Update: Sunday 20 June 2010

Update: Sunday 20 June 2010

I received an email a little while ago, from the school, most of it irrelevant fluff but this bone of contention regarding my allegation that teachers were threatened etc and the school's denial of any knowledge thereof was alluded to. I quote from the email;

"Yesterday morning we held a meeting with Brendon Bailes, Chairperson of the newly formed PTA and Wayne Campbell, Vice Chairperson of the PTA. One of the items discussed was the school’s position on items that you had raised with Brendon.

The school welcomes your input into the work of the Environmental Health Committee and appreciates any information that you may have to share that would shed light on the vine spraying issue. The school will however not enter into discussion on internal matters with you, and will continue to follow recognised internal procedures for such matters."

They refuse to acknowledge what Brendon has already confirmed in his emails to me...how awkward...for them! They made the matter public, called my integrity into question and now, when they are shown to be covering up the truth, they refuse to discuss the matter any further.

I'm a bit disappointed at this utter lack of moral courage the school continues to display but I take comfort in the sure knowledge the truth will out.....eventually.

Update: 24 June 2010

One of the parents who is still considered worthy of being kept informed forwarded me a copy of the latest EHC meeting minutes, today. The issue of the teachers having felt threatened was finally acknowledged.

I quote from the minutes;

"Emma and Claire went on to report that they had also consulted with Joanne and Abi-Gail as to whether they had received threats of law suits from the school should any parent remove their children from the school citing vineyard spraying. Joanne and Abi-Gail referred back to January when they issued the school with a grievance letter regarding a meeting held with Emma, Claire and a member of the business steering committee. In the grievance raised, the Directress’ said that they felt threatened by the way in which they had been addressed. This grievance was addressed through the appropriate internal procedures. An independent HR consultant was brought in to resolve the issues raised by the directress’. In this process Emma and Claire clarified with the Directress’ that this was not their intention and that the school would in no way presume to threaten the Directress’ in any way. With the assistance of the HR consultant everyone agreed that they felt that the issues raised had been resolved and clarified. Emma and Claire were therefore under the impression that the matter had been resolved via this process (in early February). No further mention of such issues was raised by the Directress’ again. When Ford Hallam recently raised the issue that Directress’ had been threatened with law suits from the school, Emma and Claire did not make the association of this to the above Grievance and therefore made the statement below (as stated in the minutes of the EHC dated 27 May 2010).
“The school went on to state that Ford’s comment with regard to staff being threatened with legal action should a parent remove their child citing vine spraying as the reason is completely unfounded and untrue. The school has no idea where such a sentiment stems from."
"

So there you have it. Yes, teachers did feel as though they'd been threatened. The "member of the BSC" referred to was Dave D'Aguiar by the way. I mention this because I take the view that his attitude and behaviour in this whole matter regarding the spraying has been extremely inappropriate. This is something I'll elaborate on in later posts.

Personally, I find "the school's" claim that they didn't make a connection between my allegation and the grievance complaint to be very dubious, to say the least.

I wonder if the school will now send out an email to all parents correcting the impression they created, that there was no foundation for the allegation. Will the school now admit that I was not misinformed and that the school (inexplicably) "didn't make the connection" to a serious grievance complaint made by the teachers in January that details precisely what I alluded to?

The matter of the "white, sticky residue" was also brought up. It was reported that both the teachers confirmed that they'd reported their concerns over this, towards the end of last year, to Emma and Claire. I quote again from the minutes;

"Emma and Claire said that they do not have any recollection of being given such information"

This I find extremely worrying. It suggests, that at a time when one teacher is experiencing serious health problems that her doctor diagnosed as being due to "an external irritant" in the lungs, the school seems to have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the other teachers concerns over a visible spray residue in the actual school building. It would appear that yet again they "didn't make the connection".

How sadly ironic....Chameleons Montessori completely out of step with enlightened thinking about our future.

It would be quite funny if it wasn't so sad but while our Chameleons Montessori school is fighting tooth and nail to remain in the middle of a working wine farm and to thereby continue exposing children unnecessarily to potential heath risks, over in Ontario, Canada, the Stratford Montessori school is part of an enlightened champaign to make their environment pesticide free.

You can have a read about the project by following this link.

It's reassuring to see that there are Montessori schools in the world who really do care about their children's health and that our school may hopefully only be an anomaly it it's inability to see the best way forward in terms of creating a safer and healthier world for our children to grow up in.

Chameleons Montessori Policy regarding vineyard spraying

On the DVD made of the talk and Q&A session with Prof. London at the Chameleons School recently ( 25 May 2010) the principal, Emma Medell, details the school's policy with regard to protecting the children from chemical spray drift. This can be heard at 35:30 into the film.

The following is a word for word transcription.

"Just for the record, I don't know if everybody is aware of what our policy is in the school, that if there is vine spraying the children don't go outside to play.

They are kept indoors while the spraying is going on and then for 2 hours afterwards. There have been criticisms about how healthy it is in the middle of the summer for the children to be kept indoors. The windows are open for some fresh, for some air. They are not all wide open but there are windows open so there is some fresh air.

So that's kind of where it stands so they are protected by the building at that stage and for 2 hours thereafter."

(there's some other comment form other people at this point but it's difficult to hear exactly as there's too much mumbling) and then Emma continues...

"and spraying down outside after, the hosing down afterwards outside."

I'm pretty certain anyone reading this "official policy" will be immediately struck by the absurd contradiction it displays. The children are kept indoors to protect them from the chemical spray but some of the windows are open to allow in fresh air!

This is so ridiculous it would be funny were it not so indicative of the completely inadequate understanding of reality of the problem on the part of the school. An 8 year old can see the flaw of this the pretence of "protecting the children", mine immediately did when I explained it to him.

We're told the children are kept in while there's spraying going on and for 2 hours afterwards. No particular proximity is given but I would suggest that any time there is active spraying being conducted on the farm it would be appropriate to take some sort of effective protective action.

We now know that, despite the continued misapprehension among many parents that it's only 6 days a year, spraying takes place on at least 10 dates, as indicated on the last spray schedule we were given. Each of those dates indicates spaying activity that lasts anywhere from 2 to 3 days. Mr Veller, the owner of Nitida, has further confirmed, that typically, the spraying lasts from 7am until 5:30 pm each day.

If you compare the actual reality of spray activity on the farm and the school's policy of keeping the children indoors you will clearly recognise yet another apparent contradiction. How, exactly are the children kept indoors for 2 hours after the spraying when the spraying only finishes after the school day ends? and in addition, is already under way an hour before school even starts in the morning?

In my view this "policy" is nothing more than a pretence to suggest something is being done because, clearly, it is practically irrelevant.

As for hosing down afterwards; I don't know anyone who can confirm that they've actually ever seen evidence of this at all. Remember, we're talking about completely wet grounds when you collect your children, for 3 days at a time about every 2 weeks, during the summer. I think we'd have noticed...don't you? I assume they would have needed to wash all the windows each day too. It all hardly seems possible.

Neither can we imagine exactly how this "decontamination" would be carried out in such a way as to ensure the bulk of the spray residue has been effectively washed away. In fact, Prof. London, during his talk, suggested that water probably isn't the solution. I don't suppose he intended the pun.

If this farce isn't enough to convince you of the inadequacy of the schools response to the problem consider the following.

Right outside the schoolrooms is the swimming pool. This open body of water is completely exposed to the air, and whatever is in it, every day of the year. It serves as a perfect catchment area for every single chemical compound that may drift over the premises. There is no natural drainage, the water isn't replaced, merely topped up. I imagine the various compounds will gradually accumulate in the pool water, braking down to perhaps reform into any number of unknown, new compounds and be further complimented by the pool chemicals. Given the size of these chemical particles I think it reasonable to assume the pool's filtration unit will not be sufficiently fine nor sophisticated enough to keep the water free of these contaminants. Swimming pool filters are designed to remove solid matter not chemical residues.

Once a week for about 30 minutes or more, during summer, our children are routinely dipped for into this soup of completely unknown chemicals. You'll no doubt remember that the most common route for pesticide absorption is through the skin so by placing our semi-naked children in this water we maximise the potential for exposure. It's also likely the children swallow some of this water and eyes, ears and noses would obviously be quite sensitive to any potential irritants present.

I doubt that any scientific or medical research ethics council would allow such an obviously hazardous "experiment" to be be conducted. Yet at Chameleons Montessori the clear potential for very real harm to our children was simply not recognised.

Another potentially dangerous chemical under scrutiny.

A published article in the Scientific American journal gives cause for concern.

"Are Pesticides from Plants Dangerous to Humans?

It remains unclear how the pesticides from plants known as pyrethroids affect human health."

"Chemicals derived from flowers may sound harmless, but new research raises concerns about compounds synthesized from chrysanthemums that are used in virtually every household pesticide. "

"For at least a decade, pyrethroids have been the insecticide of choice for consumers, replacing organophosphate pesticides, which are far more toxic to people and wildlife. But evidence is mounting that the switch to less-toxic pyrethroids has brought its own set of new ecological and human health risks."

"Both California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are reevaluating the chemicals because of safety concerns. “Pyrethroids are obviously a safer alternative to organophosphates, but just because they are safer doesn’t mean they are safe,” said Dana Boyd Barr, a research professor of environmental health at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta, Georgia."

"Children are more highly exposed to pyrethroids because “they spend a lot more time on the floor and have much more hand to mouth activity,” Barr said. “Pyrethroids tend to accumulate in dust or on surface areas in homes because they don’t evaporate easily into the air."

"Studies with lab animals have linked pyrethroid exposure to damage of the thyroid, liver and nervous system, as well as impairment of behavioral development, changes in the immune system and disruption of reproductive hormones, according to the 2006 EPA review. These animal studies are relevant to human health because pyrethroids act on functions of the nervous system common to all animals, according to the EPA."

While I have not as yet identified any of these chemicals in products presently used on Nitida this story does serve to show how, as research accumulates, chemicals previously thought to be relatively safe are eventually recognised as being potentially a serious risk.

The full story can be read here.

Still no answers to the first issues I raised.

In a recent email to parents of the school on Nitida it was claimed that the Environmental Health Committee had spent many hours answering my many questions and that none of the answers provided have been reflected on this blog. So I will start at the beginning and detail the many questions I've posed and you can judge for yourself whether any credible answers have been forthcoming from the school. There are more to follow but these were the first comments I offered hoping for at least some response.

On the 3 May 2010, following the 27 April meeting to discuss the spaying issue I sent the following email to Emma Medell (the principle of the school) and the 4 members of the business steering committee, Dave and Alice D'Aguiar and Rolph and Fiona Walther. Accompanying this email was a copy of the full analysis, as I saw it, of the 27 April meeting and events as they effected my family leading up to this meeting.
This can be found here.

A summary of my own conclusions and my opinion on the issue is posted below, this was included in my email. I maintain that to date not one of these issues have been address nor even acknowledged. In fact, my email wasn't even acknowledged either. I am still waiting for these points to be answered.

"4 May 2010
Dear Emma, Alice, Dave, Fiona and Ralph

I'm writing to express, directly to you, my disappointment and sadness over the way recent events have unfolded.
I have considered each of you to be a friend. I've enjoyed your company on many occasions and felt a genuine bond with you.

My feelings about our most recent interaction with you as a group, in the the form of the Business Steering Committee and the school as a business, are, however, very different.

I feel I've been treated with a complete lack of courtesy or honesty. My perception of the way things prior to, and actually at, last Thursday's meeting appear are detailed in my, fairly lengthy, commentary below. If any of you should read it and feel you can demonstrate to me how and where I'm mistaken in my analysis I welcome being shown.

As things stand, I feel that, as a group, you have demonstrated a total disregard for any sort of balanced appraisal of the situation and have placed the schools business considerations before all others. I consider that in the evaluation of my son's safety and health there can be no other considerations to take into account at all.

What I personally find most baffling is how it is, while confessing your ignorance of any real facts, you are all, never-the-less, so adamant that this is a non-issue. Your willingness to throw out misleading, irrelevant and completely inaccurate information in defence of your, completely unexamined, stance leaves me feeling insulted, angry and bewildered.

I know I'm not the only parent who feels this way and I imagine that you may well be feeling similar emotions, but for slightly different reasons perhaps. I am not prepard to hide my opinion nor my true feelings and put a false smile on to pretend nothing is wrong. I've stated my views as clearly and as accurately as I can.

sincerely,

Ford"

Please note: This document is written without prejudice

"Summary

1:

Reassurances as to the legality and safety issues surrounding spraying given by both the owner of the farm and the School are reasonably shown to be misleading and inadequate.

2:

According to present legislation it is illegal to allow agricultural chemicals to drift onto “areas not being treated”

3:
It appears highly probably that spray drift does in fact end up on the school premises.

4:

The school has taken no steps to establish that the school isn’t contaminated in this way.

5:
The school continues to deny any problem may exist and is resistant to assessing any findings that suggest cause for concern.

6:
The full details and implications of the valid concerns of a small group of parents are being withheld from the larger body of parents. This has prevented an open discussion and debate on the matter.

7:
In communications with TATIB ( the Air That I Breathe foundation, who first raised concerns over spraying near our school) A representative of the schools Business Steering Committee represented themselves as being from the Parent Committee.

8:
We don’t have a Parent Committee to represent our views and concerns.

9:
The school has a legal duty to show that due care has been taken with regard to our children’s safety. The onus is on the school to prove that the school and it’s premises are free of agricultural chemicals. This can be done by instituting a thorough analysis of the soil, vegetation and school building. It seems prudent to carry out air quality tests specifically on the days that spraying does take place, also.

10:
Failure to demonstrate that the school is a safe environment and that the farm is operating within the law may give parents the right to hold both liable for any harm that may subsequently come to light."

While it may seem a minor matter I publish a copy of the contents of one of the emails to TATIB in which a member of the BSC presents themselves as a representative of the Parent Committee, a committee we didn't have at the time. There exist a number of such "misleading" emails and I'm willing to forward copies to anyone who wishes to look into this matter. I feel this misrepresentation was a deliberate attempt to try and control the spread of information.

"Hi Jurgen,

I have asked you to direct your mails to me alone, I am the 'point person' and I assure you I will pass on your mails as necessary.

It is a simple request, kindly comply.

Kind regards

Dave D'Aguiar

Parent Committee"

Ground water testing at Nitida Wine farm as reported by the Chameleons Montessori EHC

At the start of the talk given by Prof Leslie London at Chameleons Montessori on 20 May 2010 a representative of the Environmental Health Committee, Mr Brendon Bailes, reported the committee’s findings regarding the matter of ground water contamination from the chemical use on the farm.

On the DVD made of the meeting this can be viewed at 4min 10sec.

Brendon mentions that with regard to the groundwater some tests had been done for, and I quote him here,

“phosphates and all that stuff and there’s none so that clears that up”

Following this meeting Brandon forwarded the correspondence (via email on the 25 May) that took place between himself and Bernard Veller, the owner of Nitida, in which this issue is discussed.

The emails are quite brief and I quote only the relevant bits here;

From Brendon Bailes to Bernard Veller, 17 May 2010

“has the ground water been tested recently? One thing the school asked me to look into was water- ground water testing?”

Reply from Mr Veller, 17 May 2010

“I have had it tested recently for phosphates. What is the school specifically interested in. I am sure you understand there are 101 things you can test for”

Brandon writes back;

“Is there any possibility to obtain a copy of the testing so I can show the Committee”

Reply from Mr Veller, 17 May 2010

“Latest test results as requested. You will see that they are very limited as I was looking at phosphates and nitrates alone. A comprehensive test for solids etc will cost about R500. I can have it analysed for e-coli for about R75. My 2 effluent plants have had e-coli at zero for months now. Again it depends what you are looking for”

Bernard Veller was at that meeting with Prof. London and presumably heard Brendon’s statement regarding the results of the testing. It seems negligent to me that this obvious misunderstanding on Brendon’s part was not corrected.

To be fair to Mr Veller though, he was quite clear in his emails about the extent of the testing so I fail to see how the EHC reached the conclusion it did and to say that with regard to the groundwater that some tests had been done for “phosphates and all that stuff and there’s none so that clears that up”


Unfortunately, as a consequence of this misrepresentation of the facts, surrounding groundwater contamination, parents may now believe the matter to be resolved. This is clearly not the case at all.

It's probably worth quoting two comment Prof. London made later, at that meeting. He can be heard at about 40 min into the DVD recording.
This was in response to a query regarding residues that may remain after spraying but he could equally have been referring to this testing of the groundwater.

"I wouldn't believe a study that said there was nothing...it doesn't make sense...it gets into the environment."

A follow-on question regarding the risk possibly posed by the breakdown products and their residues was then answered by the Professor.

It would be; "very unusual for any sort of agricultural spray activity not to result in a certain amount of residue and contamination and run off"

I’m criticising the EHC’s handling of this topic because I feel that, yet again, the EHC demonstrates it’s lack of expertise and thoroughness in dealing with this very complex issue. I have to question the school’s wisdom in asking completely unqualified parents to advise on school policy with regard to our children’s health and safety.

More evidence for Chameleons Montessori EHC to consider.

Farm Pesticides Linked to Skin Cancer

"Sun exposure has always been considered the driving force behind rising rates of melanoma. But new research suggests that repeated, long-term use of pesticides may be an important factor, too.

The findings add to evidence suggesting that frequent use of pesticides could raise the risk of melanoma. Rates of the disease have tripled in the United States in the last 30 years, with sun exposure identified as the major cause.

The researchers identified six pesticides that, with repeated exposure, doubled the risk of skin cancer among farmers and other workers who applied the chemicals to crops.

Four of the chemicals - maneb, mancozeb, methyl-parathion and carbaryl - are used in the United States on a variety of crops, including nuts, vegetables and fruits."

You can read a fuller article about this new study here. Please note that this research was published in the Scientific American journal a highly regarded, peer reviewed scientific publication. Also, please note that mancozeb is the active ingredient in Micexanil 76WP which you'll find listed on the spray schedule the school provided following the 27 May meeting.

Will Chameleons Montessori finally admit the truth?

Recently, all parents of children presently attending the Chameleons Montessori school, at Nitida wine farm in Durbanville, were sent an email, 9 June 2010, that attempted to reassure everyone all was under control and appropriate steps were being taken to ensure the school continued survival.

A number of claims are made in this email which many of us, including some of the teachers themselves, would strongly dispute. I’ll address each of them in turn in days to come. For now, though, I want to focus on one specific allegation because it serves to demonstrate very clearly the sort of “less then honest” tactics that we’re becoming all too familiar with in trying to get at the truth of this sorry affair.

I quote the following from this school email;

"Accusations of staff being 'gagged' and 'threatened' by the school abounded in certain circles and in some cases a significant level of panic began to set in."

In a private email (dated 26 may 2010) from myself to Mr Brandon Bailes I wrote the following;

"That teachers were threatened with legal action should any parent leave citing spray drift concerns seems even more bizarre, and evidence of a culture of intimidation and denial of the reality of the situation. "

Brendon assured me that as a representative of the EHC (Environmental Health Committee ) he would investigate this allegation further. He did so by bringing my email to the attention of Emma and Claire at the next EHC meeting on 27 May

The school (I assume Emma and Claire, as they are the owners) responds to this comment thus:

"The school went on to state that Ford’s comment with regard to staff being threatened with legal action should a parent remove their child citing vine spraying as the reason is completely unfounded and untrue. The school has no idea where such a sentiment stems from."

I am aware of a grievance letter that details these threats that the teachers felt were implied. This matter was dealt with by a Human Resources consultant on behalf of the school in January. Naturally, I was surprised that the school would respond as they did, claiming the allegation was “completely unfounded and untrue“ and that the school had “no idea where such a sentiment stems from."

I was also quite surprised that the school chose to publish my email to Brendon in the minutes of the meeting that was sent to all parents….along with their denial of the allegation I had made. I was hoping we might resolve this matter privately as I felt that it was a very serious issue that brought the schools integrity into question. The school chose to make the matter public and to deny all knowledge of what I was referring to. They made further attempts to discredit me in the follow up email to parents dated 9 June and mentioned previously by writing the following;

" Despite the EHC spending hours answering all the questions raised by the blog’s front person - none of this has been accurately reflected (if at all) in the blog. The site continues to evade the truth and publish flagrant exaggerations and misinterpretations. "

I will detail the various questions that I've posed and how they have been addressed. Some of these issues have already been reported on this blog and where appropriate I have expressed my difference of opinion. This tactic of trying to question the integrity of any critic of the schools spraying policy appears to be a fairly routine response. I will be detailing a number of these attempts at slander in a separate post. It's unfortunate that the school stoops to such underhand methods to brush aside unwanted comment, criticism and questioning and to continue to imply that their critics are somehow "morally suspect".

At this stage I want to say how much I appreciate Brendon's efforts to remain impartial and his continued willingness to engage with me to attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction. We both recognise that no sustainable progress can be made while questions remain regarding the truthfulness of certain claims made by the school.
I expressed my dissatisfaction with the school’s denial, to Brendon, and went into some detail regarding what I knew. He assured me he would probe the matter further. He was as good as his word and was eventually, actually, shown the grievance letter I alluded to.

He told me, in a private email, that he had read it and confirmed that what I had suggested regarding allegations of teachers feeling threatened was indeed detailed in this letter.

It was then explained to me that the schools response at this stage was that unless I was prepared to prove that I had a copy of this letter and to say who had given it to me the matter would not be discussed any further.
In addition, the teachers were questioned by Emma and Claire about “who was leaking information to Ford”. The teachers have stated that neither of them gave me a copy of the letter, this is perfectly true. Neither did I collude with them in writing the grievance letter back in January. I only became aware of the matter in March.

Personally, I find it troubling that rather than acknowledging the fact that they have been misleading parents over their knowledge of these allegations they choose instead to try and put pressure on the teachers not to reveal the truth. Of course, if anyone has any doubts about how the teachers really feel they’ve been treated I suppose you could simply ask them.

In private conversation with Brendon, he and I agreed that the school could not continue to deny all knowledge of this matter while we both , not to mention the teachers themselves, knew the truth.

At the latest EHC meeting (17 June) Brendon again raised the issue and he assured me, when we spoke yesterday (Friday, 18 June), that the school would be issuing a full correction regarding their denials. He suggested I’d be pleased with this acknowledgement. I sincerely hope so and look forward to reading this “confession” sometime this week.

Update: Sunday 20 June 2010

I received an email a little while ago, from the school, most of it irrelevant fluff but this bone of contention regarding my allegation that teachers were threatened etc and the school's denial of any knowledge thereof was alluded to. I quote from the email;

"Yesterday morning we held a meeting with Brendon Bailes, Chairperson of the newly formed PTA and Wayne Campbell, Vice Chairperson of the PTA. One of the items discussed was the school’s position on items that you had raised with Brendon.

The school welcomes your input into the work of the Environmental Health Committee and appreciates any information that you may have to share that would shed light on the vine spraying issue. The school will however not enter into discussion on internal matters with you, and will continue to follow recognised internal procedures for such matters."

They refuse to acknowledge what Brendon has already confirmed in his emails to me...how awkward...for them! They made the matter public, called my integrity into question and now, when they are shown to be covering up the truth, they refuse to discuss the matter any further.

I'm a bit disappointed at this utter lack of moral courage the school continues to display but I take comfort in the sure knowledge the truth will out.....eventually.

Update: 24 June 2010

One of the parents who is still considered worthy of being kept informed forwarded me a copy of the latest EHC meeting minutes, today. The issue of the teachers having felt threatened was finally acknowledged.

I quote from the minutes;

"Emma and Claire went on to report that they had also consulted with Joanne and Abi-Gail as to whether they had received threats of law suits from the school should any parent remove their children from the school citing vineyard spraying. Joanne and Abi-Gail referred back to January when they issued the school with a grievance letter regarding a meeting held with Emma, Claire and a member of the business steering committee. In the grievance raised, the Directress’ said that they felt threatened by the way in which they had been addressed. This grievance was addressed through the appropriate internal procedures. An independent HR consultant was brought in to resolve the issues raised by the directress’. In this process Emma and Claire clarified with the Directress’ that this was not their intention and that the school would in no way presume to threaten the Directress’ in any way. With the assistance of the HR consultant everyone agreed that they felt that the issues raised had been resolved and clarified. Emma and Claire were therefore under the impression that the matter had been resolved via this process (in early February). No further mention of such issues was raised by the Directress’ again. When Ford Hallam recently raised the issue that Directress’ had been threatened with law suits from the school, Emma and Claire did not make the association of this to the above Grievance and therefore made the statement below (as stated in the minutes of the EHC dated 27 May 2010).
“The school went on to state that Ford’s comment with regard to staff being threatened with legal action should a parent remove their child citing vine spraying as the reason is completely unfounded and untrue. The school has no idea where such a sentiment stems from."
"

So there you have it. Yes, teachers did feel as though they'd been threatened. The "member of the BSC" referred to was Dave D'Aguiar by the way. I mention this because I take the view that his attitude and behaviour in this whole matter regarding the spraying has been extremely inappropriate. This is something I'll elaborate on in later posts.

Personally, I find "the school's" claim that they didn't make a connection between my allegation and the grievance complaint to be very dubious, to say the least.

I wonder if the school will now send out an email to all parents correction the impression they created, that there was no foundation for the allegation. Will the school now admit that I was not misinformed and that the school (inexplicably) "didn't make the connection" to a serious grievance complaint made by the teachers in January that details precisely what I alluded to?

The matter of the "white, sticky residue" was also brought up. It was reported that both the teachers confirmed that they'd reported their concerns over this, towards the end of last year, to Emma and Claire. I quote again from the minutes;

"Emma and Claire said that they do not have any recollection of being given such information"

This I find extremely worrying. It suggests, that at a time when one teacher is experiencing serious health problems that her doctor diagnosed as being due to "an external irritant" in the lungs, the school seems to have forgotten the other teachers concerns over a visible spray residue in the actual school building. It would appear that yet again they "didn't make the connection".

Another parent tells of their experience at Chameleons Montessori

Written without prejudice: In my opinion

Thomas started at the Chameleons Montessori School in March 2008.

My son Thomas (then 8 years old) was a normal healthy active boy, before he joined the Chameleons Montessori school, situated in the middle of the Natida wine farm. Within a mere few month’s it became obvious to me, that there was something wrong with his health. Since starting at the Chameleons Montessori, he developed a persistent sniffle and cough, that just wouldn’t go away.

I spoke on several occasions with the staff of the school about it, and Emma Mendell (the principal) suggested a homeopath (apparently a parent of 1 of the children at the pre-school). We went, tried her remedies for a while, but there was absolutely no improvement in Thomas’s health. On recommendation of a couple of friends, we went in January 2009 to a GP who had studied homeopathy. He suggested a blood test, to see what was setting off Thomas’s allergies. The Doctor at Synexa (the lab where they did the blood tests) suggested a stool test as well.

The results of the test were that Thomas had leaky gut (an adult disease) The allergies that he had developed over the past year (as he never had them before) were caused by his weakened immune system, because of a leaky gut. When I told the doctor that I was told that it wasn’t harmful what they sprayed on the farm, he said: “if it kills bugs or fungus, it can’t be healthy for humans!”

I told Emma Mendell (the principal) what the Doctor had said. And that the Doctor suggested that Thomas’s illness was most likely caused by the spraying of the vineyards. The Principal said she would find out more, and talk to the farmer. A couple of weeks later, when I questioned her about it, she said they were having tests done, and she was waiting for the results. I waited patiently for the results, and questioned her about it now and again. Then finally I was told by Emma Mendell the Principal of the school, that the test result came out clear. According to her, everything was “alright” & “all natural” and “non harmful to the children or any one”.

I trusted this to be the truth.

Despite his medication, regular Doctor’s visits, strict wheat/sugar and dairy free diet, Thomas’s health deteriorated . Emma agreed that they would let me know, when they were going to spray, so I could keep Thomas away from the spraying. Every spraying session would last between 2-3 days, and it would be done every 2 weeks, between September and March, according to Emma. In case of rain, they would have to repeat. In the end February, when Emma Mendell called me to tell me about another spraying session, she told me that they had told her, that it was the last time for that (spraying)season.

There where several times that we didn’t get that warning. I was sometimes called while spraying had already started(sometimes I was not even near Durbanville). And sometimes we arrived at the school, and found out they were not spraying ( came all the way for nothing). On one occasion, turning back home after we just arrived at the school, we counted as many as 7 tractors at the same time spraying on Natida, and neighbouring farms. During the “spraying season” Thomas had many nights that he could hardly breathe and sometimes would have to sleep sitting up, in my arms, as I would hold his head up, to help him breathe. I told this also to the staff at the school, but Emma assured me that Thomas was the only one that was affected at all, so the problem must be with Thomas. I kept Thomas at the school, as I (naively ) believed what I was told. I tried looking for answers elsewhere. At one time I thought it might be his synthetic school uniform causing his allergies. Then I thought it might be the pets at the school, etc. etc. I was looking for the cause of Thomas’s allergies and illness.

Would I have known then, what I know now, I would have taken Thomas out immediately after he was diagnosed. But I exposed him for another year to all the Toxin’s because I believed them.

I was approached a week before the school holidays in March 2010, by several people, informing me about the true facts of the spraying. In that week, I first asked Emma Mendell for the spraying schedule (Tuesday 23 March in the morning). I received it after calling her again (Wednesday 24 March pm). Then I called the school again. I spoke to her sister, Claire (Thursday 25th March am) , and I asked for a copy of the test results. Claire then informed me that there were never any tests done, JUST research! I told her immediately that research means nothing.(I said:”I can sit on a chair, stare at the vineyard, and call it research”). I then hand delivered my letter , with the removal of my son Thomas with immediate affect (Friday 26th March am), as I believed that I had found my answer, Thomas was getting ill from the spraying on the farm.

Since then, Thomas’s health is slowly improving. He sleeps through the night now, breathing steadily (simple thing he wasn’t able to do for almost a year!). It might be a while, before Thomas can have a “normal” life again, eating “normal” food(it is not easy to be on a diet. Imagine a 9 year old child on a very strict one for over a year), but at least the pain in his tummy has subsided, his breathing has improved tremendously, and he sleeps properly.

One can argue that with a normal immune system you can handle the spraying. But if your immune system gets attacked by the continuous surrounding of poison, your immune system might not be able to hold on for that long.

It has been said that “if you drive behind a diesel bakkie , is also harmful”. Or ”we also swim in a Chlorine pool”. I would like to point out, the school is situated in the middle of a spraying field, with very high levels of exposure to chemicals that are known to be very harmful. A hundred thousand times higher than the harm of exposure of swimming in a Chlorine pool, or driving behind a diesel bakkie .

A “buffer zone” of a couple of little trees(less than waist high)is in my opinion not going to make much difference. I’m not willing to bet my child’s life on it. I find this a joke!

It has been alleged by the school to me, that the removal of Thomas was purely financial. This is an untrue accusation. From the beginning of his removal from the school, I’m paying more for his private tuition, than I was paying at the Chameleon Montessori School.

But it is not difficult to form the opinion, that their own motives for continuing poisoning the children are purely financial. As some of you may know, the school was and is, in financial trouble, and moving is not an option.

Clarien Thornhill-Fisher

what if you are wrong? a question for Chameleons Montessori.

I've chosen to publish the following comment as a post in it's own right because it presents a view many parents, perhaps as yet undecided, may find of interest.

The question asked at the end describes the dilemma in stark terms. To those who feel that dodging minute spray particles in the wind for half the year is without risk I would reiterate, what if you're wrong?

One point of clarification; The incident referred to of a child being assaulted did not occur at the Chameleons Montessori and was no doubt related to indicate this writers willingness to take appropriate action where a child's safety is threatened. One would like to believe all parents would be as decisive.

"Hello all, it looks like a little war is going on this site; we have here people who are very scared / dead-certain that mass poisoning of small children is going on, and on the other hand we have those who say that the former group is a bunch of misguided, alarmist scare-mongerers.

So -from what we can learn here on this blog and elsewhere on the web- who’s right?

But first let me say that my own eight your old is safely removed from the winelands and that these problems are not directly mine. (Recently she was hit by a teacher, but after an immediate visit to a doctor, a criminal charge, the involvement of the Department of Education, said teacher is no longer employed by the school within less than three weeks. We all have problems, but it is our duty to tackle them –if they seem real!)

In the end I’m pro-child first and foremost. I hope that we all are. Emotions and personal issues (or ANY other issue for that matter) should be avoided when it comes to a child’s wellbeing –present and long-term.

And immediately, on my first visit to this blog, to this page, one can see blatant lies / inaccuracies being posted –why? How come do seemingly rational people deliberately gloss over what seems pretty much indisputable?

E.g: Mrs De Villiers says ” I am tired of hearing "where are your facts", because you haven't presented any facts specific to Nitida either”? (Apologies for selecting you madam, we don’t know each other and I sincerely hope you understand that this is a mere example.)
As I gather that MANCOZEB has been sprayed many times; I quickly Google: “MANCOZEB + cytotoxic” (as presented by the GG).

Taraaaa, there you are: even without reading the enormous mass of resulting info for the next week, it takes me less than five minutes to be certain that indeed there should be reasons for the gravest of concerns.

So I’m a bit hooked and ‘will look into this. Anyone who thinks that things may not be so bad and still have children on that school should perhaps do the same.

There’s enough info out there to empower oneself so as to be in a position to critically evaluate the merits of both camps’ arguments. And especially if you are already in either camp -be even more critical; you may be wrong after all……
In the case of the followers of The Galileo Group: you may take away children from a most effective system of learning (‘am a bit partial to Montessori myself), in a very idyllic location.
In the case of the school and all parents who do not remove their children: do you feel lucky, what if you are wrong?"

Anthony

Comments on the Chameleons Montessori school's plan to do some blood tests

Having now watched the DVD of the talk and Q&A session given by Prof. London a number of times and having written up most of the actual talk I want to offer what I think may be an important observation regarding something mentioned early on in the presentation.

I want to comment on the schools plan to conduct blood tests on the children. Brendon Bailes, the chairman of the newly formed Parent Committee and a representative of the Environmental Health Committee, advised us that they had looked into having cholinesterase tests done. He went on to explain the basics of the actual procedure and to say that parents would receive further details in the future.

Pathcare was the laboratory that was contacted and we were told a Mr Louie Birch was the person who Brendon spoke with regarding the testing. I phoned Pathcare myself, today, because it seemed quite inappropriate to bother with this specific test and I wanted to clarify that my understanding was correct.

I spoke with a Mr Cor Aalber who was extremely helpful and very happy to discuss the matter at length. He confirmed to me that cholinesterase tests will only be of any use if there has been an exposure to organophosphates. This is what I had thought.

Organophosphates work by suppressing cholinesterase that is a vital part of nerve signal transmission. By interrupting the proper functioning of the nervous system it kills pests. It works on mammals in the same way which is why it is such a hazardous chemical.

We have now been reliably reassured a number of times by Bernard Veller, the owner of Nitida, that he hasn't used Organophosphates on the farm for at least 5 years.

The obvious question to ask now is, why bother testing for something we all know isn't there?

Does the Environmental Committee not understand the subject well enough to make reasonable recommendations or is this test, which is guaranteed to show no effect, merely being proposed as a way of creating the impression that something is being done and in addition "prove" that there is no evidence of exposure?

I have begun to research what tests, if any, may be available to us that may be more suitable and will make my finding known to the Committee should they need my input.

At this point it seems that the specific tests we would need may not be available in South Africa but I will need to verify this.

To give Brandon the "right to reply" I forwarded a copy of this post to him yesterday for any comments he might see fit to add. His reply is below.

"Hi Ford,

Yes I am aware the test is for organophospahtes, and the chemical process as to what it does. The consideration was for children to have the test and in the last meeting of the EHC it was decided not to be done in children. As a random group the school has offered all staff to be tested for a baseline reading now and again when spraying does get done in October. So the testing will not be ordered to be done on children, it could be a voluntary test if so desired. This was discussed at the EHC. This test was to test a random group, being the teachers, and on a voluntary basis with no one being ordered to do the test.

. There was no intention to confuse parents as this was another suggestion for testing pesticides as it falls into the scope of IPW

I spoke to Dr. Louis Birch and he mentioned the suggestion of random testing and this has been adopted by the EHC. Prof London Concurred in the DVD that it would also not show other than organophosphates – therefore in his opinion should not be done. As expressed above this is a voluntary test if the teachers do want it done as a random group of the school.

Regards

Brendon"

Now that it's been established that the testing would be voluntary, when they can't order them anyway so they were always going to be voluntary, it still makes no sense at all to bother with this pointless test. I might speculate that this pantomime is being continued with so as to create an impression, among less well informed parents, that tests are being done....and that conveniently, the results will "prove" there's no exposure.

As for "random", how on earth can the tests be random if they are to be voluntary? Surely, if people are to be offered the choice to have the tests done this group would be self-selecting and therefore be anything but random. It would appear that the EHC is displaying, again, it complete lack of understanding of basic scientific procedures.

Perhaps it's time for these well meaning but somewhat under qualified people to recognise the serious limitations posed by their lack of understanding of this critical issue. The possible consequences should they fail to act with sufficient caution are too dreadful to contemplate.

someone from Chameleons Montessori is getting very cross....and a little irrational

As I've written earlier, I need to moderate comments now because some commentators don't seem to be able to discuss the matter without resorting to some nasty personal slander. In fact, that's about all we've been offered...so much for any reasoned objections.

I post the following, recent comment, because it's particularly viscous and reveals a very poor grasp of what personal and slanderous attacks actually are not to mention some pretty wooly reasoning. I don't think this person was ever on the school debating team.

"What has identity got to do with it. These are my comments. Identifying myself would just give you the very excuse to do what you've done all along - attack on a PERSONAL basis!"

Introducing yourself is a pretty basic courtesy in human society. Remaining anonymous and simply shouting abuse reduces your comments to an ugly noise.

"You guys are so righteous about your character's being attacked. What exactly do you think you've been doing all along. You have published blatantly personal attacks from the very start, on the school, on the people that run the school, on the parent body assisting the school, and now even on the environmental committee. Attacks which are to be frank, absolute fabrications of what you believe is the truth."

Here you seem not to understand the nature of critique. Of course if someone does something I don't agree with I am able to comment on this. If it's reasoned and focusses on the action, or opinion and the consequences thereof this is a reasonable critique.

If, for example and as in this case, you claim the chemicals pose no harm and I suggest they do I am not attacking you personally at all. I am attacking your opinion. This is what a grown up argument looks like. I make my position clear and where you disagree you offer your reasons for doing so. So far the school has singularly failed to offer any reasoned argument in support of the policy they've followed for more then 5 years.

You are now also saying I'm lying. As you'll see as the details of this saga come to light, the fabrications didn't originate here. Here's just one example for you to contemplate; the matter I raised (and which was reported on in the EHC meeting minutes of 27 May) regarding my allegation that certain teachers had felt they'd been threatened and which "the school" claimed no knowledge of can no longer be denied. It has now been confirmed that indeed this complaint was made in January by the teachers yet "the school" continues to deny this and to thereby imply I was being malicious. How do you explain that?

"As a concerned parent, I have been doing investigations of my very own ALL THE WAY ALONG and what you are doing is (to be frank) DISGUSTING!"

So you've been doing investigations "all along" and you evidently didn't ever think that what you learned was of any real concern. I find that quite surprising. Don't you think that after doing some basic research it would be a bit complacent to decide that there was nothing to worry about? Have you made any of your finding known to anyone?

You have every right to think that what we're doing is disgusting, that's your subjective and emotional opinion. This is a very emotive topic and I understand your frustration at not being able to adequately respond to this continued scrutiny of the schools policies. Policies I feel are woefully inadequate and may even prove to be disastrous. Time will tell and ultimately public opinion will judge which approach was the most sensible.

"If you want to pass the comments you have, then have the COURAGE to publish mine!"

Oh, I'm not short on courage, that I assure you. You know exactly who I am and I will stand behind what I write here. I've now published yours although your comment "anonymous or not" is something of a paradox....how can I publish your comment as not anonymous? Is this an indication of your powers of reasoning? If so, I fear for your children.

Jurgen Schirmacher tells of his family's experince

My family & I used to live next to a vineyard and we got sprayed on average once a week.

When we complained to the farmer we were told that he was there first and that if we did not like it we should sell our house and move back to the city. The farmer also told us that nothing that he sprayed was harmful to man and the environment.

It was only after our 5 week son started having respiratory problems, and he ended up in ICU after his system crashed, that we started to do our own research, and with the help of Professor London, discovered just how toxic many of the products were.

6 years down the line, and after numerous court cases [which we won], we were advised by our doctors to sell up and move away from the toxins. I had spent Xmas of 2007 in ICU and my wife had spent several weeks in hospital,early in 2008, with pesticide induced arthritis.

Many of the products that the farmer sprayed a few years ago, are now no longer permitted to be used and have been banned by GlobalGap as further research has proven that they are highly toxic to humans by exposure.

Its best to always err on the side of caution and to assume rather that a product is dangerous to human health until such time as it has been proven to be safe for use.

Having seen the list of what Nitida has admitted to spraying close to the school, and having researched the active ingredients, there is absolutely no way that I would want my children to be exposed to any of these products.

The school must be moved to a safer location. That is unfortunately the truth, as hard as it is going to be to accept, that is going to be the only solution to this problem.

For those of you who are clearly in denial - I have a proposition for you. Why don't you and your children allow yourselves to be sprayed with a cocktail of what Nitida has admitted to spraying? I will arrange for a registered pesticide applicator to spray us with the same products and at the same concentration & volume that Nitida would spray at.

I will stand alongside you and may even pay for your upfront blood tests and then further blood tests after our exposure. I am certain that we will get ill as a result, some of us immediately whilst others may have a delayed reaction.

There is a wealth of research out there with dozens of books written on the subject. There have also been countless lawsuits filed against the chemical giants like Bayer as a result of people falling ill following their exposure to agricultural chemicals.

Each and every agricultural chemical registered for use in South Africa has a hazard rating. Dichlorvos , Dicarzol & Thioflo for example, are rated 1b by the National Dept of Agriculture and World Health Organisation. They are rated 1b because after extensive research they have been found to be HIGHLY TOXIC. The above 3 products are used often in the vineyards of the Western Cape. We were sprayed with them weekly. Thioflo [Endosulfan] has now been banned , and Bayer, its manufacturer, has been ordered to retrieve all stockpiles of it. 2 years ago it was considered such a safe and 'wonderful' product - to be used extensively in agriculture in South Africa. Alas its turned out to be so very toxic. We were exposed to it and the damage is done and ill health is the legacy that we have left for our children.

We should have sold our house sooner. But we chose to deny that there was a problem and instead continued with the renovations, using the 'unfinished' house as an excuse to hold onto our dream of living in the country next to a vineyard. Ironically we are not "tree hugging greenies" at all - in fact we are far from that.

But the damage to our health has been done and its something that money cannot now buy back.

Jurgen Schirmacher

no more anonymous comments from angry supporters of Chameleons Montessori's please

I've decided to change the settings on the comment facility now. I'm still perfectly happy to allow all your personal attacks and whatever else you may wish to offer but not if you insist on remaining anonymous.

It's a pity we have to do this but, like youtube, when people don't feel they will be held accountable for what they say they can become quite nasty.

For all I know "anonymous" may actually be my be the same person trying to create the impression of a huge crown of school supporters.

The email Chameleons Montessori didn't want you to see.

There's been a flurry of irate and defensive responses from a number of commentators on the blog ever since I changed the setting to allow anonymous comments. Disappointingly, many have in fact been anonymous which somewhat undermines the credibility of those criticisms. Even more telling is that rather than actually address any of the many very substantive points and criticisms that have been made on this blog a good few of the comments are nothing more than personal attacks on my character and integrity.

To be frank, I'm not all that hurt on a personal level by such petty snipes but I am rather disappointed that we can't actually engage in a real, adult debate.

I've also been accused of not providing any evidence or facts as pertains specifically to the school.

I'll begin to add more on that score over the next few days. I was one of 3 or 4 parents who actually received the first email (addressed to all parents at Chameleons Montessori) and while I was initially quite taken aback it did spur me on to do some research of my own.

You can read the whole email in a pdf file by simply double clicking here.

I am of the opinion that certain information, that some parents now feel is very significant to them in deciding whether they felt their children were safe at Chameleons, was withheld from them. This email from TATIB, and addressed to us as a group, was in fact not passed on.

I was a little surprised that the response from Mr Brandon Bailes didn't address the allegations in the email regarding possible health risks to our children but instead expressed the need to defend the schools reputation. The question that followed, "Has every parent been notified?" may be open to interpretation, and I don't doubt it will be, but considering that very few parents did subsequently get to see this email one is left wondering what was meant by that.

TATIB was then asked to direct further correspondence via Dave D'Aguire, who designated himself a representative of the Parent Committee and promised to pass on any relevant information. Evidently everything TATIB offered was regarded as not being relevant.

I quote from the schools email to TATIB, 16 March 2010, which was also sent to all parents.
"We would appreciate if you could also address all of your future correspondence to me alone and I will ensure that it gets distributed to all parties concerned."

Apparently most of you were not concerned. How could you be if you knew nothing about this?

I'll leave you to decide whether that decision, made on your behalf, was correct. You may also wonder about that Parent Committee....I didn't know we had one.

It's also recently been suggested that, among various other feeble attempts at character assassination, I am operating out of some sinister and personal agenda to destroy the school.

I would ask every parent affected by this crisis to consider the following.

We now know that at least as early as March last year this issue was brought to the attention of the school. It was only on the 27 April this year that the first meeting took place to address the matter. This was as a direct result of my stated intention, to Emma, to remove my son from the school. I've detailed all this previously and at length here.

That the school finally asked various concerned parents to form an Environmental Committee to look into the matter is a small step in the right direction. However, I would respectfully point out that most of you would still be in the dark regarding this issue and you would not have any ongoing investigation at all were it not for my "sinister motives". Perhaps at this point a simple thank you would be nice...rather than these vicious and snide remarks some have felt justified in hurling at me.

The first meeting was, in my opinion not as open nor receptive to "inconvenient" information as I would have hoped. My views on this meeting can be found here'

As to whether you think the Environmental Committee can be impartial and unbiased or in fact has any real expertise that renders it capable of making suitable recommendations regarding such a complex matter, I leave to you.

As to my own expertise, which as been called into question, I would say that an ability to read, understand and reason logically is a good start. But if my opinions are so weak and inconsequential then I wonder why my opponents are so intent on trying to discredit me personally and not concentrating on the points I raise.

The bulk of the facts on this blog are either accounts of events we have personally experienced or I cite other authorities. I make no apology for expressing my own views here. It was made abundantly clear to me, at the meeting of the 27 April, that my opinion was not a welcome one. In addition, I feel that the school's subsequent actions to try and deal with the matter are hopelessly inadequate and 5 years too late.

I will take this opportunity to ask, for the umpteenth time, for any evidence of the various investigations the school claims to have undertaken in the last year as were referenced countless times. Show us what you did to ensure our children were safe.....and don't dare to suggest that because we knew it was a working farm we must accept that there may be risks. That argument is too absurd to even begin to take seriously.

I'll be posting an in depth analysis of Prof. London's comments on the matter shortly. His opinion is quite clear and he goes to some trouble to make sure his point was heard.

My opinion about Chameleons Montessori's recent behaviour - Jo Hallam

Hi

I just wanted to say how sad this whole situation has made me.

We were very happy and supportive of Chameleons and had made many friendships that I thought would last for many years. We thought that if we raised concerns about the spraying, we would be, as part of our happy little community, taken seriously and listened to. When we offered important research, that took Ford hours to collect, we were told by the appointed member of the Business Steering Committee to keep quiet as "the women won't understand the science and get all panicky!" and that coming from a person who believes that frogs in a pond is proof that our children are not at risk. BTW has anyone actually taken a close look at the pond and had research done on the frogs to determine if there are any "problems" with them. No! Just because they hop around doesn't mean they are ok!

Thankfully, I still have some friends and other parents who believe in what we are doing. We started this blog with their blessing and support and get phone calls daily offering support and thanks. This blog is not a forum and I find it bizarre that other people seem to think they have the right to offer what they call is a balanced opinion, when all they are really doing is attacking Ford's character. A blog is a diary, if you feel that bothered by this one, start your own!

At this point, I want to say how proud I am of my husband for taking a stand in all this and spending hours of his own time trying to do some good. Some may have the odd notion that he is only out to attack and ruin Chameleons reputation, that is totally incorrect. If, when he started the research (all of which he has posted as proof of his opinion on this very blog, if you care to read it!), he had found no worrying reports or studies, he would not have felt the need to raise the issue with the school. However, he DID find numerous horrific statistics and test results that, to be frank, made me cry and made me feel very ashamed that I had not realised earlier and had already exposed my child to the dangers of pesticides.

When Ford suggested to Emma that there was a VERY REAl risk and as such we would be removing Joel from the school, she acted very worried and surprised and asked Ford if he thought they should move the school. He said that is exactly what they should do and have our full support. He also said that he had asked Dave a few times to get the parents together to inform everyone as to the risks. I have already told you what Dave's response was! Emma decided (thankfully) to call a meeting and asked Ford if he would tell the parents about the research he had found. Great! we thought. At the meeting, I was deeply saddened when Emma spent about 20 minutes giving a time line and Bernard was given about 30 mins to talk about the chemicals from his perspective. Ford was given no opportunity to give in any detail the information he had prepared. He was only able to quote a few concerns from a paper Prof. London had written and then quite abruptly asked "well, what is your answer!"

You wonder why he started this blog? So he could supply all the evidence that the school seems to not want to hear! for those who do care about their children's health!!

Let me ask you this. If you saw a child being abused, day in day out, would you stand by and allow that parent to get away with it? No, I'm sure you would not and would want some authority to intervene for the safety of that child. This is how I see the situation at Chameleons. With all the evidence I have read and from what Prof. London ( the only expert opinion the school has sought) has clearly said, I feel this amounts to child abuse. These children are innocent and fully exposed because a few people refuse to see the dangers, for reasons I cannot understand. I won't go into the science as I would only be duplicating what Ford has extensively said in this blog.

In my opinion, no school should be on a working farm. I am not attacking the school, just the reasoning behind their inability to actually see this as a health risk. It is not enough to say we don't see it as a problem so you just take your child and leave us in peace to poison our children. Who will speak for the innocent?

Thank you Ford

From your very proud wife.

A few words to Chameleons Montessori from a concerned mother.

I would just like to state a few facts.

1. My daughter was born in 1978. The only serious illness I can remember was chicken pox in Grade 3.
2. She started working at Chameleon’s in 2008. She hardly started, fell ill with “bronchitis”, and was very distressed because she had to take time off so soon after starting her new job. Anyone who knows her, would know what a dedicated teacher she is. She spent the whole of the June holidays with a broken rib due to excessive coughing. She lived on antibiotics which we now know, were of no use.
3. The situation became unbearable. I watched my daughter deteriorate and the coughing persisted. She could not even walk up the two flights of stairs to her own apartment. Her dancing, which is her passion and was much needed to supplemented her school income to survive, came to a halt.
4. Towards the end of 2009 we consulted a physician and after numerous blood tests she was diagnosed with inflammation of the lungs. Please note inflammation, NOT infection……not bronchitis!
5. She was advised not to return to the environment to see the effect it would have on her lungs. Steroids, cortisones and immune boosters were used.
6. I am a happy mother now. My child has regained her health fully. I am sad to read now that the school has been aware of this problem for so long.
7. After six months of living in extreme stressful circumstances i.e no permanent employment, repayment of a car and flat and HUGE medical bills, she has not even had as much as a cold.
   
   Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Laurette Albertyn

Some simple questions for Chameleons Montessori to answer

Here are a few specific questions we feel the school must address. They're quite simple so it shouldn't require any sort of investigation or anything....just a simple yes or no. Naturally we would like some proof where we disagree. Evidence for the position we take is to be found all over this blog.

Does spray drift end up on the school?

answer; Almost certainly.

Has the school ever done anything to establish whether the school is somehow protected from chemical contamination,?

answer; No proof that they have done so has yet been presented, despite numerous requests to see this if it exists.

If spray drift does end up on the school has the law been broken?

answer: Yes

Was the school made aware of serious concerns regarding the possible health risks posed by these chemicals any time before this March 2010?

answer: Yes, the parents who Emma referred to in her "timeline" and who removed their daughter from the school did extensive research on their own and tried repeatedly to convince the school that there was a serious risk. This started in March 2009. More than a year ago.

Why didn't the school bring the full details of the spray risk and the alleged risks to our children's health to our attention so we could make our own minds up as to whether the information was worth considering?

answer; only the school can answer this because it's beyond us.

Do we know enough about the total effect, both short and long term, to allow us to make any sort of reasonably certain statements to the effect that there is no need for concern?

answer; Absolutely not. As Prof. London said, just because we don't have evidence for possible harm (yet) does not mean it's safe.

All change...but not at Chameleons Montessori

Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind.

To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse.

To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better.

To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better

-King Whitney Jr

Choices count. Comments from another betrayed parent from Chameleons Montessori

Choices count...consciously -or not.I do not need better teachers or schools for my children...I need to become a more congruent, conscious human being who requires more of myself and of the need for integrity. To scorn the near, for the far, is folly. There is no parent training for this...parenting it seems,is the way...Taking my children out of harm's way at the school--did not seem like a choice...at the time. Now I know that readiness prepares the way.

Staying grounded in the reality that everyday is a learning is a continuous balancing act, and there is no sure answer. At best, we get a second chance to do it differently, more consciously. Some of us, may not be that lucky. I know now that a school on a farm with chemical pesticides is not safe for my children--and this is my decision to make. To have been mislead or to have a school presume it to be ok to decide for me,is a violation that I do not take lightly.

What initially seemed like ignorance on the side of the (Bus. Steering) BS Committee has devolved... Through deliberate sabotage of the truth,and disregard for the welfare of vulnerable children, the school has enfringed on my right as a parent to be informed of the dangers that the spraying poses. Continuing to do the same thing and expect a different outcome with more new parents,may seem like obsession for consistency...do not be fooled...this is a twisted way of remaining unaccountable for the trust that was broken.

Not seeing the wood for the trees, or the pest in pesticide...dress it up anyway you want...these poisons pose a serious threat to our children masked by a false idealism of a good school in a perfect environment. As parents we are being asked through conscious living, to not only to take responsibility for ourselves, but also to demonstrate responsibility for what others do to others. This is a big ask, when it seems as though we are barely making it to shore. ( The truth is that "there is no shore, only people on rafts with life jackets" and the water maybe polluted!!!. )The safety we seek can only come from aligning ourselves with what is sustainable...our relationship to the sustainability of water, air, etc.the school has become more like Marc's Steinberg's version of greenhouses in Iceland.I could teach a child about care of the environment...and fancy nature walks...and if the context I chose was poison...that's what he gets.

To believe that a Montessori school could fail in integrity is unfathomable...the penny dropped when I saw the poor immune response and low white/immune cell count during a full blown infection my son had. This is not evidence ...simply because our children's immune systems are made susceptible to what is not usually tolerated in a fully functioning immune response.

So consciousness is the gap between knowing and following through on what is known. What is known? Pesticides being used on the farm are detrimental esp to children with developing immune systems... and have been published as carcinogens. what more do I need to decide, or acknowledge, or let go, in order to act consciously now? As parents we have to do better, when we know better.and when we do, we give others permission to do the same.Be in the know...the future of children has already started...let every decision count...because invariably, it does....consciously-or not.

Masooda Mookadam

Comment from Dr Mohamad S. Mookadam, who's children were recently at Chameleons Montessori

Dear Ford and all concerned parents...

Thank you for posting the email sent to you by the Steering Committee. I think this highlights the fact, that the current situation exists purely because finances have taken precedence over everything else, including the health of those most vulnerable.

I remember being given the assurance when enrolling my children that no harmful substances were being used, and what was in use had been tested as safe practises.

I think that the school administration/steering committee do not fully understand and appreciate the severity of their actions up to this point. That their stance is: "the evidence is lacking and therefore there is no problem", is extremely disconcerting. What do we need as hard scientific evidence?

A few children developing cancer or immune mediated disorders? Unexplained deaths? One only has to look at the available research to realize that the stance taken by the school is naive at best.

Every parent needs to make a decision as to what is right for their children. I cannot in good conscience leave my kids in an environment which could mean ill health or death in the future because of failure to respond to the facts for the sake of convenience, comfort, money or any other hollow ambition.And if the school feels justified in making decisions on behalf of our children--I find it extremely arrogant.

Regards, and know that you message and stance of courage has my full support.

Dr Mohamad S. Mookadam

June 7, 2010 12:48 PM

Finally...our letter to Chameleons Montessori is acknowledged and further developments

Apparently they're very busy at the Chameleons Montessori school as it's taken a month to acknowledge the letter I handed to the principal, Emma Medell on the 4th May.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised really though. From what I've heard, about half (17 or 18) of the pupils presently enrolled in the primary school will not be returning next term. It appears that fears surrounding the exposure of children to agricultural chemical sprays is causing some parents to reconsider the wisdom of leaving their children on a working farm all day.

The ever resourceful management ( I'm still not all that sure who really pulls the strings there) has come up with a clever plan, though, to fill the empty places. According to one of the teachers who's been charged with dealing with the actual day to day teaching, they're simply going to bring in some of the little ones from the pre-primary school. There may be some small comfort for those new children's parents in this move as we now know the pre-primary school is in fact even more exposed to spray drift than the primary school.

My concern is that the vacant places in the pre-primary school will now be filled with fresh pupils who's parents will be completely unaware of the situation that has lead to so many of us removing our children from harms way. I wonder if, in the interest of allowing parents of prospective pupils at the school to make a fully informed decision, the details of the present crisis will be made clear to them before they sign the contract and pay their deposits.

If you read our letter explaining why we removed our son from the school you'll note we specifically asked to see some evidence of these various "investigations" into the safety issue surrounding the spraying.
"a request for details of the investigation the school instigated in early 2009."
Our full letter can be read by double clicking here.

I repeated my request on the 5th may by email.
I posted a copy of the mail here.

As usual this request to see some hard evidence of what the school has been claiming it has done is simply ignored. Surely, as parents of a child in their care we have some right to demand to see some proof of their claims?

I've also recently been in touch with the family Emma mentioned in her "timeline" of events leading up to the present situation. We learned that a family, early in 2009 and after their daughter had only been at the school for 3 weeks, removed her due to concerns over the spraying. From the conversation I had with them and referencing correspondence between this family and the school it is hard to understand how it is that the matter was not considered important enough to explore more thoroughly at the time (March 2009). I will need to clarify a few details but will soon post a summary of those events.

I also need to clarify another little bit of misinformation being peddled by the school. It has been repeatedly stated that Albe Albertyn ( the teacher who had to leave due to illness possibly caused by the spraying) had developed bronchitis. In fact an oblique reference is made to bronchitis by Dave D'Aguiar when he asked Prof. London whether the chemicals used at Nitida could cause bronchitis. Prof. London replies that they would not. This was at the talk given at the school by Prof. London on the 27 May 2010.

I now have a copy of Albe's medical records and while the initial diagnosis by her GP suggests bronchitis the later investigation, which was quite extensive, confirms an inflamation in the lower lungs. Tests suggested this was caused by an external irritant and had to be brought under control by means of steroids to suppress the inflammation. Pesticides are implicated in the medical report by the physician. The school was given a copy of exactly the same report yet they continue to misrepresent Albe's health condition.

I believe a few parents have now received similar emails to the one posted below. I publish ours merely to illustrate how, yet again, the specific concerns regarding the spraying and requests for proof that they've done what they say they have in terms of investigating the matter are completely ignored.

This isn't going to go away....we want answers.

"

Dear Ford & Jo

Your letter dated 4 May 2010 refers.

We sympathise with the difficult decision you have had to make and acknowledge each parent’s right to do what they feel is best for their child/ren. However we cannot agree with your statement that we have failed to meet our obligation to provide Joel with tuition and indeed deny that that is so. We have at all times been willing and able to teach Joel and would have done so but for the fact that he has not been attending school.

We wish, however, to draw your attention to the school’s enrolment termination policy which states that a full term’s notice (or three full months in lieu thereof) of termination of enrolment is required by the school. Given your letter provided at the beginning of May 2010, fees are still due and payable up until the end of July 2010 as per the terms and conditions you agreed to contractually upon your child’s enrolment at the school. These terms were also agreed to again during the 2010 Re-enrolment that occurred in September last year. Accordingly, your online school account now reflects the full final outstanding balance due.

You will no doubt appreciate that the obligatory notice period is intended both to provide continuity and to protect the ongoing financial viability of the school, as the loss of any pupil has a direct financial impact on the remaining parents. We are thus not in a position to waive the fees which are payable during the notice period.

We are unsure at this time if your letter dated 4th May 2010 is indeed a letter of termination of Joel’s enrolment. Please be advised that school fees continue to be billed to your account and will continue to do so until clarification is received in this regard and your notice period will not commence until such time as we receive this confirmation in writing . The school will continue to make tuition available to Joel on the same basis as before pending your confirmation. Should it have been your intention for your letter to be received as notice of termination of enrolment, we will amend your account to include May as your first month of your notice period accordingly. Please advise by close of business on Tuesday 8 June 2010 so we can make the necessary adjustments if this was your intention.

We thank you in anticipation of your understanding and wish you everything of the best.

Yours faithfully

For and on behalf of

Chameleons Montessori Business Steering Committee