Healthy Schools Campaign

Danger in the EXIT Sign

by Rochelle Davis, HSC Founding Executive Director

Did you know that many self-luminous EXIT signs commonly found in schools and other public places contain radioactive tritium that can create harmful exposures to humans? The dangerous exposure can occur if signs leak and when they are disposed of.

The issue of dangerous chemicals inside the ubiquitous EXIT sign highlights the need for us to consider the possible health impact of each detail that goes into a school building. Children are especially vulnerable to this type of exposure.

If you would like to learn more, check out this online course offered by the US. EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

In Search of the Perfect

by Mark Bishop, HSC Deputy Director

There is an ever-growing body of research showing that healthy students learn better – they experience better concentration, improved test scores, improved retention, better self-esteem. . .  the list goes on.

Admittedly, though, there is no silver bullet: no single “perfect” study that shows that if your air is clean, if you have access to daylight, if you eat fresh foods, if you have access to regular physical activity, you will succeed. What we have is a hodge-podge of studies that, taken as a whole, paint a picture of the importance of whole child health.

But there comes a time when we need to move away from the search for the perfect, and take a step toward common sense and prevention.

After more than 10 years of experience in the environmental health field, it seems to me that the questions research is trying to answer keep shifting further and further away from our real focus. While the available body of information consistently improves, I don’t believe any quantity of data will ever completely convince everyone of the need to take precaution in protecting students.

I started thinking about this the other day when the EPA released, “A Decade of Children’s Environmental Health Research: Highlights from EPA’s Science to Achieve Results Program.” My goal is not to criticize this report, because it’s a wealth of information with excellent descriptions of routes of environmental exposures to child populations. It is also a publication that health advocates will use for years to come to make their case about the importance of protecting children from dangerous exposures. However, the major findings aren’t what one would call earth shattering:

• People react to pollutants differently
• Children living near roads with lots of exhaust are at higher risk of asthma
• Banning pesticides reduces exposure to pesticides
• Using non-toxic alternatives also reduces exposure to pesticides
• Communities are important in implementing environmental health programs

Not bad information, but it is a bit surprising to learn that this study took 10 years and $127 million to pull together. Imagine if 10 years ago we’d had $127 million to develop strategies to reduce exposures to asthma triggers and to develop community based approaches to health education.

Of course it’s not 1998 anymore, it’s 2008. We can’t afford to take another $100 million and 10 years to search for the perfect data, when what our children really need are effective solutions. 

Cleaning up Dirty Diesel School Buses

by Mark Bishop, HSC Deputy Director

Cleaning up dirty diesels may have just gotten a step easier in Illinois.

In Illinois, there are more than 18,000 buses that transport over 2 million school children to and from school every day.  While riding on a school bus is generally a safe way for a student to travel to school, diesel exhaust from school buses can pose a significant health threat to school children, drivers and school staff. 

As a recent news report shows, exposure to diesel exhaust outside and inside a school bus poses serious risks to both children and adults.   

Two months ago, a group lead by the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, including HSC, Citizen Action Illinois, Illinois Environmental Council, and the Illinois School Nurse Association met with the Illinois EPA to discuss their funding of the Illinois Clean School Bus Program. Their response was to apply for a $1 million grant to retrofit Chicago area diesel buses.

We applaud the Agency’s commitment to finding funding for this important health issue. At the same time, we realize that even if this grant is approved, this will only provide funds to retrofit 350, or less than 2 percent, of the school buses currently in use in Illinois.

Cleaning up diesel school buses is a matter of health.

Creating a stable and consistent fund for schools to retrofit their diesel bus fleets will go a long way to improving student health. One such initiative is going on through the Respiratory Health Association’s Clean Diesel Campaign. There are also two current Illinois state bills that would create a dedicated funding source to clean up diesel engines; check out the Senate Bill or House Bill.

As a proud member of the Clean Diesel Campaign, we urge you to learn about the dangers involved in diesel exhaust and to speak up for clean air in and around our school buses.

Thirty Years after Love Canal: First National Guidelines on School Siting to Be Established

Today we have a guest blog from Stacey Gonzalez of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice.

Wow. We did it.

After six years of pressure on the government to create school siting guidelines that would prevent a school from being built on contaminated land, they have finally moved. Within the 800-page energy bill signed into law in December by President Bush were written these simple words:

Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall issue voluntary school site selection guidelines that account for (1) the special vulnerability of children to hazardous substances or pollution exposures in any case in which the potential for contamination at a potential school site exists...

This is huge!

This is the first time the federal government has given state legislatures direction when it comes to laws protecting where schools may be physically sited in relationship to toxic contamination sites. Prior to this legislation, no such federal instruction existed. Forty-five states do not have laws that prevent schools from being located next to toxic contamination sites.

However...Your work in the streets to protect your children from this huge gap in common sense legislation, to protect your kids from sitting every day in a school house filled with carcinogenic chemicals, from playing ball on fields laced with carelessly dumped toxins. . . your work is the real work that we celebrate.

Although we are thrilled that these small words will lead to federal guidelines on school siting, the real work still lays in the hands of grassroots groups across the country, to take to their state governments and demand that they draft and pass into law adequate and health-protecting school siting legislation, siting laws that will  prevent cash-strapped school districts from being the repositories for cheap and contaminated land left behind by big industry.

It is our hope that these federal guidelines will create the foundation, the impetus, the federal directive, to help compel states to make the right decision and pass their own school siting laws.

Congratulations to all of you who have worked with us over the years on this important issue. We couldn't have done it without you.

Alarming Conditions, Eye-Opening Lessons in School Building Tour

by Claris Olson, HSC Environmental Health Specialist

First in a three-part series

I recently had the chance to tour two schools at the extreme ends of the building-condition spectrum: an aging school in downtown Washington, D.C., and a LEED-certified “green” school in nearby Montgomery County Md. (The tours were part of an Indoor Environmental Quality training hosted by the American Federation of Teachers.)

The D.C. school,  built in the 1950s, is typical of many inner city schools in low-income minority communities.   

Outside the school, the windows looked as if they had not been cleaned since the school was built.  Soot, rust and bird droppings created a film over everything. 

Litter was scattered nearby and a dumpster was located so close to the entrance that we could smell rotting refuse as we entered.  Just as the students do each school day, we passed through a metal detector before being allowed to enter the building. 

Inside, the air was hot and stuffy –- the building seemed to have absolutely no ventilation.  A trip to the roof proved that the air conditioning system was indeed operating but was in such poor condition that there was no fresh air was going into the building.  Bird droppings and what appeared to be mold or algae covered the outside of the unit. 

The top floor of the school held a multi-purpose room of just about 1,000 square feet that also served as the library, resource center, computer lab and instructional area.  About half of the ceiling tiles showed water damage even though they had all been replaced a year ago.  And of course, where there is water damage, you will find mold. 

We entered one classroom that had been closed off to students because water was forming a pond in the center of the room. 

The mold in the room forced one of the training participants with asthma to leave the building. 

Water problems also plagued the basement, where the kitchen and cafeteria were located.  Evidence of mice and roaches was easily visible in the kitchen and cafeteria, as well as in the classrooms. 

The school had no elevator to accommodate children with disabilities.  We were told that students with  mobility impairments must be carried by a staff member up and down the stairs.  The administration office, while dry, was hot and stuffy and lacked proper ventilation. 

In spite of  the poor condition of the building, the staff dedication at the school was clear.  Staff made the best of what they had, and took pride in providing a place where children could learn and feel safe from violence outside the school.

The sad truth is that school conditions like these are not uncommon, especially in low-come minority communities. The tour was just one small reminder of how tremendously important it is for us to continue working to improve school environments for all children.

In next week’s blog, I’ll tell you about our tour of the school at the other end of the spectrum: the first LEED-certified school in Maryland.

Not Quite Breathing Easy: Recognizing the Occupational Risks of Poor Indoor Air Quality

by Claris Olson, HSC Environmental Health Specialist

Many teachers will breathe a sigh of relief when they hear a Montgomery County Md. jury determined that a teacher who became ill from exposure to toxic mold in a portable classroom is entitled to worker’s compensation, as reported in this Washington Post article.

Classifying this teachers' illness as an "occupational disease" is a major step forward in acknowledging the serious danger of poor indoor air quality in schools.

For years, teachers have been reporting health problems and their concerns with the indoor air quality in their schools, both in portable classrooms and traditional school buildings. 

For the most part, school administrators and those in the medical profession have not recognized the seriousness of the problems that indoor air quality causes for teachers. Teachers suffering from medical problems resulting from poor indoor air have been accused of fabricating their stories and some have even been referred for psychological evaluation. 

In reality, the conditions in many classrooms pose significant hazards to teachers as well as to children.

Portable classrooms are notorious not only for their poor ventilation - which can cause toxic mold growth, as in the Montgomery County case - but also for construction materials that contain high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).  They also have inefficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems that are so noisy that many teachers choose not to use them, reducing the ventilation even further. 

But like it or not, many school districts rely on portable classrooms or on old buildings with conditions that could lead to dangerously poor indoor air quality.  The California Collaborative for High Performing Schools provides specifications for modular or relocatable classrooms [pdf] that can help safeguard air quality in these situations.  (Keep in mind that these specifications were designed for the California climate so may not be appropriate for other parts of the country.)

The EPA also provides information to help with the indoor environment of portable classrooms.

Although it's great to hear that a jury recognized the seriousness of this issue and is taking steps toward compensating the teacher who has suffered, I hope that soon we'll be hearing more about steps that schools are taking to improve indoor air quality and prevent teachers from experiencing this type of occupational illness in the first place.

To learn more about indoor air quality and school environments, check out our action and resource guide. 

Momentum in Springfield for Healthy Schools

by Mark Bishop, HSC Deputy Director

So much activity related to school health is going on in Springfield this year that it’s hard to keep it all straight.

HSC’s Green Clean Schools Act (HB895) sailed through the Senate Education Committee with comments from senators such as, “This is a great bill” and “I’m proud to put my name on this piece of legislation.” Sen. Iris Martinez is our Senate sponsor.

Now it seems as if we have the momentum to get this bill passed, but we can’t let up yet –- we still have our work ahead of us to let other senators know about the importance of green cleaning before the bill is brought to a vote before the full Senate.

If the Senate approves the Green Clean Schools Act, Illinois will become only the second state to require green cleaning in schools. (Right now, New York is the only state with this requirement.)

Check out a few of the other bills related to healthy schools that are really moving in Springfield:

Energy Efficient School Construction Grants (SB505) 
This bill from HSC and our allies would provide schools with additional funding through the school construction grant program to build to sustainable and energy efficient standards. After an overwhelmingly positive 48-8 vote in the Senate, the bill has moved to the House. On May 8, the House Education Committee will hold a hearing on the bill. 

School Recess Bill (HB1335)
This bill would require CPS to offer at least 10 minutes of recess to students in grades K-6. On April 24, Parents United for Healthy Schools brought more than 40 parent leaders and 15 students to Springfield to lobby for this bill. The very next day we had nine more co-sponsors (up from just one sponsor) and this week the House approved the bill! On Tuesday, Parents United is holding a press conference at Mitchell School to announce this victory and keep the momentum going as the bill moves to the Senate.

School Health Center Act (SB715)
This bill requires IDHS to open twenty new school heath centers over 5 years and build capacity at existing centers. On May 2, the Senate passed this bill. The bill, championed by Sen. Donne Trotter, will now head to the House with the support of the lead sponsor, Rep. Sara Feigenholtz. Illinois Coalition for School Health Centers is leading the efforts on this bill.

School Renewable Energy Grants (HB0285)
This bill will establish a renewable energy grant program at ISBE to assist school districts with building renewable energy sources in the public schools. This bill was approved by the House and is on final reading in the Senate.

We'll keep you posted as these bills progress!

It’s O.K. to Spray? Is this a joke?

by Claris Olson, HSC Environmental Health Specialist

The Consumer Aerosol Products Council is running a contest for children and teachers entitled "It’s O.K. to Spray" on the pretext that since CFCs have been banned for most aerosol products, there is no problem with using aerosols. 

Are they joking?

Promoting the use of aerosols to children sounds like a bad movie stunt, not something that teachers or school administrators would take seriously. But the group records years of participation, including a recent rally where students sprayed aerosol cans and urged listeners to "Hey, spray! It’s okay!"

At a family science night hosted with funds from the contest, one student "tabulates student survey results of their favorite uses for aerosols." (And we won’t even get into talking about schools promoting healthy eating and proper spelling; the winner of this contest was Readi Wip, with Cheez Wiz coming in a close second.)

We love the idea of teaching kids about science and the environment. Getting kids and families involved and enthusiastic about chemistry and its applications to our world is definitely a good thing, and it’s commendable when students and teachers really explore an issue and present their findings to the community.

But when corporations provide funding to schools with the goal of promoting products that can be dangerous to children – and do so under the guise of environmental education – that’s a problem.

Although it may be true that aerosols now constitute a minor component of outdoor air pollution, the indoor air environment is an entirely different story – with dangers for children that definitely aren’t a joke.

According to the EPA, indoor air is typically 5 to 10 times more polluted than outdoor air and is frequently up to 100 times more polluted. So why would anyone contribute to indoor air pollution by spraying an unnecessary aerosol?

Aerosols and indoor air pollution are especially dangerous, of course, when children are involved. When chemicals are aerosolized, the sprayed particles are so small that they can become suspended in the air for an extended period of time, allowing them to be inhaled deeply into the lungs. In proportion to their body size, children breathe more air than adults – so they are absorbing more of the chemical from the aerosol canister.

Children are also more vulnerable to the pollution because their bodies are still developing. Many chemicals that adults can absorb in small quantities without major risk – chemicals such as lead – can cause serious harm to children’s development.

For children and schools, the other major issue to consider is asthma.  Asthma is the leading cause of student absenteeism due to a chronic disease and has almost doubled in the last 20 years. It is unconscionable that any group would promote exposing children unnecessarily to aerosols that may trigger an asthma attack – much less encourage children to needlessly spray aerosols and chant that it’s "okay!"

From an environmental perspective, aerosols – even without CFCs – serve as highly inefficient delivery mechanisms for chemicals, leading to unnecessary waste and product transport. When it comes to cost, aerosols are dramatically more expensive and less efficient than their non-aerosol counterparts. The amount of chemical dispensed in one $3 can of aerosol, for example, is equivalent to an amount of concentrated chemical that can be diluted and applied with a spray bottle at a price that ranges from 2 to 20 cents.

Promoting learning about the environment is important.

But promoting children’s use of aerosols in a manner that could pose risks to their health is simply irresponsible – and not a joke at all.