Jump to content
Last login: Sunday, July 11, 2010
I do not understand Dr. Ziring's focus on the school garden. If he talked to the volunteer parents, he would learn the kids spend very little time in the school garden throughout the year (especially compared to their daily recess in the playground/dirt fields). Also, the dirt in the organic raised bed gardens are from outside sources (ie Home Depot, etc.). The kids also bring maybe 1-2 vegetables home a year if any at all. He doesn't question the dirt where the fruits and vegetables we eat everyday come from. They are likely from land farmed for decades and exposed to the same pesticides that were used 30-40 years ago (what soil are organic products or strawberries grown on?). The farms likely used pesticides over the last 30 years as well.
I also don't understand why he claims the analysis of census tracts did not address the cancer concerns at Kelly. The CCR broke down the data by census tracts or neighborhoods around Kelly. If there was a cancer cluster, why would it not show up in the neighborhoods around Kelly?
If you compare the data from the CCR and the data gathered by the concerned parents, there is no doubt the CCR data is more comprehensive and verifiable. Only half the cases gathered by the concerned parents were verified. We need to verify the 18 childhood cases associated with Kelly. I think the CCR is doing that.
Without a verifiable cancer cluster, any contaminant found at Kelly cannot be linked to an increase in cancer. However, as a parent, I think Kelly should be tested if the parents pay for it. I think there would not be such outcry and press if the school administrators listened to the parents in the first place.
July 11, 2010 at 8:47 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2013 KPBS