to their health. It states that some portable classrooms can expose children to toxic chemicals at levels that pose an unacceptable risk of cancer or other serious illnesses, but that California has no indoor air health standards for most toxins found in these types of buildings and has failed to exercise effective oversight of air quality. What types of pollution health risks that exist in portable classrooms are detailed, particularly risks from formaldehyde and carbon dioxide. Additionally reported are the unintended consequences of the State's push for the use of portables to address student population increases.
Here is a sample from their report:
California has no indoor air health standards for most toxins found in portables. The state has failed to exercise effective oversight over air quality in portable classrooms.
About 162,000 children in Los Angeles, and more than 2 million statewide, spend the school day in buildings that may be harmful to their health.
No Standards, No Monitoring, No Action
According to estimates by independent school analysts, over 86,500 portable (or “relocatable”) classrooms are in use in California (EdSource 1999). The number is growing each year, as districts are caught between their severely limited post-Proposition 13 ability to raise funds for new construction and state mandates to reduce class sizes. Although portables have been in use in California since before World War II, they have multiplied rapidly since 1996, when the state offered school districts cash bonuses for reducing class sizes — payments sufficient to buy or lease portables, but often not enough to build permanent facilities. Between 1991 and 1999, state officials estimate that the number of portables in use in California doubled (Peoples 1997). “As a consequence,” writes one education analyst, “many California schools now look more like migrant camps — row after row of drab wooden boxes of uncertain safety.” (Schrag 1998)
California has no indoor air health standards for most toxins found in portables. Those that do exist are based on the risk of short-term health effects, ignoring the long-term potential for these chemicals to cause cancer or other serious illnesses. California’s standards for airborne chemicals are based on supposedly safe levels of exposure for the average adult male, not children and other sensitive populations. Nor do the standards for individual chemicals take into account the cumulative effect of exposure to a combination of pollutants.
Worst of all, in the face of mounting evidence that childhood exposure to toxic chemicals can retard mental and physical development, the state has failed to exercise effective oversight over air quality in portable classrooms. There are no enforceable regulations, no monitoring programs, not even restrictions preventing manufacturers from continuing to sell portables to schools after the company’s buildings have been repeatedly implicated in health complaints. Despite these data gaps and regulatory neglect, a state report warning of potential indoor air quality problems in portables and other classrooms has languished in bureaucratic limbo since last year and has not been made public, much less acted on.
In the fall of 1998, a state interagency task force completed a report that said portables “have endemic indoor environmental quality problems, and there has not been adequate monitoring of these problems or their impacts on educational programs.” Because the document was completed during the final months of Gov. Pete Wilson’s term, the state held the report while waiting for the new administration of Gov. Gray Davis to take over (Hardy 1999). The state was still sitting on the report when the issue erupted into newspaper headlines. In May 1999, a toxicologist and a pediatrician reported that they had treated at least six children from the Saugus school district in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley who suffered health problems after attending class in portables. The students’ blood and urine contained elevated levels of formaldehyde, benzene, arsenic
and other chemicals commonly used in portables construction. The toxicologist said the toxins “were oozing out of the walls and just recirculating and going into their bodies.” (Aidem 1999)
One-Third of California’s Kids in Portables
An EWG survey of California’s 20 largest districts found more than 19,127 portables in use — almost 6,500 just in the Los Angeles district, the nation’s second-largest with an enrollment of more than 680,000 students. (Table 2.) At an average of 25 students per classroom (EdSource 1999), that means about 162,000 children in the Los Angeles district, and 478,000 in the state’s largest districts, attend class in portables. Applying the average number of kids per classroom to the 86,500 portables in use yields an estimate that 2.16 million California children – more than 35 percent of total enrollment – are spending at least part of each school day in an indoor environment that may be harmful to their health.
In the uproar that followed the Saugus incident, parents, teachers and editorialists called on the state to act immediately to protect children’s health. They urged the passage of AB 1207, a bill by Assemblyman Kevin Shelley of San Francisco, which would assess indoor air standards for portables and provide schools the knowledge and incentives to improve indoor air quality. “Is it too much to ask that classrooms be safe and healthy environments for learning?” asked a spokesman for the California Teachers Association (Hardy 1999).
But the warning signs of problems with portables are nothing new. According to a state school facilities official, there are reports every year of “sick building syndrome” associated with portables (Lovekin 1997). A search of California newspaper databases turned up dozens of such incidents in the last decade, increasing noticeably after 1996. Nor is the problem unique to California. Although no national estimates are available for the number of portables in use, they are found in every state, and use is heaviest in booming Sunbelt states. Where portables proliferate, complaints about air quality follow.
Today, there is no system in place to have these old structures tested for their air quality.
Now to put more fear into your chest, dear reader, my disease is usually misdiagnosed as asthma. As you have probably read or heard in the news, there is a huge increase of the diagnosis of asthma in young children. Is there a correlation between the increase of asthma and the continuing aging of portable classrooms? How many of those children diagnosed with asthma actually have my disease? Remember, if one is removed from the problem, the lungs will repair themselves, if not exposed over a long period of time.
Did your child show symptoms of asthma but, after moving up to the next grade level and out of an old portable, seem to be miraculously recovered? You child may not have had asthma.
No comments:
Post a Comment