Friday, October 22, 2010

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









3 comments:

  1. Hi

    so why dont Ntida then just give the complaining parents 2 options.
    1. Live with it.
    2. Its too dangerous and we will have to boot the school from the farm.. Go find premises elsewhere and oh your school fees will go up as the school will now need to pay rent

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Anonymous,

    an interesting "solution" you propose. It does, however, seem to reveal a certain callousness though.

    Do you really think that any amount of money is worth putting children's lives in possible danger? Your suggestion does seem to indicate that as far as you are concerned the financial inconvenience outweighs any concern for the children's well-being.

    In any case, Chameleons is hardly a cheap school, I believe it may even be the most expensive Montessori school in Durbanville as it is. The rent has to be paid to someone...or are you implying they don't pay rent at Nitida?

    I'd be very interested to hear from you if this is the case because it does make me wonder why we were always busy fund-raising! and how it was that not so long ago the school was struggling to pay the teachers and keep afloat if rent wasn't a running cost.

    But however irrelevant your comment ultimately is it does serve to show how, for some people, it's always about the money.

    One last thing, if you really want to be taken seriously don't hide who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous, you dont seem to have grasped the essence of what is wrong, and that is that if there is spray drift onto the school and or into the school, then the law has been broken. It is, according to Act 36 of 1947, a criminal offence to spray ones vineyards in such a manner that spray drift leaves the vineyards and gets blown into areas that are not under treatment. The school governing body has admitted that there is spray drift into the school.

    So its really not up to Nitida to give the complaining parents any options. They either spray according to the law, or they break the law. To expect the parents to "live with it" is basically asking the parents to stand around and allow the law to be broken whilst at the same time exposing their children to a cocktail of agricultural chemicals that could very well give the children cancer years down the line. Both counts are in our opinion criminally negligent.

    Perhaps those parents who dont have a problem with their children being poisoned happen to also be smokers. We have all seen them driving their children to school, car windows wound tightly shut, puffing away merrily on a ciggie without a care in the world.....

    We assume that the school has some or other arrangement with the farmer and that more than likely they have a subsidised rent. We also assume that they are subsidised by the National Dept of Education (they are after all registered with them). So if they do the right thing (for the sake of their pupils) and move the school, well more than likely they would have to pay more rent and the profits that they are currently enjoying will probably be less. But then one needs to ask are they only in this for financial reasons or so they (the school) honestly care about the health and well being of the chilren (their valued customers). Perhaps all the denial is simply a financial one - that the profits of the school are what is really important here. Just like the profits of the farmer prevent him from using expensive human & environmentally friendly alternatives. Its the "bottom line" that seems to be the main factor in all of this.

    ReplyDelete