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