4 ms·

How do you figure? She apparently had a lot of medical testing that showed something was wrong with her physically but the doctors had no idea what. Sounds like

How do you figure? She apparently had a lot of medical testing that showed something was wrong with her physically but the doctors had no idea what. Sounds like this was long before she knew anything was off with the property. The article didn't make any concrete accusations and she was just asking for an investigation. She didn't say causation, she said correlation. "I began to think that there was an important correlation between this data and my symptoms." Even when she saw high VOCs, she didn't assume it was the remediation site. " I knew the situation was likely going to be complicated and that the tVOC readings on my personal monitors were not going to be conclusive on their own, but my gut told me something was terribly wrong." She was open to the site not being the cause. "I was thinking: If you don’t want me to be worried about this chemical’s impact to my health, you should tell me exactly why it wasn’t included in the clean-up despite being above residential limits." + "So, what made me sick? While in the end everyone agreed it was VOCs, I may never know for certain if it was the chemicals in the soil or groundwater and, if so, which ones." Also, she mentioned a few times that doctors, government, and even Irvine Company's public relations person admitted VOCs made her sick, but just didn't know where the VOCs came from. None of that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

macspoofing 5y ago
>he didn't say causation, she said correlation. "I began to think that there was an important correlation between this data and my symptoms." Read on, because she then becomes convinced and send a message to her property manager that starts off with "The chemicals are still pouring out full blast." and starts her crusade until the management company lets her out of her lease (she wonders why they would do such a thing, but from sidelines, it's obvious - they don't want to deal with her anymore because even after they paid a contractor to test her apartment and surrounding area, she's not satisfied). >She was open to the site not being the cause. "I was thinking: If you don’t want me to be worried about this chemical’s impact to my health, you should tell me exactly why it wasn’t included in the clean-up despite being above residential limits." Are we reading the same thing? She's already down the rabbit hole by this point. She's asking non sequiturs and setting irrational standards. She wants answers to a thing that has nothing to do with anything she's going through. Again, there were multitude of reports, tests, and assessments that deemed the site safe - she just doesn't believe any of them (almost like she's asserting a consipracy) >Also, she mentioned a few times that doctors, government, and even Irvine Company's public relations person admitted VOCs made her sick, but just didn't know where the VOCs came from. Are you sure they did? And if they did, how would they know? And if they didn't, why would they challenge her? They don't know the situation. If you're a government employee tasked with handling her complaint, at some level all you can do is be empathetic and courteous. She seems to mistake this for agreement. None of it is convincing at all. Again, I have no idea what the cause of symptoms are but the way she became convinced that this MUST be the answer 'smells' off to me.

macspoofing 5y ago

>he didn't say causation, she said correlation. "I began to think that there was an important correlation between this data and my symptoms." Read on, because she then becomes convinced and send a message to her property manager that starts off with "The chemicals are still pouring out full blast." and starts her crusade until the management company lets her out of her lease (she wonders why they would do such a thing, but from sidelines, it's obvious - they don't want to deal with her anymore because even after they paid a contractor to test her apartment and surrounding area, she's not satisfied). >She was open to the site not being the cause. "I was thinking: If you don’t want me to be worried about this chemical’s impact to my health, you should tell me exactly why it wasn’t included in the clean-up despite being above residential limits." Are we reading the same thing? She's already down the rabbit hole by this point. She's asking non sequiturs and setting irrational standards. She wants answers to a thing that has nothing to do with anything she's going through. Again, there were multitude of reports, tests, and assessments that deemed the site safe - she just doesn't believe any of them (almost like she's asserting a consipracy) >Also, she mentioned a few times that doctors, government, and even Irvine Company's public relations person admitted VOCs made her sick, but just didn't know where the VOCs came from. Are you sure they did? And if they did, how would they know? And if they didn't, why would they challenge her? They don't know the situation. If you're a government employee tasked with handling her complaint, at some level all you can do is be empathetic and courteous. She seems to mistake this for agreement. None of it is convincing at all. Again, I have no idea what the cause of symptoms are but the way she became convinced that this MUST be the answer 'smells' off to me.