Principles For Safe School Siting

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to release voluntary school siting guidelines that will assist states and local school districts in the adopting of policies for safer school siting.Thirty years after the crisis at Love Canal that closed two elementary schools due to contamination, there are very few state laws and no federal law preventing the siting of a school or day care center on or near sources of pollution. These guidelines will be adopted by diverse school districts all across the country in sweeping effort to protect children and school staff from the harmful exposures of pollution. As school districts are facing budget cuts and our nation's schools are reaching an average of 49 years old, it is more important than ever for all of us to support the safe siting of schools.

Please take one minute to sign on to these Principles For Safe School Siting.

You may sign on as an organization or as an individual. You may also print out these principles and share with your neighbors and local school district staff to show the nationwide support of adopting safe siting policies in your own community.

Principles For Safe School Siting We call on local, state, and national leaders to adopt safe siting policies in order to prevent children and school staff from the harmful health impacts of exposure to sources of pollution. The problem of unsafe school siting was first discovered in 1979 when the Niagara Falls's 99th Street School was found next to the Love Canal toxic dumpsite containing 20,000 tons of toxic waste. The Love Canal crisis served as a warning that government should ensure that our children are attending safe schools and childcare centers. With the average age of our nation’s schools reaching 49 years, there is a critical need for both state and national policies on the issue of school siting. The safe siting of schools benefit our children’s development while helping to strengthen our local communities. We, the undersigned, believe action on safer siting of schools is needed because: Preventing toxic exposures where schools are located protects entire communities • Safe siting policies will prevent toxic exposures to children and school staff through reducing their daily exposures to chemicals that can cause cancer, immune system impairments, birth defects, learning disabilities, asthma, and other health problems. Children’s developing systems make them more vulnerable to chemical exposure • During prenatal development, infancy, and adolescence, children are growing and adding new tissue more rapidly than at any other period of life, which makes children are susceptible to environmental chemical influences. Children’s bodies are more sensitive than adults • Children are less able to handle toxic chemical exposures. Children breathe more air and eat more per pound than adults. For example, children absorb about 50% of the lead to which they are exposed, while adults absorb only 10-15%. Natural activities of children leave them more susceptible to chemical exposure • Normal school activities heighten children’s exposure to the impacts of pollution. After school sports, recess, classes in which children explore the school’s site ecosystem, children’s natural curiosity, tendency to explore, and inclination to put their hands in their mouths all opens them to high levels of exposure. Exercising precaution in the siting of schools will prevent future Love Canals • Exercising precaution in the siting of educational facilities will prevent future financial losses in terms of decreased student IQ’s, increases in injuries and illnesses among children and employees, and increased potential for lawsuits costing facilities much needed education dollars.

Optional Member Code

First Name*

Last Name*

Email

City*

State/Province* Select a state Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C. Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Armed Forces (the) Americas Armed Forces Europe Armed Forces Pacific Alberta British Columbia Manitoba Newfoundland New Brunswick Nova Scotia Northwest Territories Nunavut Ontario Prince Edward Island Quebec Saskatchewan Yukon Territory Other

Zip/Postal Code*

Organization

Display in list as "Anonymous"

25-50 of 481 signatures

Number	Date	Name	Organization	Location
456	May 10, 2009	Ms. Carlson Carlson	member of human race	Arlington, WA
455	May 10, 2009	Anonymous		randolph, NJ
454	May 10, 2009	Jordan Smith		Los Angeles, CA
453	May 09, 2009	Siddharth Mehrotra		Camarillo, CA
452	May 09, 2009	M. Rivera		Champaign, IL
451	May 07, 2009	Susan Bertolino		Philadelphia, PA
450	May 07, 2009	Mary Ann Smale		Steuben, ME
449	May 06, 2009	Kathy Arnos		Van Nuys, CA
448	May 06, 2009	Jennifer Hall		Greeneville, TN
447	May 06, 2009	Gregory Esteve		Lake Wales, FL
446	May 06, 2009	Jennifer Gorney	Jennifer Gorney	Carver, MN
445	May 05, 2009	Lynne Elliott	Lynn Elliott	Durham, NC
444	May 05, 2009	Conny Raper	Connie Raper	Durham, NC
443	May 05, 2009	Heather Klawender		Beaverton, OR
442	May 05, 2009	Sarah Hafer	Individual Citizen	Sacramento, CA
441	May 04, 2009	Mr. Campbell Campbell	Mr. Bruce Campbell	Los Angeles, CA
440	May 04, 2009	ronnie k endre	ronnie k endre	orleans, MI
439	May 04, 2009	Mr. Glover Glover		Micco, FL
438	May 03, 2009	Kevin Heit		Buenos Aires
437	May 03, 2009	Christianna Skoczek		Kittery Point, ME
436	May 03, 2009	J. Gregory Twain	J. Gregory Twain	Portland, OR
435	May 03, 2009	Melanie Hage	Melanie Hage	Daly City, CA
434	May 03, 2009	Michelle Buszard	n/a	Newport News, VA
433	May 03, 2009	Mr. & Mrs. Cohen Cohen		Fresno, CA
432	May 02, 2009	Ms. Schut schut	Ms. Dini E. I. Schut	Toledo, OH

Next ->