Another segment in this sad saga. Let's see if we can wrap up old North Middle in a hurry.

Before I start, I want to run something by you. I cannot recall any of the newspaper articles that discussed school air problems ever quoting teachers describing how the kids were getting sick. They are quoted talking about their own health or that of "staff." Are teachers never quoted regarding the children's health problems? Why? Just too much? Perhaps they don't permit themselves to admit that kids are affected, and that they, the teachers, have failed the very people that are the reason for their jobs - - - their charges, the kids. Can't admit it? Then, pretend it is not happening. Ponder that would you? Have I mentioned this before? Yes, I probably have.

Let's turn to Ms. Parrish and her newspaper again. June 14, 1994, page B3, "Tests offer no answer for sick school:"

"The test results are in, but the question remains. No one may ever know what caused dozens of North Middle School students to suddenly become ill in April.

"There's no smoking gun," said Dr. Chris Spitters, deputy health officer for the Snohomish Health District. "No germs or poisons popped up as being obvious."

. . . I am confident that had there been a toxin, that we would have detected something, " . . . "

Now where did this new character, Splitters, come from? I wonder what Mr. Miklich, quoted in the earlier article concluded.

Is this just another case of keep looking for experts until you find one who agrees with you?

Come on, Mr. Splitters, we know there was a high level of carbon dioxide in at least one classroom. No toxics? Well, carbon dioxide is toxic according to my old books. It also irritates the eyes, nose, and respiratory tract. And, anaerobic organisms thrive on it. Why weren't the CO₂ levels even mentioned? "This is what the levels were, see, so there could be no problem, right?" Put it out in the open and let us decide, eh? No? Then, why not? What are you hiding?

Parrish fills out the article with the meaningless recommendations from the health officials concerned, most of which are distractions; the rest are excuses to spend money. However, after the recommendation to "continue to monitor the health of staff members and students," Parrish does manage to insert the following: "North began monitoring staff health issues after a carbon-dioxide problem in 1991 that was corrected."

I am trying to give Parrish credit here. She managed to get carbon dioxide and problem together again. Who said it was corrected? Did her editor insist upon this? There was still elevated CO₂ when I attended that meeting. What else is Parrish trying to say? Did she point out that only staff health was being monitored despite the implication that student health was being monitored too? Perhaps.

Let's turn to another follow-up article by Parrish in her newspaper, July 21, 1994, page B3, "Everett school group to track air quality:"

" . . .

Now the district has asked community members, parents, and teachers to join administrators in forming a committee to develop plans before North opens in September.

Marilyn Black of Air Quality Services Link of Atlanta will head the 15-member committee. The group will create a plan to monitor the comfort level and health of staff members and students, determine a base line for indoor air quality and respond to future incidents.

The district estimates it will pay Black $8,000 to $10,000, a fraction of the total cost in dealing with the "sick" school. How much Everett will end up spending is unknown, but officials guess it will total more than $500,000.

. . .

Officials also will evaluate how fresh air enters the building . . . "

Some of you can immediately see what is wrong here. I'll have to help the rest of you.

A "15-member committee?" It won't work. Committees rarely work, especially when the sheep are being led by the wolf!

Assume a committee could do the job, what is the job? Part of it is "re-inventing the wheel," or determining "a base line for indoor air quality . . . "

Do you think there is no "base line?" This is one of the techniques used by scum like Black. Isolate and make the individuals think that theirs is a unique problem. The truth is it is happening all over our country and there are standards, standards that you are not supposed to know about. The Saskatchewan Standards

I feel compelled to comment on the choice of words. "Base line" is socialist jargon. They don't want to admit to standards, so they avoid the word. "Base line" also has an insidious element to it. You see a "base line" can be a moving thing! In budgeting, the socialists add a certain percentage growth so that the "base line" means that whatever it is, it is always increasing in absolute terms. This allows them, in their minds at least, to argue that a slowing of the rate of growth, even though there is an increase in absolute terms, is really a cut because it moves the "base line" down. Sophistry and worse.

Ah, Ms. Black, socialist, black-hearted socialist harlot, for her role is going to get only $8,000 to $10,000. What a good deal since so much more will be spent, right? Wrong. And, what's more Everett won't be spending, people will, and they will be spending other people's money, not Everett's money. How much has been spent previosly? All to supposedly save how much in reduced fuel costs? And, the proposed plan has nothing to solve the problem. It is designed only to "manage" the problem, ie., keep the lid on and keep decent people bewildered.

" . . . how fresh air enters the building . . . " I had to throw this in. I'd like to think that I may have had something to do with a small improvement. Let me explain. I looked at the school with Mr. Gary Jefferies, Maintenance Superintendant. I noticed that the intake was close to the ground. I suggested that perhaps it could be raised. Do you know what my reasoning was?

Some additional explanation. North Middle School is located close to old Highway 99, a busy arterial which runs north and south. Along one side is another busy arterial that runs east and west and connects Highway 99 with Interstate Highway 5 not far away. There is quite a bit of traffic in the area. Mr. Jefferies told me that the outdoor CO₂ level at the school was 800 ppm. I wondered whether that was during low traffic or high. Not known. Even 800 ppm is too high for school kids. Remember the indoor level will always be higher when the "fresh air" is what is brought in from outside!

It may be that it is next to impossible to get truly fresh air, air low in carbon dioxide at this site.

Since dioxide is heavier than air and tends to go down initially, I suggested that the intake be as high as possible. I suggested measurements of CO₂ be made at different times of the day and correlated with area traffic and that measurements also be made at various heights.

Oops, I almost let something slip! Ms. Parrish used the word "sick" in her last article to refer to the school. It is not sick. It is not broken. Some of our fellow Americans are. "They" are the ones who are doing the harm. "They" are sick.

SICK, SICK, SICK! "They" won't allow the school to be fixed. The fix is easy and cheap, you know? But, "they" would rather it be "a cash cow" for "their" socialist friends and agendas. "They" can fix it all over again in a year or two. "For the children." For the "poster kids" that "they" have created with sealed, CO₂ filled schools.