Comments on: In Good Health, by Dr Kevin Snee, CEO, HBDHB http://www.baybuzz.co.nz/archives/1981/ What's new, funny, perplexing in Hawke's Bay Wed, 16 May 2012 04:50:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: david graysonhttp://www.baybuzz.co.nz/archives/1981/comment-page-1/#comment-22024 david grayson Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:41:31 +0000 http://www.baybuzz.co.nz/?p=1981#comment-22024 Valid point Martin You might like to view Bill Davenhall's presentation at TEDMED 2009 www.tedmed.com/videos Valid point Martin
You might like to view Bill Davenhall’s presentation at TEDMED 2009
http://www.tedmed.com/videos

]]> By: morton osbornehttp://www.baybuzz.co.nz/archives/1981/comment-page-1/#comment-21941 morton osborne Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:09:45 +0000 http://www.baybuzz.co.nz/?p=1981#comment-21941 National targets don't necessarily equate with regional statistics & in fact can be quite at variance with these. It was my understanding that the Hawkes Bay had the worst health statistics of any region in NZ, and that this was in relation to ischeamic heart disease (arrhythmias etc), respiratory issues (child asthma) and cancers, particularly breast ... not skin though? So perhaps high sunshine hours don't count? The Hawkes Bay abounds for a large portion of the year in SO2, H2S and PM2.5's all of which variably have been shown in the international literature to have strong correlations with the above-mentioned disease entities. Additionally, these diseases have increased considerably over the last ten or so years, why?Perhaps regional idiosyncrasies might, just might, be more important than national targets. This especially in an area where known not confineable toxins are 'thrown' around with gay abandon with the full knowledge and apparent approval of our own regulatory authority, the regional council.Mind you, I don't believe they have the means of measuring them, hence they are able to make statements such as, 'the air quality in Hawkes Bay is good.' Observation however, indicating orchards spraying seventeen out of twenty working days would tend to suggest the regional council's statement to be somewhat wanting. National targets don’t necessarily equate with regional statistics & in fact can be quite at variance with these.
It was my understanding that the Hawkes Bay had the worst health statistics of any region in NZ, and that this was in relation to ischeamic heart disease (arrhythmias etc), respiratory issues (child asthma) and cancers, particularly breast … not skin though? So perhaps high sunshine hours don’t count?
The Hawkes Bay abounds for a large portion of the year in SO2, H2S and PM2.5′s all of which variably have been shown in the international literature to have strong correlations with the above-mentioned disease entities.
Additionally, these diseases have increased considerably over the last ten or so years, why?

Perhaps regional idiosyncrasies might, just might, be more important than national targets. This especially in an area where known not confineable toxins are ‘thrown’ around with gay abandon with the full knowledge and apparent approval of our own regulatory authority, the regional council.

Mind you, I don’t believe they have the means of measuring them, hence they are able to make statements such as, ‘the air quality in Hawkes Bay is good.’
Observation however, indicating orchards spraying seventeen out of twenty working days would tend to suggest the regional council’s statement to be somewhat wanting.

]]>