Children's Health at Risk from Environment

Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 13:10:31 -0400 (AST)
From: "David M. Wimberly" <ag487@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: Sustainable-Maritimes <sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca>
Return-Path: <sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

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