next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Please reply on this to Karen Robinson. Her group wrote this. More
available on request from her or me.
****************************************************
* Karen Robinson
* Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
* (902) 457-3002
* am077@ccn.cs.dal.ca
****************************************************
MEDIA RELEASE
Citizens for A Safe Learning Environment (CASLE)
April 1, 1998 457-3002, 861-1851
______________________________________________________________________
The NS Department of Education deserves recognition for its role in the
substantial progress toward providing safer and healthier school
environments. However, this progress, and our children's health and
futures, are being put at risk by the support the Langley Report is
receiving from the Department of Health.
Parts of the Langley Report on Environmental Hypersensitivity (EH) were
recently sent to all physicians in the Province and to officials in all
Provincial School Boards. A February 19, 1998 letter from Dr. Dan Reid,
Advisor on Physician Affairs, Dept of Health, to Mr. Doug Nauss, Dept of
Education and Culture has been sent throughout the Province's school
system. Also included was a copy of the Langley Report's Clinical
Guidelines for Management of EH in NS.
Severe flaws in this report have been pointed out to the Department of
Health Officials, including Dr. Reid and the Minister of Health. At
least two detailed dissenting reports from Environmental Medicine
Specialists, and a press release from the American Academy of
Environmental Medicine (enclosed) have been given to the Department in
response to the ill informed conclusions of the Langley Report. Despite
all of this expert input, the Department has chosen to send the flawed
guidelines throughout the Province.
CASLE strongly objects to this act whereby highly credible experts are
ignored in favour of publicising a biased and uninformed report which has
the potential to harm many people in our province, including the
children in our schools.
Many institutions, including the World Health Organization, the US EPA,
The CMHC, Health Canada, warn us of the vulnerability of children and of
the need to protect them from everyday pollutants and biological
contaminants. Too many parents across the province have watched their
children's health decline as a result of chemical or mould exposures either
in the home or in their schools. These children suffer from pain,
rashes, fatigue, asthma, learning disabilities, seizures, and much more.
The Langley Report would have us believe this physical suffering is
likely of psychological origin. Ulcers, lupus, epilepsy, syphilis and
even asthma were once thought to be of psychological origin. Also, what
of the children and infants who became environmentally ill in the Camp
Hill Hospital daycare? What were the psychological causes there?
This is not to deny that fear and lack of knowledge can sometimes make
things worse. In schools, more knowledge can help remove unnecessary
fear and anger on the part of parents, and well informed officials can
deal more effectively and confidently with school environment crises.
When an environmental health system is working properly, Prevention and
Early Intervention to avoid development of chronic illness can save both
human suffering and health dollars.
Public education and prevention were to be two of the functions of the NS
Environmental Health Centre (NSEHC). There are Environmental Health and
research clinics all over the world. Nova Scotia has the world's first
GOVERNMENT FUNDED environmental health centre. Due to the research
pressures from Langley committee supporters, the NSEHC isn't able to
address Treatment/Education/Prevention of EH as it could. Citizens
groups such as CASLE have struggled to fill the gap in public
education. It appears that the narrow view of the Langley Report will
further threaten the progress made in school environmental health
protection.
These questionable documents were made public for a reason. What could
be the purpose of not recognizing the physical reality of EH? In the
short term, the government could save MSI dollars, Workers Compensation,
liability, and funds to repair aging public buildings. It could help
justify spending less money and effort on cleaning up our schools. This
short sighted act could cause many children to continue to spend their days
being exposed to harmful products, practices and substandard buildings.
The Department of Health has been provided with strong evidence that puts
the accuracy of the Langley Report in question. CASLE is dismayed that
the Department of Health would make this questionable report public -
unchallenged or unbalanced by equal documentation from specialists in
Environmental Medicine.
The Department of Health has the responsibility of protecting citizen's
health. Why then are they allowing the one sided opinions of a few
doctors to put the will to change school environmental conditions at
risk, and consequently, put the children of our province at risk?
For more information and a more complete survey of the deficiencies of
the Langley Report, you may obtain copies of the dissenting reports by
calling 1-800-565-3611. Ask for both the Beresford Report and the
Response to the Langley Report by the Nova Scotia Environmental Health
Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University.
[End of Media Release]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects