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)?
- Are we a government of laws, or of men/women representing corporate interests (1)?
2. Rodney Iwasaki Syngenta exoneration e-mail for 02/27/07 "Obdurate Behavior"