Dear Editor,
I feel compelled to write this letter, because I found the news item, which attracted my attention, nothing short of incredible, if not surreal.
On the evening, of Mon-day September 1, 2008, I was watching the NCN news and, having heard what was being reported by the Minister of Education, I felt it necessary to watch the video of the same item later on Prime News and the Evening News to confirm what I had heard.
The Minister was reporting to the nation that the premises of the University of Guyana are ready for occupation, but, what I found unbelievable was his complaint that the reason why the buildings were not being occupied was because the university administration was insisting that air quality tests be conducted.
Mr Editor, it must be understood that the reason why state resources were expended to remove the carcinogenic asbestos from the buildings at UG was to ensure that those buildings would become fit for human habitation and safe for the health of the occupants. Therefore, it would be expected that, in order to assure themselves that this was so, the Ministry of Education, supported technically by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (which is legally responsible for the protection of the environment, including that of the university) and the Ministry of Health (which is responsible for the health of the nation), would, before handing back the buildings to the university administration, have air quality tests conducted, as a mandatory requirement to ensure that all residues of the carcinogen asbestos had been removed.
Mr Editor, one would normally expect the following procedure to be followed:
1. The contractor would be required to remove all asbestos from the buildings.
2. The EPA would inspect the buildings to ensure that all traces of asbestos were removed by the contractor.
3. Only if the EPA was satisfied that all residues of asbestos were removed would approval be give for new ceilings to be installed.
4. On completion of the works by the contractor, the EPA, supported by the Ministry of Health, would have air quality tests conducted to ensure that all traces of asbestos were removed from the buildings of UG.
5. Only when the EPA, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education are satisfied that all buildings are safe for human occupation – all health risks have been eliminated – would the university administration be authorised to reoccupy those buildings.
In the circumstances, Mr Editor, you, and the rest of the Guyanese public, would understand why I found the explanation of the Minister of Education so disturbing, since he appeared to be suggesting that the university administration was being unreasonable to request that air quality tests should be conducted.
Yours faithfully,
E. Lance Carberry, MP
