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”