Are humans really the cleverest primates?

Conservationists working with orang-outangs tell us they believe that they may be the most intelligent primate after humans.

The protective instinct of the females towards their young is especially inspiring to see. These wonderful forest dwellers are also intimately in tune with their natural habitat and acutely aware of any possible threats to their families.

Sadly we, as a society, seem to have lost this primal instinct. We seem oblivious to the world we're creating and the poisons we're rapidly polluting our only home with.

It's profoundly ironic that Chameleons Montessori is so named because you won't find any chameleons on Nitida wine farm, of that I'm certain. Here's a brief article that explains why, it's obvious really. They simply can't survive in that environment.

P.s.

It seems I'm not the only one to notice an apparent decline in the chameleon population. A few local stories here provide food for thought.

Amazingly, someone has actually done a brief survey to see if chameleons are common in vineyards. Apparently they are pretty scarce on the farm that was surveyed. I reckon chameleons know what's good for them. The study can be read here.

The Cape Dwarf Chameleon is now a CITES protected endangered species.

My reply to Mr Bailes comments to the Rapport newspaper

As parents of children at Chameleons Montessori school will know, their PTA and Environmental committee representative, Mr Brendan Bailes, is unhappy with the negative reporting on the schools handling of the issue of possible pesticide contamination of the school premises and the children.

He recently wrote to the Rapport newspaper to argue his case and to demand a fairer representation. A copy of this letter was sent to those parents still sending their children to the school. A kind and thoughtful soul forwarded me a copy for my comments.

One issue he seems very upset about is the fact I'm not concentrating on any other schools in similar situations. He seems to think I'm being very unfair by only concentrating on Chameleons. To be frank I find this argument incredibly pathetic and childlike. It the sort of thing I sometimes hear from my teenage son when I scold him for something and he responds by saying " what about Joel? he's also doing it...!!" ..and walks off in a sulk.

My argument and disagreement is with the Chameleons Montessori because I maintain that their lack of care and the suppression of honest discussion last year coupled with their misrepresentation of the truth regarding what the Dept. of Health actually reported may have prolonged my son's exposure in an environment I now regard as being unsafe.

I believe this group of people betrayed our trust and did not act with our children's interest as the first priority. The school made decisions and evaluations regarding the possible risks to my child that they had absolutely no qualification to make. Neither did they have my authority to make these decisions without my informed consent. They actively tried to suppress the spread of any information that might have given parents cause for concern. They had no right to do this and I consider this profoundly dishonest. I will continue to hold them accountable for their failure to act appropriately.

I submitted my own letter to the editor of the rapport on the 20 October 2010. I don't know whether it will be published so I post it here as a record of my position against the school policy and actions.

20 Oct 2010

Re: Children and Pesticides

Dear Editor

I write to congratulate you and your newspaper for having the courage and integrity to investigate the matter of possible pesticide exposure of children attending the Montessori School on Nitida wine farm outside Durbanville.

I believe that as the true situation, and the limitation of what we can reliable say about the safety of these poisons, becomes more widely known and understood no reasonable parent will willingly expose their children to such unnecessary risks.

On the 27 May 2010 Professor Leslie London (of The School of Public Health & Family Medicine at UCT) , a leading expert on this matter, addressed parents at Chameleons Montessori School. In his talk Prof. London goes to great length to show why we cannot assume there is no risk present and why it is that we know so little about the possible dangers these chemicals pose. He also pointed out the critical weakness in the present legislation especially in regard to the protection of children.

The full transcript of his talk can be read on the internet at:

http://galileogroup.blogspot.com/2010/10/transcript-of-talk-given-by-prof-l.html

The Schools position after listening to everything Prof. London had to say was expressed by Mr Dave D'Aguiar of the Financial Steering Committee. Despite everything that had been explained Mr D’Aguiar responded with; “From what I am hearing tonight, I do not see a risk, I’m sorry”

The following is taken from a recent email (2 July 2010) from the school to parents explaining the schools policy and actions.

"On 21 April 2009 Emma approached the school’s environmental health Inspector (Gerrit Van Wyk) for assistance in the investigation. The school provided Gerrit with the list of sprays used on Nitida . Mr Van Wyk came back to the school in May and confirmed that the Toxicology Dept at Tygerberg confirmed that there is no long term effects of exposure to the sprays."

However, when we examined the email that Mr Van Wyk actually sent we find he said something quite different. This is quoted directly from his emails as provided by the school.

“The Toxicology Dept. Tygerberg informed me that there is no information/evidence of the effects of long term exposure to these poisons"

“We can however not say that long term exposure to these poisons will not be harmful to a person."

In a further email from Mr van Wyk written in May 2010 he adds the following; “"acute exposure may cause skin and respiratory irritation, but that there is no information and evidence of what long term exposure to these chemicals may cause."

I take the view that the school has, either though ignorance or deliberate misinformation, mislead parents as to the reality of the risks their children may be exposed to at Chameleons Montessori.

It has been made abundantly clear that the present regulation of pesticides does not in any meaningful way provide adequate protection to our children yet the school insists on only referring to data as provided by the dept. of Agriculture and the distributors of these poisons.

Any independent data or research seems to be ignored. Members of the Galileo Group have on various occasions presented the school with published scientific and medical research that specifically shows that a number of the chemicals used routinely on Nitida have been shown to be carcinogenic and toxic in various other ways also. Parents are still told that there is no evidence of any risks.

The school has been operating at Nitida for about 5 years now, I believe. At no point in the past has any attempt been made by the owners to establish whether the premises are safe from contamination nor have any significant safety procedures been followed. That the school is now taking some small steps to address the situation at least allows a degree of discussion on the matter. It should be pointed out that the fact the school is now at least acknowledging the issue is entirely due to the actions of concerned parents and the Galileo Group.

In closing I would offer a challenge to the representatives of the pesticide manufacturers and distributors. Instead of you claiming there is no proof that these chemicals may cause harm to our children why not show us some of the research and evidence you have that clearly proves your assertion that they are safe? Surely if, as you keep telling us, you know these poisons are not a risk you must have some good evidence to prove this. What research have you done to ensure you are not inadvertently negatively affecting our children’s health and lives? We’d very much like to see your proof, after all, you are the ones with all the scientists working for you.

Sincerely,

Ford Hallam

Chameleons Montessori School battles on regardless....

I've just been reading through an email sent out to parents of children at Chameleons that outlines their plans for 2011.

Personally I find it a bit premature that they've got all sorts of exciting plans to boost the numbers of students there when, as yet, we still have no idea what the results of the testing procedures will be.

Surely it would be prudent to wait to find out whether they can in fact claim there is no contamination of the school premises and that children are not being exposed to these poisons before dragging in another batch of unknowing customers?

The school has finally, 5 years after starting at Nitida, been forced to acknowledge the possibility that there may be a danger posed by these chemicals and has said it is doing some testing to discover the reality of the situation. I haven't been able to get anyone to confirm that anything is actually been done as yet but we wait in hope. In the meantime though, the management of the school seems mainly concerned with making up the numbers lost due to people leaving over fears of possible pesticide exposure.

To me it all seems to demonstrate what many of us have come to expect from the school. Come what may and regardless of whatever evidence and facts are presented they will not be moved. All we can hope for is that people with no vested interests there will see the obvious potential for harm and not put their children in such an obviously risky situation.

It's also somewhat odd that while one of the teachers who've tendered their resignation is mentioned and wished well, the other, the actual directress of the primary school, is not mentioned at all. All we are told is;

We will use 2011 to source a dynamic Senior Primary Directress to recreate this class again when we are ready.

It's quite sad that this is how the school treats anyone who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, decides to leave them. From what I understand this lady practically created the primary school single-handedly as neither the principle nor her sister had the qualifications nor experience to do the job themselves.

The following is taken from the schools inappropriately optimistic email of 11 October 2010

Pre-school: Development Plans for 2011

Our two current pre-school classes (Butterflies & Ladybirds) are already full for 2011. As part of our strategic plan, as well as due to increasing demand, we intend introducing a third Pre-school class which will be situated at the Primary Campus in the room currently being used by our Senior Primary Class. Filling this additional class is already underway with only 12 more enrolments needed to have a full compliment for 2011.

The Year Ahead

We remain very enthusiastic and inspired for the year ahead. With this plan we will increase our Chameleons enrolment to 112 children across all campuses – our highest ever!! We are confident that our strategic plan is well grounded and will meet the needs of all our 2011 families.

2011 will be a year of stability, growth and further development in all aspects of Chameleons and we look forward to the re-introduction of our Senior primary class again in the near future as this remains an integral part of the future development of the school.

Transcript of the talk given By Prof: L. London at Chameleons Montessori School 27 May 2010

The following transcript was made of the DVD recording of the talk Prof. London gave at the Chameleons School on the 27 May 2010.

There are a few minutes missing here and there as the audio was not clear enough to accurately hear what was being said but I believe we've managed to record practically everything of consequence that was discussed at that meeting. Where necessary I have summarised what was said to provide context and only directly quoted those parts we could accurately hear.

When time allows I will add some additional commentary that may help provide some context to some of the comments made by members of the schools financial steering committee and the principle and owners of the school.

I have added a time reference so that anyone with a copy of the DVD may check the accuracy of what I've transcribed. We can also make copies available should anyone be interested to hear this talk for themselves.

The DVD begins with a brief welcome etc.

4:10

Brendon Bailes ( Environmental Committee) mentioned groundwater tests that had been done. “phosphates and all that stuff and there’s none so that clears that up”

Comment: Mr Bailes seems to either simply not understand what Mr Veller told him regarding the actual tests that were carried out or he is deliberately misrepresenting the true situation here. I documented the details and proved the evidence in a previous post, here.

5:00

Brendon Bailes talks of testing the children for cholinesterase to prove they are not being affected by sprays etc.

Comment: One has to wonder why Mr Bailes was suggesting this particular test as it will only reveal if a person has been exposed to organophosphates and we had already been assured by Mr Veller that none were used on the farm.

He told us he'd spoken at length with the makers of the test, Pathcare. I spoke with a Mr Cor Alber at Pathcare also and he confirmed that there can be no confusion about the tests application. The suggestion that the children be tested in this way was never the less still mentioned in the Environmental Committee's next meeting's minutes despite Prof. London pointing out it was inappropriate and a detailed email from myself also. Again, either Mr Bailes didn't understand what he's talking about or he was proposing a test that was guaranteed to show a negative result and would create the false impression that something had been tested and all was safe.

9:00

Prof London tells us cholinesterase tests will not be helpful in our situation.

9:49

Prof London “the problem is one of long term exposure and accumulative effect”.

10:47

Prof London speaks about the fact that there is little data available on many of the pesticides relating to various health issues. He states that the absence of evidence is not evidence that the is no evidence, merely that it’s not been investigated as yet.

12:51

Mention of a tree barrier. 8-10 metres beyond the barrier may be safe. Buffer zone of 10 metres.

15:30

Prof London “ there’s lack of human resources in Gov Dept.s also, the best toxicologists probably work for the chemical manufacturers”.

16:30

Prof London “chemicals must be applied in accordance with the safety data labels, if not the SAPS must arrest …(the persons not following the law?)

17:00

Prof London “just because the pesticide is used in accordance with the law doesn’t mean it is safe”.

17:20

Q: re: absorption through the skin in the sandpit?

A: Prof L - Yes, if there is any deposit the level of absorption will vary etc.. The skin in the main route for absorption.

21:30

Prof London talks about Mancozeb - not acutely toxic, cancer causing, endocrine disrupter, it’s thought to have an effect on development aspects and cause adult fertility problems, long term effects not known yet, no definitive answer yet.

24:15

Prof London “the problem regarding risk assessment is we just don’t have sufficient data to make reliable extrapolation. The precautionary approach would be to aim at reducing the exposure as much as possible“.

27:30

Q: Would washing down the sandpit after spraying help?

A: Prof L - Water is not the solution, a cover could help.

27:40

Q: Obviously trees will take a long time to grow so would it help to put up a shade cloth along the border where the spray is most prevalent ie. Pre primary? Could be a temporary solution?

A: Prof L - you would need to ask an environmental engineer - it might work.

28:50

Q: Is taking the children out of school when they spray of any use?

A: Prof L - keeping children away ( while spraying) isn’t much use if there is any deposit.

32:25

Q: Is it worth testing the grass etc for traces of chemicals?

A: Prof London offered to provide contact details of suitable labs.

33:00

Q: Prof London was asked his opinion regarding the severity of the risk and whether he would send his kids to the school.

A: Prof L - I can’t answer that question but my answer to you would be, if I were to build a school I wouldn’t build it on a farm , just to be safe.

35:50

Emma Medell (Principal) - 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 summer for the children to be kept indoors so 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….. And spraying down the outside after, the hosing down afterwards outside…….

Prof London - If you do go the route of doing some environmental samples, them you could actually base your policy on some evidence.

Dave D’Aguair (School Business Steering Committee) - Do you have any sort of idea what costs might be incurred doing some test?

Q: re risk of breakdown product and residues.

A: Prof L - very unusual for any sort of agricultural spray activity not to result in a certain amount of residue and contamination and run off. I wouldn’t believe a study that said there was nothing….it doesn’t make sense….it gets into the environment.

41:30

Prof L - There could be a possibility of a student of Prof London doing some air quality studies.

45:30

Q: Is it safe when there is no spraying?

A: Prof L - It all depends whether there are any residues in the soil and surfaces.

46:00

Bernard Veller (Owner of Nitida wine farm)

rejects organic approach involving CuSO4 as “it’s the most toxic, toxic stuff you can come across!” equated Mancozeb with CuSO4 because both are heavy metals.

50:00

Q: Could any chemicals on the spray list be directly linked to, for example, bronchitis and leaky bowel syndrome or any such sickness?

A: Prof London - Bronchitis is …. ???? ….. But bronchitis would not necessarily be an obvious indication. Some pesticides can cause allergies and asthma. With regard to leaky bowel, I don’t think a pesticide can cause a structural defect.

Q: About how quick does the irritants effects show?

A: Prof L - typically fairly quickly.

Q: (By Claire referring to Albe‘s circumstance ) So it’s not likely that if say the last spraying was in January, come September you get sick it’s not likely you could link it to the spraying?

Comment: It should be pointed out here that the spraying recommences in September. this fact seems lost on Claire.

A: Prof London now refers to Asthma, although it appears Claire believes he is referring to Albe‘s condition - “it was more likely caused by pollen or house mites“.

52:07

Q: why would you not put a school on a farm?

A: Prof L - “There is always a degree of uncertainty, we can’t prove something is safe only that it’s harmful. If you have a choice you could have a school somewhere else. Think about things like deposition on the soil.

The precautionary principle is that if there is an air of risk and you can’t quantify that risk, you would take precautionary action.”

Q: why can’t we quantify the risk?

A: Prof L - in the registration, I think there is certain information lacking but even if it was perfect I think that with the particular exposure you have now there are too many assumptions you have to make. There are too any assumptions and the evidence and literature about the hazards of many chemicals are not available.

56:30

Q: Due to the lack of evidence and research, should we rather move the school?

A: Dave D’Aguair - Excuse me, but that’s no reason to move the school. With the greatest respect it’s far easier to remove one child from the school because I don’t see a risk. .

Claire - but that’s what the tests might show us.

Dave - Then that’s our proof, we go do the tests, we spend R20,000 and then we’ve got some evidence we can go on.

59:00

Concerns over chronic health risks regarding fungicides raised.

59:30

Q; about the other parts of a compound not the active ingredients.

A: Prof London explains how the inert compound in a formulation, which is not required to be indicated in the registration, can be more of a risk than the active ingredient. Roundup used as an example where all the inerts are unknown. Testing will only reveal specifically what you test for.

Q: re symptoms we might expect from exposure?

A: Prof L - Any inhaled agent can cause respiratory symptoms. So it might be it comes across like a cold but it’s actually the reaction to some irritants in the upper respiratory tract. Organophosphates can actually mimic flu if there is low exposure, but there is no organophosphates being used on this farm. It can present like headaches, dizziness and upper respiratory track symptoms.

The other problem that might arise are skin complaints, skin irritations or allergies, sometimes because the pesticides are deposited on the skin and absorbed through the skin. The neurological effects are very subtle about memory, cognition, speed of reaction and children we can measure through development test.

“Effects that are known are generally for adults, they might be different for children”