Saturday, 8 May 2010 Please Note; The following is written without prejudice.
…and so the saga continues.
Most parents of children at the Chameleons Montessori will by now have received (via email) the minutes and other details surrounding the vine spraying issue.
I feel I have quite thoroughly analysed ( in the post below this one) most of what was presented at the meeting so I won’t bother to restate that opinion again.
It’s a fair bit of reading so be warned, but I would suggest that you will believe the effort was well worthwhile once you are in a position to form a more informed opinion regarding your child’s health.
As I’ve taken my own child out of the school until it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the environment poses no significant risk to his long term health I am now apparently considered to be outside the ongoing discussion. This was confirmed to me by an unguarded comment from Emma in a recent telephone conversation when she asked me “so you still think you’re involved do you?”
To be frank, I’m not at all surprised by this as it merely confirms the claims of a number of disaffected parents before me. I take the view, though, that this matter is far too serious to allow this sort of censoring of dissenting opinion to be allowed. So I hope you’ll forgive me for sending you this letter. I’m doing this because I honestly feel every parent has the right to know everything there is to know about the subject and how this may impact on our children.
In my view the school has repeatedly demonstrated it’s lack of clear thinking and inadequacy to properly, and impartially, asses the growing evidence, from some of the worlds leading research bodies, that long term exposure to even very mild doses of agricultural chemicals poses a very real and present danger.
At the meeting I reported the views of the head of the UCT Dept of Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit of the School of Public Medicine, Prof Leslie London and Dr Andrea Rother.
They state quite clearly that present legislation and safety guidelines are hopelessly inadequate with regard to assessing the potential hazards and long term effects on human health. They make it additionally clear that children are far more vulnerable. Their view is that until these agricultural chemicals can be proven to be perfectly safe we must take the view that they are dangerous to health.
Despite this sort of highly educated and informed opinion the school continues to rely on the reassurances of the farmer, Mr Bernard Veller (who admitted at the meeting he knows nothing about the complexities of the chemicals he uses)
Prof. London also details the actual flaws in the present scheme as to how these chemicals are assessed for use. I described this at the meeting but, revealingly, not one of the Business Steering Committee nor Emma were prepared to look at the documents I had sourced from Prof London and Dr Rother.
Instead, they continue to rely on safety data which has been shown to be irrelevant and possibly even dangerously misleading.
I don’t want to go into too much further deconstruction of the school’s indefensible position so will confine myself to a couple of points relating to the latest “releases” from the school.
The minutes state that “No organophosphates are used on the farm”
At the meeting, though, Bernard repeatedly said that generally he didn’t use organophosphates. To me this is an admission that he is unwilling to state categorically that he does not use the stuff.
Organophosphates were developed from research into nerve gas warfare.
Organophosphates are created by chemical reactions based on Phosphoric Acid
The newest list of chemicals used on the farm, as provided in the recent email from the school lists Phosphite 400FL
If you refer to that list you will note that the active ingredient of Phosphite 400FL
is Phosphoric Acid.
I’ll leave you to reach your own conclusion as to what this means.
With reference to the new list of chemicals used you’ll see that there are now 8 named. If you look closely at the spraying schedule, though, you will find a total of 14 different products. It seems the school’s confusion continues.
It’s also worth considering that when it’s stated spraying only happens at 6 times a year when the school is actually open this usually means for 2 or 3 days at a time and that as the schedule shows, 6 or more products are being applied at once.
One last point I must make regards the focus on spray drift. While this is obviously a very visible aspect to consider this is only half of the problem. The truth is that the ongoing use of these chemicals on a working farm means that the ambient air is contaminated with a complex cocktail of compounds. Studies in France, in wine farming regions, have confirmed this and the probable link to significant increases of a wide range of health problems.
The fact is we really have no real idea of the scale of the danger but what is undeniable is that it exists. To deny this seems to me to be profoundly immoral and intellectually lazy to say the very least.
A group of, now far better informed, and concerned parents have formed an association and have obtained legal representation from the Legal Resource Centre. We intend to present our concerns as a unified voice and to request that the school address the reality of the true situation as is revealed by the most up to date scientific research and assessments of the leading and objective scientists in the field.
We have reached the conclusion that the school has already made it clear it will not move from Nitida and that it continues to deny the full extent of the potential risks. Even if the farm were to completely change it’s present spaying practices it will take a couple of years to implement such a drastic change.
As such we have begun to explore the possibility of starting an independent school to provide an ongoing education for our children. Initial discussions have been very encouraging and if all continues as we plan we will be “up and running” by the start of next term.
Sincerely,
Ford Hallam
No comments:
Post a Comment