BayBuzz - Be in the know

July 13, 2009

Last week, the DHB sent its representatives to the HB Regional Council to present an important report on the disputed Hawke’s Bay clean air plan … the one that would phase out the use of woodburners in most Hastings and Napier homes by 2013.

Unfortunately, the DHB sent the “B” Team, or was it the “C” Team, to face a mostly hostile Council, led by chief nincompoops on the issue, Tim Gilbertson and Neil Kirton. The consultant, who did 100% of the presentation, was ill-prepared (apparently he had been misled to believe that Regional Councillors comprehended the impact of PM10 pollution and felt some obligation to curb it). The two DHB functionaries sat mute throughout the presentation (except for a murmur of agreement when Committee Chair Eileen von Dadelszen suggested they need not respond to “political” questions).

Dr. Caroline McElnay, the DHB doctor in charge of protecting public health (and forgive me for thinking that might include helping Councillors get their heads out of the sand), was missing in action. Dr. McElnay made the health impact estimates the consultant was unable to explain cogently.

The whole episode is one more example of the DHB failing to play the health advocacy role the public expects of it. One hopes this might change when elected health board members are truly back in the saddle, and not simply saying “Amen” to Sir Cardinal John Anderson.

The DHB and its consultants produced a report that contained some strong points its presenter failed to emphasize, and, on the other hand, that failed to address some key aspects of the debate (like the economic costs of the adverse health impacts of PM10).

Here are some key comments from the report (you can download and read the entire report here):

“There is no known threshold below which PM10 does not adversely impact upon health. Thus, any exposure to PM10 can be detrimental and setting the standard at 50 μg/m3 per day (with one exceedence allowed) may very well still be too high.”

“There is a causal effect between short and long-term exposure to PM10 and adverse health effects. These health effects can include respiratory illness, cardiac illness and premature death. The health effects seem to fall disproportionally on the most at risk groups e.g. young children, infants, elderly, people with existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions/diseases, asthmatics and people from lower socioeconomic groups. Therefore the decrease in outdoor PM10 levels will lead to two positive health outcomes – reduced death and disability, and increased activity days. Activity days are reduced with PM10 exposure as many people become so unwell that they cannot go about their usual business be that work, school, caring or play.”

Of special note to Mayor Yule and Councillor Gilbertson, whose favorite remedy is for people to “just stay inside” on cold nights to avoid outdoor pollution:

“There is unlikely to much difference between indoor and outdoor air pollution levels as the air from outside ends up inside sooner or later … Some research indicates that pollution levels inside the home are often similar to pollution levels outside the home due to PM10 discharged from solid fuel home heating appliances. These indoor pollutants come from the smoke that is discharged from wood burners and open fires and they get trapped at a higher concentration in a smaller area. The risks to health are further compounded as indoor pollutants have as much as a 1000-fold greater chance of being inhaled than outdoor pollutants … Those spending more time in their homes are at risk of being more exposed to PM10 and their health being adversely affected. The elderly, babies and children are vulnerable groups.”

No one in this debate has yet addressed the moral obligation of landlords to do the right thing for the tenants from whom they make a profit:

“The prohibition of solid-fuel burners significantly increases the likelihood that landlords (or home-owners) may not replace non-compliant heating sources, leading to tenants (or home-owners) using unflued LPG heaters as an alternative heating source. Unflued LPG gas heaters, while emitting very little particulate matter, are one of the most expensive types of home heating to operate, create a lot of indoor moisture, release dangerous gases into the home, lead to injury and fires in the home, and contribute to dampness in the home. These contribute to multiple negative health outcomes … This is a concern when almost 30% of New Zealand households own an unflued gas heater.”

We have laws requiring that merchants sell us safe food. Why not laws that require landlords to rent healthy homes?

Tom Belford

•  Print This Post

Comments