What is the science behind the decision to permanently stigmatize the Colonarie River?
“Public Service Announcement
The Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment appeals to the general public to not purchase tri-tri from persons who have harvested such fish from the Colonaire river…. The Ministry once again reminds persons who make use of the Colonaire river to avoid doing so, given that materials from the Park Hill Cemetery are still being washed into that river… The consumption of tri-tri from such a contaminated source of water presents a significant public health risk…{{more}}
Luis De Shong
Permanent Secretaryâ
As this is the Governmentâs official position, the general public needs clarification on how this position was arrived at. If it was done after the perusal of scientific evidence, there must be a delineation of the contaminants in the Colonarie river. Additionally, a comparison between the contents of the Colonarie river, and the PerseÂverance, Congo Valley, BuccaÂment, Richmond and Yambou rivers would be required.
As you will recall, downstream from the old Park Hill Cemetery, there are people who rely on this river for entrepreneurial, and hygienic purposes. If your evidence is anecdotal, then it should be clearly stated exactly where the constant wash-out is occurring.
However, if surface water from the cemetery runs off into the river, one could surmise that this would occur whenever it rains. Hence, it would be a regular occurrence that happens at the new cemetery, and also must have transpired at the closed one. Therefore, the run-off would have been happening before the unfortunate wash-out of a few graves.
Mr DeShong needs to elucidate on the science behind his decision to permanently stigmatize this river. Supposedly, this is not a whisper, or a sou-sou campaign by villagers sitting under a tree “ole-talkingâ. This is the official position of Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on this matter.
One can anticipate the naysayers using the “better safe than sorryâ argument. However, it is safer, and perhaps more cowardly, to issue such a capricious edict. It will certainly be sad to observe the fallout that is bound to follow. With so many livelihoods at risk of being affected by this edict, there is a duty of care to ensure that its issuance was made on the basis of sound science.
In the absence of any supporting information, this edict must be reversed immediately, and the necessary work done to limit the damage already caused by the Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment.
Chrys
Comments
