21 Apr
2015
21 Apr
'15
1:18 p.m.
niki, I understand your exasperation
All I'm trying to say is that someone should be clear to her that there are
quite a few people at the Omni who may be violently opposed to these types
of accessibility requests, even though they seem completely reasonable
because "The community is not some amorphous / boundless resource *nor* is
it some perfect ideological object."
I know I felt personally attacked and invalidated (and still do over a lot
of the accessibility stuff) when bringing up a very similar topic and it
might be useful to warn her that there's a very good and real chance people
might be jerks to her about a very sensitive subject. Or that
her proposals might get ignored/unheeded because the priorities of the
space are elsewhere.
I'm not saying it well because I am tired and personally hurt by a lot of
the accessibility stuff.
"I think it's reasonable to say that we haven't found someone who has the
time / energy to take this on right now and that people who have concerns
around these issues should perhaps wait to engage with us until we're in a
more solid place. "
This is exactly what the Omni should say wrt a lot of accessibility stuff
in my opinion, and not what's been happening. Which is a major reason
there's a lot of hurt.
However, I do think that we *have* found someone who can take this on or at
least help and see if we *can*. She should just uh, be warned that not
everyone's on board.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Nicholas Oakley <nickoakley510(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Perhaps my reply was unseen ? There are many ways
& dimensions for
accessibility issues.All of our concerns,ideas are important and valid
.However there are already certain standards that can be applied
intermediately as the Omni community continues to fine tune and
congeal its protocol.
On 4/21/15, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just reminding people what the original request
was about, which was
dealing primarily with the use of certain* building materials*:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:06 PM, niki <niki.shelley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
throughout
she was particularly concerned with building
improvements and the impact
on those with chemical sensitivities. [...]
She asked us to not use any materials that will inhibit those with
chemical sensitivities from accessing the space and to create
communication
around our accessibility and needs.
I do think we should use materials that are low in volatile organic
compounds (VOCs):
- Paint: low-VOC paint is available, and doesn't cost all that much more.
Needless to say, also much more pleasant for the painters to work with...
- Particle board has a known issue with outgassing formaldehyde its lifespan. Sealing it can drastically slow
that down. I bet there are
low-formaldehyde options available as well, but haven't had time to look
into this yet. Looks like there's some formaldehyde-free plywood at least
- Drywall / sheetrock: looks like there was a bit of a scare with Chinese
sheetrock, and with Chinese materials making it into US-made sheetrock,
but
that may have been mostly an East Coast problem:
http://www.propublica.org/article/american-made-drywall-emerges-as-potentia…
http://debralynndadd.com/q-a/how-safe-is-sheetrock/
"I called up Home Depot – where we had just bought drywall yesterday, and
the manager checked with his supplier. *All the California Home Depots
use
natural gypsum mined in Mexico, and their drywall
is Greenguard
certified.
He said he thought it was the East Coast that
used the synthetic stuff*."
This is all just based on 15 minutes of googling - if someone else has
more
time to investigate, that would be greatly
appreciated!
Patrik
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss