Momentarily, I was heartened by the headline ‘Recognising responsibility to community' (Weekend Sun, August 16). But as I read on I realised what I was reading was not recognition but whitewash written for an unsuspecting urban population.
Mr Chapman failed to mention that hi-cane has been detected in air 70 kilometres from the spray site, how safe does that make anyone feel in the Bay of Plenty area.
I provided a submission for the ERMA review in 2006 and attended the meeting. The report provided, as a result of many submissions, did not (from memory) state that the risks were very low,. It stated there were risks but they were overshadowed by the economic advantages provided by hi-cane. So, for the sake of a wealthy few, we are all exposed to this substance similar to the defoliant Agent Orange.
In the 2006 report it was also noted that there would be another review in five years. We have never been notified about another review and I would like Mr Chapman to identify why this review has never happened.
This current hi-cane season we have yet again been affected by hi-cane overspray with a healthy two-year-old hedge losing its leaves just days after a hi-cane spray by one of our neighbours. What is interesting is that the hotline noted by Mr Chapman is it is more interested in the notification process of intented spraying than the actual damage done to our property. It always comes back to the victim having to prove that it was hi-cane, rather like a rape victim having to prove who the rapist was. In reality, it is the whole Bay of Plenty that is the victim with the continued use of this spray.

M Parker, Pahoia.