You can access them simply by double clicking the link and saving a copy on your pc.
If you only read one of these I suggest this, first one; Pesticides and Health. In fact I'd go further and suggest that everyone who has children should read this document. It's quite easy to follow and may be quite valuable in terms of informing our decisions about the safety of our children.
Pesticides and Health
A highly recommended manual (22 pages) that provides a very clear and accurate overview of the subject. Produced by Prof. Leslie London of the Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit of the School of Public Health and Family Medicine. University of Cape Town.
I've made mention previously of Prof. London and Dr Anthea Rother's commentary on the Dept. of Agriculture's proposed new policy of 2006. This is presumably to update and revise the existing 1947 legislation. You can read the full text on the the UCT website here.
OEHRU commentary on National Pesticide Policy 2006
It's the second, blue highlighted, link you want. This analysis provides a very good idea of the weaknesses and flaws in the present legislation regarding health and safety issues. Of particular concern is the obvious vulnerability of children.
Cancer Report (Presidents Cancel Panel) Chapter 2 Agricultural Sources
A report produced in 2009 for the President of the USA
Pesticides and the Immune System
This is a fairly large file ( 11MB) and runs to 110 pages. Produced by the the World Resources Institute. It looks at a broad range of available research evidence to asses the impact of Agricultural Chemicals on our Immune Systems. This is an area only recently being investigated and the emerging picture is not reassuring.
Published Medical Research into Mancozeb and Folpet
No denying the fact that these are not nice chemicals to be around.
What's your poison? Compiled and written by the Environmental Justice Foundation; www.ejfoundation.org
Chameleons Montessori email of the 27April2010
I've referred to this email a number of times in my various posts here so with the intent of providing everything I can I'm storing a copy here for reference.
The Rachel Carson memorial lecture
Some further insights into the growing, global awareness of the risks posed by agricultural chemicals.
Please note that other parents support the school and that we also have access to the internet and blogs. Watch this space.
ReplyDeletewe've been waiting since last March....and the school has yet to show us anything that really reassures anyone other than those with vested interests.
ReplyDeleteAs the saying goes; "There's none so blind as those who will not see"
In any case, telling us you have parents that support your position is hardly evidence the school is a safe environment for children. At the very least it brings into question the ability of the school, as educators, to reason logically. There's a huge question mark over their scientific literacy also.
My 8 year old seems to have a better grasp of the implications of exposing little children to chemicals we know very little about.
We're watching and waiting all right....
I'd also suggest that if you want anyone to take you seriously you don't hide who you are....unless, of course you have something to hide.
I have been looking at this blog from time to time and for the life of me can’t find any rationale in what is being said here. It has to be personal. For it to be out of concern for the children, just seems too much of a reach. Everyone has the right to make decisions for their children, but this attempt to influence the whole community is worrying. There is so much disinformation and repeating of old incorrect info that it becomes a bit tedious. It seems as though the author truly believes that there is a conspiracy and only he can save the world by exposing whatever it is? I just want to state publicly and I am certainly not going to get into any argument here with the moderator on anyone else. I have a son at the school, I have no vested interest in the school succeeding or not. I have spoken to a number of parents, many of them highly intelligent, qualified people who have absolutely no intention of leaving the school. No they are not irresponsible or reckless parents. They have looked at all the available facts and just don’t see any reason. I am not posting this to belittle anyone, but merely in the hope that whoever reads this blog will get a slightly more balanced view. My name and e-mail address is below. Peter Deavall peter@worldcat.co.za
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your willingness to post but am somewhat surprised at the conclusion you reach and the personal nature of much of what you write.
Neither have you actually offered any proof of your assertions, just like the school really. Simply saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. Although it did work for Bush and the WMD lies. Anyone who takes the time to read this blog will find that I've provided ample evidence for what is written here.
Attacking my motivations and attempting to denigrate what I'm attempting to do is an Ad Hominum attack. This sort of tactic is generally the last resort of people who won't, or can't, deal with the real topic of debate.
Prof: London said, at the talk he gave at the school on the 27 May, that he wouldn't put a school on a wine farm. (I'll soon be writing up a detailed commentary of the view he presented,and that the school seemed unable to hear) You evidently disagree with his highly qualified opinion.
You spoke with some highly intelligent people but don't give any clue as to how they convinced you...what did you talk about? The football?, they're qualified too....at what? How is their intelligence and their qualifications actually relevant? Clearly you all disagree with Prof. London....who's qualifications are vitally relevant.
What special insight do you, as a group, have that trumps the opinions of one of the countries leading experts on the subject?....I'd be fascinated to hear. I imagine so would the good Professor because, obviously, according to you lot, he's got it all wrong.
If you really want to try and effect a balanced view try presenting some facts for our readers to consider and don't make yourself look desperate by attacking my character.
"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack."
Hi Ford. Thank you for publishing my post. You seem to be a very angry man. I can still not fathom why? I have reread what I posted and your reaction thereto reaffirms, in my mind the sinister nature of what you are attempting to do. The fact that Prof London said he would not put a school on a wine farm is but one aspect of what he spoke of. It would be beneficial if you posted everything he said. Not only what seems to benefit your cause, whatever that cause may be. The DVD’s are freely available. Once again, I submit this post purely to try and bring some balance to this blog. Peter Deavall
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeletewhen you say I seem to be a very angry man do you mean in general or that I am angry about a specific situation? You really need to clarify this because they are very different things.
I am am angry at the present situation, naturally, that you can't fathom why strikes me as somewhat disingenuous, to say the least.
To characterise my intentions as "sinister" is verging on the ridiculous and I point out, yet again, you present nothing of substance with which to balance the view expressed on this blog other than to continue to attack me personally.
Please point out the "disinformation and repeating of old incorrect info" and I'll address it....I can't if you simply make vague criticisms.
I find this comment of yours very odd;
"The fact that Prof London said he would not put a school on a wine farm is but one aspect of what he spoke of."
True, it's one aspect but quite a central one, don't you think?
I will be transcribing the talk and highlighting the point the Professor made without being questioned. Those points he felt needed to be heard.
There's no need for me to repeat those bits the school latched on to in a desperate attempt to justify their position.