Villages of Columbus - Columbus Square - Camden Place

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213317738]I'm not denying that the soil is contaminated. I just wonder if the risk is significant and will result in actual medical harm. Just don't drink the water or eat the soil.

Personally, I believe assessing risks based on statistics and probability. There are no statistics showing the harmful effects of the Tustin soil and thus the probability of getting ill from it is pretty darn low.</blockquote>


When the local agency set/revise the zoning in the relevant area, they must reference the plume study, which is conducted at the state level thus having superior authority. If the threat exceeds certain level, they wouldn't allow the City for any land development. That's why you can find many former bases that are still closed down for remediation. Of course, if you don't believe in U.S. agencies, that is out of the scope of my discussion.



For the toxicity in the plume zone, you have to compare the actual disclosed monitoring data. Like I mentioned earlier, the plume would be moving and diffusing, which doesn't entirely justify that the source area is the most toxic. If you don't see any special action taken the agency, it means that the monitoring data is fine with the regulation.
 
[quote author="BeSmart" date=1213322457][quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213317738]I'm not denying that the soil is contaminated. I just wonder if the risk is significant and will result in actual medical harm. Just don't drink the water or eat the soil.



For the toxicity in the plume zone, you have to compare the actual disclosed monitoring data. Like I mentioned earlier, the plume would be moving and diffusing, which doesn't entirely justify that the source area is the most toxic. If you don't see any special action taken the agency, it means that the monitoring data is fine with the regulation.</blockquote>


As one of "agency" air quality/research engineer, I appreciate your unconditional trust "_



The fact is that the environmental agencies don't even have close to enough staff to ensure that "It is guranteed good, as long as there's no violation"



Most of the time regulatory agencies merely review developers' report. No proactive actions would be taken unless there are obvious flaws.



Buyers need to be alert, and more importantly, "Be Smart".
 
[quote author="Air Engineer" date=1213325390][quote author="BeSmart" date=1213322457][quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213317738]I'm not denying that the soil is contaminated. I just wonder if the risk is significant and will result in actual medical harm. Just don't drink the water or eat the soil.



For the toxicity in the plume zone, you have to compare the actual disclosed monitoring data. Like I mentioned earlier, the plume would be moving and diffusing, which doesn't entirely justify that the source area is the most toxic. If you don't see any special action taken the agency, it means that the monitoring data is fine with the regulation.</blockquote>


As one of "agency" air quality/research engineer, I appreciate your unconditional trust "_



The fact is that the environmental agencies don't even have close to enough staff to ensure that "It is guranteed good, as long as there's no violation"



Most of the time regulatory agencies merely review developers' report. No proactive actions would be taken unless there are obvious flaws.



Buyers need to be alert, and more importantly, "Be Smart".</blockquote>


Don't get me wrong! The agency trust issue is just out of my discussion scope. That's it!
 
[quote author="Air Engineer" date=1213325390][quote author="BeSmart" date=1213322457][quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213317738]I'm not denying that the soil is contaminated. I just wonder if the risk is significant and will result in actual medical harm. Just don't drink the water or eat the soil.



For the toxicity in the plume zone, you have to compare the actual disclosed monitoring data. Like I mentioned earlier, the plume would be moving and diffusing, which doesn't entirely justify that the source area is the most toxic. If you don't see any special action taken the agency, it means that the monitoring data is fine with the regulation.</blockquote>


As one of "agency" air quality/research engineer, I appreciate your unconditional trust "_



The fact is that the environmental agencies don't even have close to enough staff to ensure that "It is guranteed good, as long as there's no violation"



Most of the time regulatory agencies merely review developers' report. No proactive actions would be taken unless there are obvious flaws.



<strong>Buyers need to be alert</strong>, and more importantly, "Be Smart".</blockquote>


That's the purpose of the disclosure act.
 
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213317738]I'm not denying that the soil is contaminated. I just wonder if the risk is significant and will result in actual medical harm. Just don't drink the water or eat the soil.

Personally, I believe assessing risks based on statistics and probability. There are no statistics showing the harmful effects of the Tustin soil and thus the probability of getting ill from it is pretty darn low.</blockquote>




To prove medical harm requires epidemiologists to compare rates of incidence of disease between comparable areas, affected and not. and of course, sufficient time for the diseases to manifest.



Since people have not lived on top of the Tustin field for long and most diseases, like immuniologic cancers (which commonly result from toxic organics) take many years to manifest in adults, I would guess that you will not have "proof" of any medical harm for quite some time.



Of course, pediatric immunologic cancers occur much more quickly than adult cases, so within 10 years or so we may have enough data to describe the risk for that population of living at the Tustin marine airfield area.

<strong>

Everyone needs to evaluate risk for themselves (and their families, of course). </strong>



You can suffer risk from crime, bad air pollution, traffic accidents due to long commutes, etc. Or living over a toxic plume in Tustin MAF.



You have to pick what you think are important considerations. The state will only try to define the worst of the hazards for you.
 
i was thinking about this topic while at lunch and realized there's one big point that's being overlooked. <strong>the impact of perceived danger is often no different than that of actual danger.</strong> sometimes its the case that perceived danger causes <em> greater</em> negative impact. it's the reason why companies will sometimes issue major recalls on minor product defects. the cost of recall might be cheaper than the cost of paranoia leading the public to avoid all of their products completely.



for the most part, americans are afraid of all the wrong things, statistically speaking. those are usually the things they don't understand. carbs bad -- protein good. bird flu paranoia meant chicken bad -- beef good. nevermind that most americans are overweight carnivores who die of heart disease more than anything else.



in terms of housing, swimming pools and staircases are far more likely to cause harm to your children than toxic plumes or even a former convict living down the street. but the former are familiar to us ("yeah yeah, i'll watch the kids when they're in the yard. problem solved.")

... and the latter are not ("there's WHAT in our neighborhood???!")



as a homeowner in VoC, your future property values will hinge on the public

1) not finding out about the toxins,

2) finding out... but fully understanding the issues related to soil contamination,

3) finding out... but not caring,

or finally,

4) finding out... and completely freaking out.



i'm not willing to bet on any of the first 3.
 
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213317738]There are no statistics showing the harmful effects of the Tustin soil and thus the probability of getting ill from it is pretty darn low.</blockquote>


I don't think I would rely on that reasoning. There may be no statistics because no one studied it.
 
[quote author="freedomCM" date=1213326578][quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213317738]I'm not denying that the soil is contaminated. I just wonder if the risk is significant and will result in actual medical harm. Just don't drink the water or eat the soil.

Personally, I believe assessing risks based on statistics and probability. There are no statistics showing the harmful effects of the Tustin soil and thus the probability of getting ill from it is pretty darn low.</blockquote>




To prove medical harm requires epidemiologists to compare rates of incidence of disease between comparable areas, affected and not. and of course, sufficient time for the diseases to manifest.



Since people have not lived on top of the Tustin field for long and most diseases, like immuniologic cancers (which commonly result from toxic organics) take many years to manifest in adults, I would guess that you will not have "proof" of any medical harm for quite some time.



Of course, pediatric immunologic cancers occur much more quickly than adult cases, so within 10 years or so we may have enough data to describe the risk for that population of living at the Tustin marine airfield area.

</blockquote>


VOC and TF are built over the exact same locations as the old housing units where military personnel lived for over 50 years.



The amount of misinformation in this thread is immense.
 
[quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213330736]VOC and TF are built over the exact same locations as the old housing units where military personnel lived for over 50 years.



The amount of misinformation in this thread is immense.</blockquote>


Uh huh, and you bring soooo much credibility to the thread with your detailed comments.
 
asianinvasion,



jokes aside and in all seriousness -- you tend to disagree harshly (which isn't a problem in and of itself), but never give any feedback or reasoning otherwise. if you believe there is misinformation about VoC that needs to be refuted, by all means share that information. we would welcome it.
 
[quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213330736]VOC and TF are built over the exact same locations as the old housing units where military personnel lived for over 50 years.



The amount of misinformation in this thread is immense.</blockquote>


Oooh... Do you have maps? I <em>love</em> maps.
 
what i could find:



<img src="http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/bracbases/california/tustin/images/7_5.jpg" alt="" />



<a href="http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2001/March/Day-02/i5127.htm">http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2001/March/Day-02/i5127.htm</a>



<em>Military family housing is found in two places at the base. One

cluster of 274 housing units is located along Edinger Avenue on the

northwest edge of the base. The other cluster is located on the

southeast edge of the Air Station. This cluster is composed of 1,263

housing units located along the eastern side of Peters Canyon Channel

and is bounded by the Channel and Harvard Avenue and by Edinger Avenue

and Barranca Parkway. The boundary between the City of Tustin and the

City of Irvine crosses this housing area; 771 residential units are

located in Tustin and 552 units are located in Irvine.</em>



<strong>AI might be right about the location of where former military housing existed, but he has made no point other than... pointing out where former military housing existed.</strong>



<strong>I found a report from the GAO re: TCE exposure on military installations. </strong>



<em>TCE is a colorless liquid with a sweet, chloroform-like odor that is used mainly as a degreaser for metal parts. The compound is also a component in adhesives, lubricants, paints, varnishes, paint strippers, and pesticides. At one time, TCE was used as an extraction solvent for cosmetics and drug products and as a dry-cleaning agent; however, its use for these purposes has been discontinued. DOD has used the chemical in a wide variety of industrial and maintenance processes. More recently, the department has used TCE to clean sensitive computer circuit boards in military equipment such as tanks and fixed wing aircraft.



TCE's effects range from transitory and minor to very serious. Some of the effects of TCE on humans include:



* headaches, lung irritation, poor coordination, and difficulty concentrating as a result of inhaling small amounts of TCE

* nervous system effects, liver and lung damage, abnormal heartbeat, coma, or possibly death after inhaling or drinking liquids that contain high levels of TCE

* animal studies suggest increased risk of liver, kidney, or lung cancer after exposure to high levels of TCE

* increased levels of cancer have been shown in some human studies in connection with long exposure to high levels of TCE in drinking water or workplace air



* the "International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined that TCE is probably carcinogenic to humans - specifically, kidney, liver and cervical cancers, Hodgkin?s disease, and non-Hodgkin?s lymphoma - based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and additional evidence from studies in experimental animals."</em>



<strong>just because military personnel lived on the land doesnt mean it's not dangerous. Re: TCE at another Marine base.</strong>

<em>

As we previously reported with respect to Camp Lejeune, those who lived on base likely had a higher risk of inhalation exposure to volatile organic compounds such as TCE, which may be more potent than ingestion exposure. Thus, pregnant women who lived in areas of base housing with contaminated water and conducted activities during which they could inhale water vapor - such as bathing, showering, or washing dishes or clothing - likely faced greater exposure than those who did not live on base but worked on base in areas served by the contaminated drinking water.



In addition, some former residents of Camp Lejeune have filed tort claims and lawsuits against the federal government related to the past drinking water contamination. As of June 2007, about 850 former residents and former employees had filed tort claims with the Department of the Navy related to the past drinking water contamination. According to an official with the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General - which is handling the claims on behalf of the Department of the Navy - the agency is currently maintaining a database of all claims filed. The official said that the Judge Advocate General is awaiting completion of the latest ATSDR health study before deciding whether to settle or deny the pending claims in order to base its response on as much objective scientific and medical information as possible. According to DOD, any future reassessment of TCE toxicity may result in additional reviews of DOD sites that utilized the former TCE toxicity values, as the action levels for TCE cleanup in the environment may change.</em>



<a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071042t.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071042t.pdf</a>



<strong>the study regarding camp lejeune has still not been completed. meanwhile, former Marines and their families that lived off the contaminated water there are NOT happy. the notion that it's ok because Marines once lived on the tustin property should give NO comfort to any potential buyer.</strong>

<a href="http://www.watersurvivors.com/">http://www.watersurvivors.com/</a>



<strong>and if you still think this whole toxins issue is made up, go ahead and buy at tustin legacy. lennar will be more than happy to accomodate you.</strong>
 
<blockquote><strong>and if you still think this whole toxins issue is made up, go ahead and buy at tustin legacy. lennar will be more than happy to accomodate you.</strong></blockquote>


That would be Shea actually. Liarnar is El Toro, Shea (AI's dream is to work in sales there) is Tustin Legacy, since Centex walked away from it, it is all Shea. Liarnar will be selling toxic homes too, just not there.



Nice find BTW, so much more information that AI has ever posted. But, I did see that headaches are a symptom from the TCE, and maybe as he starts to type they get really bad, and makes it hard for him to think.
 
I dont think anybody is saying the story is made up, but like some stories, this one might have been blown way out of proportion and revisited over and over and over again. Or, someone from above said it, nobody really knows until somebody gets ill from living there and Erin Brockovich comes into the picture 15 years later...



If you're scared, to be on the safe side, you might want to move out of OC altogether.

If the toxins dont kill you, the gangs in Santa Ana might.



Let's all throw in the towel and call it quits now before the BIG Earthquake hits Southern California...

Come to think of it, why buy then, we all should rent, the homes are coming down the cracks of the earth anyways!



[quote author="acpme" date=1213337851]

<strong>and if you still think this whole toxins issue is made up, go ahead and buy at tustin legacy. lennar will be more than happy to accomodate you.</strong></blockquote>
 
[quote author="rickhunter" date=1213340825]If you're scared, to be on the safe side, you might want to move out of OC altogether.

If the toxins dont kill you, the gangs in Santa Ana might. Let's all throw in the towel and call it quits now before the BIG Earthquake hits Southern California...

Come to think of it, why buy then, we all should rent, the homes are coming down the cracks of the earth anyways!</blockquote>


ok thats just exaggerating way too far. there is some level of risk we all have to weigh in. you can put all your money in savings, take no risk, but gain lil reward. or you can bet it all on some beat up bank and hope for 200% return, but also risk the company going bankrupt. you can move your family to legacy and hope nothing goes wrong but you get no extra benefit for taking on that risk when prices are still so WTF.



there is no shortage of housing in that area. given potential risks, what reason is there to pay 1m to live there on the legacy when it doesnt really cost anything diff for a comparable home in westpark, northpark, tustin ranch, west irvine, etc.
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1213337851]

<strong>AI might be right about the location of where former military housing existed, but he has made no point other than... pointing out where former military housing existed.</strong>



<strong>just because military personnel lived on the land doesnt mean it's not dangerous. Re: TCE at another Marine base.</strong>

</blockquote>


This is why I don't bother going through the trouble of posting details, because the attention span here is so short it would just be a waste of time....



I was replying to freedomCM's post. Please go back and re-read it, particularly the part about <em>Since people have not lived on top of the Tustin field for long</em> and <em>so within 10 years or so we may have enough data</em>. That was what I was responding to, not that there are no compounds or that it's not dangerous.



....it's hard to give further feedback and reasoning when we are not even on the same page. And the information is freely available anyway, a simple search on Google would yield the information you're looking for as you have found.
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1213342124][quote author="rickhunter" date=1213340825]If you're scared, to be on the safe side, you might want to move out of OC altogether.

If the toxins dont kill you, the gangs in Santa Ana might. Let's all throw in the towel and call it quits now before the BIG Earthquake hits Southern California...

Come to think of it, why buy then, we all should rent, the homes are coming down the cracks of the earth anyways!</blockquote>


ok thats just exaggerating way too far. there is some level of risk we all have to weigh in. you can put all your money in savings, take no risk, but gain lil reward. or you can bet it all on some beat up bank and hope for 200% return, but also risk the company going bankrupt. you can move your family to legacy and hope nothing goes wrong but you get no extra benefit for taking on that risk when prices are still so WTF.



there is no shortage of housing in that area. given potential risks, what reason is there to pay 1m to live there on the legacy when it doesnt really cost anything diff for a comparable home in westpark, northpark, tustin ranch, west irvine, etc.</blockquote>


I agree with Acpme. Buyers have many more options now than before. The contraversy that exists today will continue to be the thorn that prevents the homes from ever reaching its full potential value as investment. Future buyers would use every excuse out there to bargain for a lower resale price. Let me name a few. I will start from the top literally. Jet fuel mist and potential plane landing accidents and jet engine noise on a 15 minute interval for the rest of your life. Train horn noise on religious schedule during day, night and weekends 24/7. Traffic congestion on Jamboree and Redhill surrounding the community during rush hours. The only thing that is supposedly stable is the foundation and the dirt directly below is either been filled or shifted around.



I could not find a single thing about it that is attractive. The "cute" architectural style are meant for a small quaint cottage but wrongly applied to the oversized McMansions. The price incentive is marginal considering limited appreciation in the future.



I do like its proximity to Diamond Plaza and the potential of danger will be much higher in that parking lot than the toxicity in the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top