Maluhia Group (Maluia-WCMS): August 2007

About Us

Maluhia Group was formed in response to a complete failure of public agencies responsible for the regulation, monitoring, and protection of the public’s health and welfare in relation to pesticide use and G.M.O. agriculture on lands adjacent WCMS campus. State agencies have acted in an extemporaneous, insufficient, negligent manner in investigating multiple incidents of pesticide exposure as the result of drift on WCMS campus. Maluhia Group seeks legislative action creating pesticide free buffer zones, strict guidelines for pesticide use, including liability for drift, misuse and any ill health effects caused by G.M.O agricultural practices.

E-mail: Maluia-WCMS@hotmail.com

August 25, 2007

Protecting Children from Pesticides

Kids need Protection

Children are at a greater risk for some pesticides for a number of reasons. Children's internal organs are still developing and maturing and their enzymatic, metabolic, and immune systems may provide less natural protection than those of an adult. There are "critical periods" in human development when exposure to a toxin can permanently alter the way an individual's biological system operates. Children may be exposed more to certain pesticides because often they eat different foods than adults. For instance, children typically consume larger quantities of milk, applesauce, and orange juice per pound of body weight than do adults. Children's behaviors, such as playing on the floor or on the lawn where pesticides are commonly applied, or putting objects in their mouths, increase their chances of exposure to pesticides. Adverse effects of pesticide exposure range from mild symptoms of dizziness and nausea to serious, long-term neurological, developmental and reproductive disorders. Americans use more than a billion pounds of pesticides each year to combat pests on farm crops, in homes, places of business, schools, parks, hospitals, and other public places (1,2,3).

1. "Protecting Children from Pesticides"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/kidpesticide.htm
2. Pesticide Effects on Children: A landmark study* of preschool children, who were exposed to pesticides...
http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNS99PestEffChild.htm
3. "Pesticide Toxicity and the Developing Brain" http://www.box.net/shared/lcbvw2woww

4. Image: "Do Not Spray - Pesticide Free Zone"
http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/donotspraysign.htm

August 12, 2007

Subjugated Knowledge

"We are a goverment of laws, not of men." Bruce Fein

On 08/08/07 Maluia-WCMS@hotmail.com received an unsolicited e-mail from Rodney Iwasaki of the Hawaii Dept. of Education (2). In the e-mail Mr. Iwasaki did not identify his position in the D.O.E but asseverated that his correspondence represented the Department of Education's response addressing Maluia-WCMS concerns. In an effort to provide explanation of what "has occurred to ensure that students and staff will return to a safe environment at Waimea Canyon Middle School and did Syngenta break the agreement;" Mr. Iwasaki has provided evidence of a continued pattern of complacency that has been endmeic of state agency anemic response to our concerns. Below is a list of questions any logical person would consider after reading Mr. Iwasaki's e-mail:

How long after Syngenta spray operations in field #809 did the environmental consultant conduct the pesticide screen?

Being that you are aware of the rapid metabolism rate of the found chemical Premethrin, why were the metabolic (1/2 life) rates of known sprayed cholinesterase inhibiting chemicals by Syngenta not considered when samples were collected during the D.O.E. screening?

Why did you provide a "sample" of the pesticide screen report and not the original (2)?

Looking at a GoogleEarth map with a total map scale of 568ft., how do you conclude Spraying inside the demarcation line of 660 feet to the school prior to 3:30 p.m. did not occur (3)?

Comparing the scaled GoogleEarth map with the video titled "Obdurate Behavior (Part 2)," , how do you conclude that it took the spray operator an hour to complete his task if working towards the school (4)?

How can you state that, "in the near future, Syngenta will be installing a buffer between the school and Field 809," when in fact the hedgerow along W.C.M.S campus is being removed (6)?

In the initial agreement letter Syngenta defers responsibility of establishing a "buffer" (understood to be a land easement) protecting students/staff from pesticide exposure to the landowner Kikiola Land Co.. Why is this effort not listed as a "point under discussion" with Syngenta or the landowner taking responsibility (2,5)?

As a proactive measure Syngenta is "encouraging existing plants, such as the African Tulip, Date Palms and other species to act as a buffer, which will help reduce or eliminate odors caused by spraying." Isn't this an admission that pesticide is the genesis of odors believed to be causing numerous student/staff illnesses at W.C.M.S (2)?

Why are Syngenta's "points still under discussion", only concerned with sharing their business model/philosophy and not an effort to exclude their application of cholinesterase inhibiting pesticide upwind of W.C.M.S as the cause of numerous repeated student/staff illnesses (that by coincidence are listed on known sprayed chemical MSDS)?