Peter Williams - Hero of the Week

There are not many lawyers who I respect. However, that's not the case with Peter Williams, who is clearly one of the good guys.

Not only has this highly experienced Queen's Council worked tirelessly to uphold the law, he has also been outspoken on many issues of significance to all of us.

Here's Peter Williams talking with Selwyn Manning about the GCSB's unlawful activity:

Unfortunately Williams has the big C, with yesterday's Sunday program reporting:

Peter Williams QC is fighting a force he's never before encountered. It's cancer. And for this 79-year-old criminal defence lawyer, it's one of his biggest trials yet.

And it's one of those moments he says that "you realise how precious life is. People take it for granted when you're young, you think you're going to live forever."

But despite a difficult prognosis, Williams never has given up easily and has a track record to prove it. For over 50 years, he's defended some of our country's worst criminals - rapists, murderers and drug traffickers. He says he even liked many of them.

I'm sure his unbiased approach annoyed the hell out of many people. One thing the get tough on criminals crowd needs to understand is that everybody has rights, no matter what they might have done.

This is something that Peter Williams obviously understands. Through his advocacy for prisoner's rights and work as the president of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Williams has undoubtedly challenged our entire justice system and in so doing made it better.

That's why Peter Williams wins this week's Hero Award.

If fast food could talk...

Causes of cancer blatantly obvious

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

New Zealand has one of the highest death rates from cancer in the Asia-Pacific region, a report shows.

[...]

The report shows New Zealand has the highest rates of deaths from bowel cancer and from breast cancer in the Asia-Pacific region. Our bowel cancer death rate is more than 50 per cent greater than Australia's. But New Zealand has the region's second-lowest cervical cancer death rate; only Australia's is lower. Fiji's is nearly 9 times higher than New Zealand's. Several Pacific countries are not included in the report.

Dr Cox said no one knew why New Zealand's cancer death rate was higher than Australia's. "It is unfortunate we haven't been able to control cancer mortality to the same extent that Australia has managed to, which means we have to re-evaluate where we are going again."

Nobody knows why New Zealand's cancer death rate is so high? C'mon Brian Cox. In terms of our high levels of bowel cancer, New Zealanders eat lots of meat, meat that's usually preserved with large amounts of nitrates. During the cooking process, nitrites combine with amines naturally present in meat to form carcinogenic compounds. Many studies have categorically proven the link between meat preservatives and cancer.¹

But it's not just additives that are the problem, it's what we're eating. High fat diets have also been linked with many health issues including breast cancer. Dietary fat promotes tumorigenesis, especially for mammary tumors. A low fat diet with lots of vegetables has been scientifically proven to be beneficial at reducing the risk of cancer.²

So we know that dietary factors are one of the main contributors to New Zealand's high rate of cancer. But there's also the fact that our environment is polluted with many cancer causing compounds.

The current Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key, was recently quoted as saying our 100% Pure campaign should be taken with a pinch of salt, and he's right. New Zealand is not a clean and green country even in relative terms to other countries. Unfortunately there are huge amounts of pollutants discharged into the environment and much of this waste is in areas that Kiwis regularly use recreationally. There is also a lack of information available to tell the public where that danger is, and that means people are often exposed to cancer causing substances.

There's approximately 10,060,000 metric tons of waste discharged yearly from pulp and paper mills into New Zealand waterways and many of the compounds in that waste are known to be highly carcinogenic.³ Air pollution is also another major factor.⁴ That's why the highest rates of cancer in New Zealand are located around where pulp and paper mills operate or have operated in the past.

So there's two reasons for why New Zealand has such a high rate of cancer... Two reasons Professor Cox should have been aware of.

1. Carroll, K. K. (1975) Experimental evidence of dietary factors and hormone-dependent cancers. Cancer Res 35:3374-3383.
2. So, F. V., Guthrie, N., Chambers, A. F. and Carroll, K. K. (1997) Inhibition of proliferation of estrogen receptor-positive MCF-7 human breast cancer cells by flavonoids in the presence and absence of excess estrogen.
3. McLeay DJ. Aquatic toxicity of pulp and paper mill effluent (1987) A review. Environment Canada. Ottawa, Report EPS 4/PF/1,191.
4. Colin L. Soskolne and Lee E. Sieswerda (2010) Chronic Diseases in Canada – Cancer risk associated with pulp and paper mills: a review of occupational and community epidemiology Vol 29, Supplement 2.

Business as usual for fracking industry

Today, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, released her interim report Evaluating the environmental impacts of fracking in New Zealand (PDF), which was obviously released to the oil and gas industry spin doctors earlier this week.

Here's the conclusion and some interim findings, plus a few other excerpts worth highlighting:

The high-level conclusion from the work done to date in this investigation echoes, and is broadly consistent with, the reviews of fracking that have been done elsewhere in the world. That conclusion is that the environmental risks associated with fracking can be managed effectively provided, to quote the United Kingdom Royal Society, “operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation”. But at this stage I cannot be confident that operational best practices are actually being implemented and enforced in this country.

Firstly, operational best practice has clearly not been adhered to and this has resulted in numerous accidents and toxic chemical spills in New Zealand. For Jan Wright to say she's not confident that; 'operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation' is putting it incredibly lightly.

The second issue is that even if operational best practices are followed, the environmental problems inherent in fracking technologies remain. These problems outweigh the benefits fracking can impart such as job creation, security of energy supply and economic welfare, all of which have been incredibly overstated by the oil and gas industry as well as the current New Zealand government.

Some of the problems inherent in fracking technologies include a potential for irreparable water contamination that could affect drinking water supplies and other productive industries, adverse health effects of the general population through contamination, an increased likelihood of earthquakes leading to further tectonic instability in an already tectonically active country, gas leaks and continued reliance on fossil fuels contributing to climate change and the damage done to our clean and green image worth billion's to our economy each year. The cost analysis of any one of these things clearly outweighs the economic benefits from continuing to frack New Zealand.

Unfortunately the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment hasn't adequately looked into these matters to be able to make any authoritative conclusion on the matter. She does however touch on the subject of deregulation.

It may be that light-handed regulation of the oil and gas industry is working well, but this cannot be assumed. In August 2012, speaking about fracking, the Executive Director of the IEA was reported as saying that the industry’s 'just-trust-me approach is fuelling public skepticism.' Such skepticism is one of the real challenges for the industry.

Such a statement makes me wonder if Wright is even aware of the documented evidence showing numerous events of fracking failures in New Zealand. Of course regulatory measures haven't been effective in protecting the environment from industry cowboys, and it's not simply the just-trust-me approach that's fueling skepticism; it's the documented cases of fracking "accidents" and environmental pollution.

It's also the human cost to yet another dirty fossil fuel based industry that must be considered. South Taranaki District councilor, Michael Self, was one of the first people to link environmental pollution with the adverse health effects of many people and animals living in close proximity to fracking sites in the region. The high rate of cancer in Taranaki for instance is likely a result of pollution from the rampant expansion of and improperly regulated oil and gas industry.

Unfortunately there’s been no independent scientific study into this, mainly because of collusion between the industry and government officials to ensure secrecy. Clearly they only care about the money to be made and keeping things like the high levels of cancer in Taranaki under wraps is the only way they’ll ensure their ill-gotten gains continue.

Of course Jan Wright completely ignores the fact that corruption is one of the main problems, instead recommending:

Increasing public understanding of the technology should help address some concerns.

What a load of tosh! Gaining a better understanding of the problems inherent in fracking technologies has increased people's concerns. It's only through a secretive agenda and propaganda that the oil and gas industry has been able to carry out such environmentally unsafe practices. If the public knew the extent of the damage that has already occurred in New Zealand from hydraulic fracturing, it would not be tolerated... It's as simple as that.

On the whole the interim report is highly disappointing, weak, disjointed and not very thorough. Unfortunately the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment omits some very relevant and important aspects to the fracking debate and cherry-picks what information is included. Jan Wright also seems to think that a moratorium on fracking isn't required because the oil and gas industry will somehow magically clean up its act... Yeah right!

The industry has already proven through many instances of negligence that it cannot be trusted. The current local and central governmental bodies that are meant to be responsible for oversight have shown that they're not concerned in the slightest with properly enforcing consent requirements, thus proving they also cannot be trusted.

Fracking is not a safe technology and therefore all new developments should be halted. Furthermore the industry should be made to decontaminate and decommission existing sites. In my opinion, New Zealand should follow the example of many other countries around the world and ban the environmentally destructive practice immediately. The fracking pros simply don't outweigh the cons.

Rena's toxic legacy

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Just over a year after the Rena struck the Astrolabe Reef in the Bay of Plenty, containers of hazardous substances still lie beneath the water.

The Minister of Transport, Gerry Brownlee, has confirmed the contents of three containers of cryolite, a byproduct of the aluminium smelting process, have been lost at sea.

The location of a further 17 containers with cryolite is not known.

Mr Brownlee said it was not possible to state with certainty how many of these containers remained within the wreck in cargo holds.

Why haven't they sent a diver down to see what containers remain in the Rena's cargo hold and then check the shipping manifest to see what is in these containers? Clearly they should have done this already and Brownlee's excuse doesn't wash.

A risk assessment provided to the Government stated cryolite posed "both an immediate and long-term pollution hazard to marine organisms and plants". But scientists had advised Maritime New Zealand that a number of factors suggested the risk could be reduced.

Cryolite was only slightly soluble in water and the rate of release was expected to be diminished because of packaging. It broke down to naturally occurring elements - mainly aluminium and fluoride - which became less harmful in seawater because of reactions with other naturally abundant elements.

The scientific evidence that the synthetic cryolite that was onboard the Rena will become less toxic in seawater is based on pure speculation. It's all dependent on how fast it dissipates in the water, and they haven't bothered to find this out.

Cryolite is sometimes used as an insecticide, and works by poisoning the stomach of any insects that eat foliage. It has been found to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms and especially shellfish.

Currently produced in Japan from sodium aluminate, ammonium fluoride and sodium hydroxide, which are known to be toxic to aquatic life and carcinogenic/neurotoxic in humans, Cryolite is not meant to be used in conjunction with other chemicals such as lime because it causes phototoxicity.

Clearly Cryolite is not as benign as they would want us to believe.

Maritime New Zealand began an investigation when it found cryolite had been loaded onto the Rena in Bluff without being classified as a dangerous substance.

The agency decided not to prosecute the manufacturer after it alerted authorities to the error and co-operated to address the gap in its processes.

The agency decided not to prosecute because it evidently doesn't give a damn about marine safety. Neither does the National government, who is not interested in compulsory shipping lanes that might ensure another Rena disaster doesn't occur again.

The contents of containers carrying ferrosilicon and one of potassium nitrate are also thought to have been lost at sea.

Another container of 5400kg of trichloroisocyanuric acid was on the seabed next to the wreck in March, but has not been recovered.

How fucked is that? They're just leaving all these dangerous chemicals in the ocean to slowly leach out and pollute the entire East coast, presumably because it would cost a lot of money to recover the hazardous shipping containers and dispose of their dangerous contents.

Meanwhile the "scientific" studies that have been conducted so far have only looked at the effects of hydrocarbons from the heavy fuel oil and none of the other substances the Rena was carrying that are known to be dangerous. Anybody would think they're trying to bloody well wreck the environment on purpose.

Maritime New Zealand is still refusing to release the Rena's full inventory (citing commercially sensitive information), which would let us know exactly what was onboard. You've got to wonder if the bad news about the Rena disaster is only going to get worse.

Professor slams prescription fees increase

Today, the University of Otago reported:

The Government’s announcement that it will increase the co-payment for a prescription from $3 to $5 per item, for up to a maximum of 20 items per year, represents a questionable trade-off, says a University of Otago public health researcher.

Professor Tony Blakely, Director of the Burden of Disease Equity and Cost Effectiveness (BODE3) programme at the University of Otago, Wellington, says the trade-off is that activities such as care coordination in cancer services and IT systems to support delivery of care will be increased.

“First, will increasing funding on care coordination – things like patient navigators – increase survival among cancer patients? Yes – and probably reduce inequalities too.

“Second, will increasing prescription part charges worsen health? Yes – and definitely widen inequalities in health by impacting more on the disadvantaged.

“Third; is the trade-off between these two policies worth it? Probably not – other trade-offs and prioritisation decisions could have been considered with a better net outcome.”

[...]

Rising part charges could be done with less impact on sick poor people by reducing the maximum number of prescriptions attracting a co-payment per year from 20 to 15, meaning that the worst case-scenario per year for a low-income person is an increase from $60 per year to $75 per year – not $100 per year. This would still be revenue-raising.

“The Government is making clear trade-offs elsewhere, for example by continuing with tax cuts for the wealthy, not increasing the age of eligibility for superannuation and not considering capital gains taxes. There are other ways of redistribution resources than using part charges,” says Professor Blakely.

This is just another wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy who have largely squandered the money they gained from National's tax cuts. The government is now scrambling to find capital to cover extra health spending in the upcoming zero Budget... because the tax cuts for the rich haven't stimulated the economy at all.

It's far easier to increase prescription charges by 66% than to actually fix the economy.

And who is getting punished for National's fiscal mismanagement? The poor, old and unwell of course. It's always those who are least able to afford such changes that are punished by the rightwing... basically because they're less likely to fight back. Welcome to John Keys "brighter" future.

Depo-Provera increases cancer

Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett was recently in the news saying that the long acting contraceptive Depo-Provera was perfectly safe after announcing that female beneficiaries would be "offered" the medication by WINZ officers.

However last Week, the Huffington Post reported:

Researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Researcher Center found that when women use depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), a progestin-only form of birth control, for a year or more, their breast cancer risk may be increased 2.2-fold. MSNBC reported that DMPA is also known as Depo-Provera.

The study was a population-based case-control study among 1028 women 20-44 years of age to assess the association between Depo-Provera and breast cancer risk.

The 2.2 fold increase in risk of cancer is the average, with some woman showing a 4.2 fold increase in cancer risk while using the contraception. 95% of those assessed showed at least a 1.2 fold increase.

Joan Campion, spokewoman of Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, said:

As part of the Depo-Provera label, physicians are already advised on benefits and risks of Depo-Provera, including the risk of breast cancer.

Unfortunately this does not mean the woman using the dangerous contraception have been advised of the 2.2 fold increased risk of cancer. Pfizer currently believes that changes to benefits and risk profile are not warranted. Dicks!

Institutionalised racism

Today, the Waikato Times reported:

Your chances of surviving cancer are improving – unless you are poor or Maori.

A new Otago University/Health Ministry report shows that, while survival rates for cancer are improving nationally – 32 per cent from 1991 to 2004 – the mortality rate for Maori is 29 per cent higher than that of non-Maori.

Inequalities in survival were also seen between different income levels.

People diagnosed with cancer in the lowest third of household incomes had on average a 12 per cent higher death rate than people on high incomes.

The report has outraged Toi Ora primary health organisation (PHO) chief executive Tureiti Moxon, who said such a wide gap was "simply unacceptable" in a country such as New Zealand.

In my opinion, one of the main issues is that many Hospitals in rural areas have closed and this happens to be where Maori and people on lower incomes predominantly reside.

This adds additional cost to travel to get the required treatment, which is often not available to those with cancer, which results in lapses in service.

Another problem is that poor people who cannot afford to see the doctor are less likely to have their cancer diagnosed early. This will greatly reduce their likelihood of surviving.

New Zealand has one of the highest rates of cancer in the world, so this is really something the government cannot afford to get wrong.

Dangerous chemical recalled but not in NZ

Last week, Arysta LifeScience made a press statement (PDF) announcing that it was ceasing sales and withdrawing from the U.S. all of its methyl iodide-containing fumigant formulations:

The decision was made as part of an internal review of the fumigant and based on its economic viability in the U.S.

It just so happens that a major court case decision was due out last week concerning the fumigant's classification. The potential for further litigation from the misclassification of methyl iodide is huge, and Arysta LifeScience has clearly gone into damage control in expectation that the ruling will go against them.

On Monday, CropLife reported:

By now, you may have heard that Tokyo, Japan-based Arystra LifeScience Inc. has decided to stop selling its methyl iodide brand Midas in the U.S. Used primarily as a fumigant for strawberries and other fruit crops, methyl iodide simply wasn’t selling well enough in the country to merit its continued sales here. So as I read this, 1 (manufacturers want to make products that sell) + 1 (product wasn’t selling) = 2 (company stops selling product).

Yet when I read about methyl iodide’s exit from the U.S. market, I was surprised to find several comments from agricultural critics claiming it was their opposition that got the product pulled from use. “Today, I’m really happy,” one critic was quoted as saying in the Los Angeles Times. “It feels like someone finally listened to us about something really important.” Reading this, the belief from this individual is 1 (manufacturers want to make products that sell) + 1 (product wasn’t selling) + 1 (critic opposition) = 2 (company stops selling product).

In my book, this is a classic example of fuzzy math. I’m certain if the sales were there, Arystra would still be selling methyl iodide in the U.S. (By the way, the company will continue selling the product outside of the U.S., where its sales are better.)

The regular Monsanto advocate Eric Sfiligoj is an idiot to think Arysta LifeScience has suddenly decided MIDAS is not profitable at the precise time a court ruling is likely to find the fumigant was incorrectly classified. It is too much of a coincidence. There's also little alternative available to methyl iodide based fumigants and MIDAS had cornered the U.S. market, making it highly profitable.

Considering that Arysta LifeScience also requested all existing supplies and tanks to be returned, there is no doubt that they have realized that methyl iodide was misclassified and any further profiteering from selling the highly carcinogenic substance could result in legal claims and compensation. That would assuredly make the product less economically viable.

Let's fix the idiots calculation:

1 (manufacturer knows product is dangerous but sells it anyway to make a profit) + 1 (a court decision is likely to find that methyl iodide was initially misclassified opening Arysta LifeScience up to multiple litigations) = 2 (company makes up an excuse to stop selling product and tries to suppress the court decision).

Arysta LifeScience claims that removing the product renders the case moot.

Yesterday, California Watch reported:

“If the judge dismisses the case,” said Paul Towers of Pesticide Action Network North America, one of 17 plaintiffs in the case, “California will have let a pesticide corporation off the hook and failed to fix our broken regulatory system.”

Of course methyl iodide based products are still being sold here in New Zealand. Politicians and ERMA will do their best to ignore the fact that it’s been removed from U.S. shelves, not because it wasn’t making a profit, but because it’s a highly dangerous carcinogen that was initially misclassified.

Methyl iodide could even be contributing to New Zealand having the highest rate of cancer in the world. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Methyl iodide challenged

Methyl iodide is a pesticide that is sometimes used for fumigating soil before planting. It's manufactured by Arysta LifeScience and sold under the brand name MIDAS, and is currently banned under the Montreal Protocol.

In june 2010, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approved an application to import and manufacture the soil fumigant Ripper, which contains methyl iodide. In New Zealand it's mainly been used in the strawberry growing industry.

In 2009 a New Zealand study (Pay-walled PDF) showed that methyl iodide induces fetotoxicity in white rabbits when maternal exposure occurs during a susceptible window late in gestation. In fact evaluative studies performed as long ago as 1970 show that methyl iodide causes cancer and reproductive toxicity. ERMA appears to have ignored these studies in making its decision.

Approval in New Zealand was given despite the European Parliament banning the use of methyl bromide (a similar halogen to methyl iodide) in the EU from 18 March 2010 for environmental and health reasons and growing concern in the United States. Methyl bromide is used for the pre-export fumigation of logs.

The Council of Trade Unions called for a ban on methyl bromide in January 2010:

Professor Ian Shaw, toxicologist and Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Canterbury, asserts that methyl bromide may have caused motor neurone disease in Nelson port workers after a cluster of deaths from the disease (see New Zealand Herald, Monday 25 January). Nelson’s port population has suffered a rate of motor neuron disease 25 times the international average.

[...]

“There is no evidence to justify any human exposure level to methyl bromide,” said CTU President Helen Kelly. “This neurological poison could have caused the fatal motor neurone disease in six Port Nelson workers, and its ozone depleting status means it is hazardous to us all.”

The problem is that methyl iodide was initially incorrectly classified. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA has been receiving submissions concerning that misclassification and the health effects methyl iodide is shown to cause. Here's an excerpt from the American Industrial Hygiene Association submission:

The AIHA stated that "a number of potentially carcinogenic substances for which PEL revisions are proposed appear to have been misclassified concerning their toxic effect" (Ex. 8-16, p. 6). The AIHA includes methyl iodide in this group of substances.

At the time methyl iodide was classified in the United States, top scientists in the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) warned their superiors of its dangers and strongly criticized the levels of exposure set by the political appointees running the department.

Their classification mistake has resulted in a potentially huge increase in cancer rates of people who are exposed... and continued litigation that could potentially cost entities such as ERMA (who approved the dangerous substance in New Zealand) millions of dollars.

On Friday the 13th, Yubanet reported:

OAKLAND, Calif. January 12, 2012 - Earlier today, California's Alameda County Superior Court heard arguments regarding the state's approval in December 2010 of methyl iodide, a cancer-causing pesticide fumigant approved for use on the state's strawberry fields. Methyl iodide was approved despite independent scientific evidence about the significant health risks it poses to children, rural communities and farmworkers. Judge Frank Roesch is anticipated to file an opinion within the next few months.

[...]

The judge did give some initial indications from bench about his opinions. "Did you consider not approving methyl iodide?...I don't see it. Absent that, I don't see how you can prevail in the lawsuit," said Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch. He also gave defendants until January 20 to make a legal argument that DPR was not required to consider alternatives to methyl iodide under the California Environmental Quality Act.

"The science is clear that cancer-causing methyl iodide shouldn't be used near farmworkers, rural communities and children," said Paul Towers, spokesperson for Pesticide Action Network, the lead plaintiff in the case. "This case highlights the breakdown in government decision-making at the hands of corporate influence—a dangerous precedent that must be rectified."

"The exposure levels that California approved as "safe" for workers are 120 times higher than the levels that government scientists say protect against miscarriages and 56 times higher than the levels they say protect against thyroid cancer," stated Jora Trang, Managing Attorney of Worksafe, a plaintiff in the case. "Children are more vulnerable to pesticides than adults, so methyl iodide poses a particular risk to teenage farmworkers and young rural residents. The approval of methyl iodide has made lab rats out of our rural children. It is unconscionable."

It looks likely that Judge Frank Roesch will find in favour of the claimants and methyl iodide will be removed from use in the United States. That will leave New Zealand along with Mexico, Morocco, Japan and Turkey the only countries stupid enough to allow methyl iodide to continue to be used and cause adverse effects in their populations.

With such idiots running things, it's no wonder New Zealand has the fourth highest rate of cancer in the world.

MSDS for Methyl iodide (PDF).

The week that was 30 April - 6 May

New Zealand has the third-highest rate of children living in single-parent homes, an OECD study says. This means nearly one in four Kiwi children are growing up in single-parent homes as more marriages break up and single women choose to enter motherhood on their own. Of twenty seven industrialised countries, New Zealand ranked third in the Doing Better for Families study, with 23.7 per cent of children living in a one-parent household, compared with the 14.9 per cent average across all countries.

Children's Commissioner John Angus said Kiwi children were four times more likely to be living under the poverty line if a single parent was raising them.


As of December last year, any person or organisation that provides financial service to a member of the public has to register with the Companies Office as a financial service provider and belong to an approved dispute resolution scheme like FSCL. The new responsible lending guidelines launched this week could prove a deterrent to loan sharking practices as they can be used to look into complaints made against lending companies whether they signed up to the guidelines or not, a dispute resolution provider says.

Child Poverty Action Group executive member Claire Dale said its good to see consumers will be able to access free information about the dispute resolution services but she objects to "the pretence that the guidelines will address the issues of finance companies making loans with cripplingly high interest rates, punitive default conditions, and excessive security and powers of repossession".

"New Zealand is one of the few countries in the OECD who has continued to deny the most vulnerable citizens the protection of a capped interest rate. The guidelines slap loan sharks with a dead fish, and sidestep the very real need for the government to cap interest rates," Ms Dale said.

The Law Commission issued a report on the 35-year-old drug laws, saying there was room for "a more flexible approach to small-scale dealing and personal drug use", particularly when linked to addiction. The report also suggests that the Government should carry out clinical trials on the effectiveness of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

A new system of warnings for personal possession and "social dealing" of drugs is proposed, with three warnings for a class C drug offence before an offender would be ordered to attend "a brief intervention session". Two warnings would apply for class B drug offences, and one for class A. There should also be a presumption against imprisonment for those prosecuted for "social dealing" that had no profit for the dealer, the report says.

Nearly half of New Zealand's adult population has used cannabis at some point in their lives and about one in seven were classified as current users in 2006. The report says there should be no changes that dilute prohibition of drug use. "However, there is room for taking a more flexible approach to small-scale dealing and personal possession and use." The police submission on the report, obtained by Fairfax, objects to the proposals for a "cautioning" approach. Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said too many resources were directed into criminalising people rather than providing them with medical help.

"This new approach, if adopted, will actually save money, enabling greater resources to be directed into health services for breaking the cycle of drug abuse and addiction. It will also free police to tackle more serious crime." Metiria said.

On Monday Greenpeace activists began blocking the construction of the European Pressurized Nuclear Reactor (EPR) being built at Flamanville, France. Two trucks were anchored to the ground, blockading the entrance carrying activists. More activists scaled four cranes, attempting to impede further construction work at the site.

The EPR design in particular has a number of safety risks similar to Fukushima, as the French nuclear safety authority ASN pointed out a few weeks ago. The regulator must now act and enforce a moratorium on the site.

Click image for Fukushima status.

Worldwide concerns surrounding radioactivity continue after the Fukushima Dai-ichi meltdowns, with both levels in the atmosphere and sea water surrounding the plant containing higher than normal levels, and more concerns over the radioactivity which may have entered the food and drinking water systems.


In Germany, the Christian Democratic Union, blamed the Fukushima meltdown for a regional election loss. Seven of the county's oldest plants were temporarily shut down in the immediate aftermath of the event and protests have taken place in Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne and Munich, where 200,000 people gathered to demand the closure of all Germany’s reactors.

Austria's environment minister called for stress tests to make sure Europe’s nuclear facilities are earthquake-proof. The European Commission also agreed that in the wake of the disaster, stress tests should be performed on power stations in the EU to test how robust their safety systems are. EU Energy Commissioner Gunter Oettinger raised doubts that all the 143 reactors in Europe would get approval under the review.

In China, one of the biggest builders of new nuclear, has suspended building on its new reactors, pending new safety regulations. The Bangladeshi government on the other hand has announced they will go ahead with their new power station, while in India a safety review has been announced, although no shift looks likely in their pro-nuclear policy.

Customs officials in Chile detected radiation in cars that arrived from Japan onboard the Hyundai 106 cargo ship. Twenty-one of the 2,500 cars that arrived in Iquique, Chile from the Japanese port of Yokohama have been found to have low levels of radiation. Nearly one hundred port workers have protested the arrival of the shipment and subsequent exposure, claiming their health was at risk.

Global anti-corruption coalition Transparency International (TI) has released the ‘Global Corruption Report: Climate Change’, which presented guidelines to prevent corruption which could undermine climate change remedy actions. 

"Where huge amounts of money flow through new and untested financial markets and mechanisms, there is always a risk of corruption. Some estimate total climate change investments in mitigation efforts alone at almost $700-billion by 2020. Public investments of no less than $250-billion a year will eventually flow through new, relatively uncoordinated and untested channels. In addition, pressure already exists to ‘fast-track’ solutions, further enhancing the risk of corruption,” said the report.

It called on governments, international organisations, businesses and civil society to ensure good governance in climate policy, because under global climate agreements, substantial funding would be gathered to finance mitigation of emissions, such as renewable energy projects, and adaptation to impacts, such as construction of sea walls, irrigation systems and disaster-ready housing.

Conservation Department staff have been told to expect job losses as part of a wide-ranging review and restructure of the organisation. Director-general Al Morrison has told staff of the review, which follows a year of mergers and job cuts after the department had its budget slashed in 2009. It is refusing to say how many jobs may be at risk, saying it is too early and that the restructure is still in a "design phase".

The restructure could affect teams who process permits and concessions, mapping staff, resource management planners, and legal, payroll and administrative staff. Scientific and technical officer jobs were also being looked at as part of the review. Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott said the review was being done to save money. The union did not know how many job losses there would be. In the 2009 Budget, DOC had $54 million cut from its budget over four years.

John Key is adamant that the NZDF has done nothing wrong in Afghanistan and continues to refuse an independent enquiry into allegations made in John Stephenson’s recent article in Metro Magazine, which accuses the NZSAS of being complicit in the torture of Afghan Civilians. This has resulted in the Greens saying;

"If the Prime Minister John Key and Governor General Designate Jerry Mataparae have nothing to hide, then they should welcome an enquiry as an opportunity for their version of the truth to be confirmed. If they continue to stonewall an investigation, and throw mud at the messenger, then the New Zealand public will have no choice but to assume that the SAS are in fact guilty as accused, and that the Governor General Designate and Prime Minister have deliberately lied the New Zealand public on several occasions" The Green Party said.

The Governor General Designate Jerry Mataparae and Prime Minister John Key.

John Key publicly attacked John Stephenson's journalistic credibility over the NZSAS Metro article. Mr Key also said Mr Stephenson made a phone call to him and alleges Mr Stephenson impersonated Duncan Garner, a well known TV3 right wing journalist.  The public attack by the Prime Minister as well as statements made by Rhys Jones, the chief of defence force - will possibly be the subject of legal action undertaken by Mr Stephenson.

New Zealand has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world, which is the most likely cause of cancer in Kiwi men aged 25 to 44, and those over 60 are most at risk. One in 13 men will get melanoma in their lifetime, compared with one in 18 women. Melanoma unit surgeon and Melanoma Foundation trustee Richard Martin says continued exposure to the sun for a long period, as in the case of farmers, means a higher risk later in life. The foundation says melanoma is a deadly skin cancer that has a devastating impact on 2000 New Zealanders and their families every year.

Melanoma is the most serious form of skin cancer. While it is not the most common skin cancer, it causes the most deaths. Melanoma is most common in white-skinned individuals, but it may develop in those with dark skin as well. About one in 15 white-skinned New Zealanders are expected to develop melanoma in their lifetime, and Australia and New Zealand have the highest reported rates of melanoma in the world. It was the third most common cancer registration in New Zealand in females and the fourth most common cancer for males in 2000.

Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Christopher Finlayson welcomed the beginning of the 11th New Zealand Music Month, saying it was a great way to sample from the full range of local music offerings with events nationwide.

“New Zealand musicians are consistently recognised on the international stage, from contemporary acts at the annual SXSW music fair in Austin, Texas to the NZSO performing in Vienna. We can take advantage of the fact we have thriving live music scenes across many genres right on our door-steps during May. New Zealand Music Month is an excellent opportunity to get out of the house and see our world class musicians in their natural environment, whether that is Auckland’s Aotea Centre or Karangahape Road, the Wellington Opera House or Cuba Street,” Mr Finlayson said.

Sir Bob Geldof was honored for his humanitarian work at the Gulf Intelligence Food Security Forum held in Abu Dhabi on Thursday. According to statistics presented at the conference, the number of people suffering from chronic hunger surpassed one billion for the first time last year. At the same time, food prices hit a new high in February 2011, surpassing the previous peak prices of December 2010.

“Countries such as the UAE that control vital natural resources like oil should take a stand and put pressure on other nations to ensure food security for all,” Sir Bob Geldof said.

Speaking on the occasion, Shaikh Nahyan Bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in the UAE, said ensuring world food security called for innovative and scientific solutions to the problem. 

"Food security is a complicated problem. Higher standards of living and better health care are signs of development, but they also increase the demand for food. We therefore need to increase food production and supply in ways that do not pose a threat to development, as well as ensure that development does not increase food security concerns," Shaikh Nahyan said.

There are reports of many civilians being massacred in the small Syrian town of Tel Kalakh, with reports that the Syrian army's 4th Brigade fired into unarmed protesters. Almost half the Sunni Muslim population fled over the river frontier into Lebanon, babes in arms, old people in wheelchairs, pushed through the shallow waters of the Nahr el-Kbir.

As many as 4,000 of the Syrian Sunnis made it to the safety of Lebanon to be given food, shelter and blankets by relatives and by strangers and they were there yesterday – 80 living in one house alone scarcely 20m from Syria, desperate to praise the kindness of the Lebanese, fearful of the things they had seen, ferocious in their anger against their president.

The men responsible for the killings in Tel Kalakh were members of the Syrian army's 4th Brigade, the same unit, commanded by President Bashar al-Assad's little brother Maher, that is besieging the southern city of Deraa, along with government snipers and "shabiha" thugs from the Alawi mountains. Dressed in black, the latter spent some time, according to Syrian refugee women, tearing the veils off girls and trying to kidnap them.

Muammar Gaddafi meets Barack Obama.

NATO undertook an attack on a Libyan building which killed Gaddafi's youngest son Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, and three of his grandchildren. This occurred despite the UN resolution 1973, which prohibits attacks on civilians. Nato maintains that it was not an assassination attempt and that the building was used to support military personnel. Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said;

"The house of Mr Saif al-Arab Gaddafi was attacked tonight with full power. The leader with his wife was there in the house with other friends and relatives. The leader himself is in good health, he wasn't harmed, however this is a direct operation to assassinate the leader of this country. This is not permitted by international law. It is not permitted by any moral code or principle." the spokesman said, adding that Gaddafi's wife was also unharmed.

Link Between Chlorine and Asthma

Checking out your drinking water might be a good idea if you or a family member has asthma and allergies.  A recent Belgian study concluded that chlorine, a common chemical added to water to help kill bacteria, could be making asthma in children worse.  Fumes from chlorine in pools, and even in the shower, could trigger an attack for some people with asthma and allergies.

Those who suffer from asthma and allergies are often sensitive to gases that are produced when chlorine sanitizes bacteria in sweat or urine.  These gases can build up in an enclosed shower, irritating the lungs.

Scientists consider chlorine one of the most toxic elements found in nature. Exposure to chlorine vapour can create adverse health effects, especially for allergy and asthma sufferers. The Asthma Foundation has estimated that 1 in 4 New Zealand children have asthma.

Synthetic chemicals are all around us: in the products we use, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. It's no wonder that many people have become sensitive to these chemicals. In fact, it's estimated that 15 percent of the population has become sensitised to common household and commercial products like chlorine, bleach, detergent, cosmetics, perfume, and paints.

Chemical sensitivity is defined as an adverse reaction to toxic chemicals in the air, food, and water. It can affect your breathing, digestion, and heartbeat, as well as cause headaches, arthritis, and urinary tract infections. Judgment, perception, and memory may also be impaired. Other symptoms include bloating and gas after eating, irritability, extreme fatigue, muscle and joint aches and recurring throat infections. Almost 30 percent of those diagnosed with chemical sensitivity are exposed to chemicals at their jobs. Special testing is available to diagnose chemical sensitivity and treatment will depend on the type of chemical involved. The best treatment is to avoid or eliminate the harmful chemicals.

Clean water is one of the most important requirements. It is a sad fact that something as essential to life as clean drinking water can no longer be granted to us. Unsafe water is not just a third world problem. Despite our obvious advantages, New Zealand’s water quality is woefully lacking with many areas having an E rating. This means that the water is unsafe to consume.

More than 700 organic chemicals have been identified in drinking water and some of them are suspected cancer-causing agents. There are around 35,000 pesticides containing 600 chemical compounds. Many of these chemicals are known to cause birth defects, nerve damage, sterility and cancer. Chlorine, the chemical used to keep swimming pools clean, may increase a child's risk of developing asthma, the results of a new study indicate. In recent years, the incidence of childhood asthma has risen dramatically.

In Ireland, researchers carried out tests on 226 healthy children who swam regularly, in order to determine the levels of lung proteins in their blood. An increase in these proteins indicates that the cells lining the lungs have been damaged, which can lead to asthma. The researchers also measured the lung proteins in 16 children and 13 adults before and after exposure to an indoor chlorinated pool. As well as this, they studied relations between pool attendance and asthma prevalence in 1,881 children. The study found that those who attended pools regularly, whether they were swimming or not, were most likely to have high levels of lung proteins. However those who swam most often had protein levels similar to that of a regular smoker.

It appears that when chlorine reacts with organic matter in a swimming pool, such as sweat or urine, a mixture of potentially harmful chemicals result, which is then inhaled by people.

Belgian researchers tracked asthma rates among hundreds of primary school children and found they rose with the length of time, spent swimming in chlorinated pools. Based on these findings, the Belgian researchers concluded that 'the increasing exposure of children to chlorination products in indoor pools might be an important cause of the rising incidence of childhood asthma and allergic diseases in industrialised countries'.

Children who swim in public pools are more likely to suffer from asthma because chlorine irritates their lungs, according to the first major study of the disinfectant's possible health risks. The high concentrations of chlorine in the air above swimming pools were found to irritate the epithelium, the lining of the lungs so severely that it breaks down. It then becomes easier for pollens, dander, smoke and other irritants to cross the barrier and set off an asthma attack.

The finding offers an unexpected explanation for why asthma rates have risen so sharply over the past few decades in industrialized countries, including Canada, the researchers say. But it also undermines standard medical advice, which holds that asthmatics should avoid exercising in cold, dry air because it can aggravate the lungs. The moist, warm air of indoor swimming pools is often touted as the perfect alternative.

 

"The belief that the swimming pool environment is safe is so deeply rooted in our minds," the researchers write in their paper, released in the British journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Blood test, given to 29 adults during the study, also analysed a certain protein that indicates damage to the epithelium. It showed the level of epithelial damage due to inhaled chlorine varied consistently with the length of time spent breathing the chlorine rich air of a swimming pool. As the team expected, asthma rates in the larger group showed the same trend. "These changes are far from being negligible," the report says.

Dr. Ken Chapman, director of the Asthma Centre at Toronto Western Hospital, said the results are "disturbing," but pointed out they were preliminary findings and said more research should be done on the dangers of swimming pool chlorine. One of the study's authors, Dr. Alfred Bernard, a toxicologist at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, said he was surprised to find no serious epidemiological study of the health dangers of chlorine in swimming pools. In his paper, he urged policy-makers to rethink its widespread use and to switch to another disinfectant or improve air-quality monitoring.

"This lack of concern is also reflected in the existing regulations, which in most countries ... are focused on the microbiological quality of pool water, largely ignoring the air quality," wrote Dr. Bernard and his co-authors, all either toxicologists or respiratory specialists from three Belgian universities, with an Australian co-author.

Dr. Chapman compared chlorine's toxic effects to sulfur dioxide, a common environmental pollutant that is also thought to irritate the epithelium.

A 1998 Health Canada report found that 13% of Canadian students aged 5 to 19 suffered from asthma, with a range from 9.7% in Sherbrooke, Que., to 18% in Prince Edward Island. The most commonly cited factors that trigger asthma attacks among these students were colds (86%) followed by exercise (75%), pollen, flowers, grass, plants or trees (58%), tobacco smoke (55%), dust (55%), cold air (53%) and pets (47%).

A more recent Health Canada report found that, although asthma is more common among children, it also affects roughly 5% of adults, making it "one of the most prevalent chronic conditions affecting Canadians."

Selling the Environment

New Zealand has a serious environmental pollution problem that has been largely ignored by consecutive National and Labour Governments. With an estimated total of 10,060,000 Tonnes of effluent discharge from pulp and paper mills into NZ waterways each year, it is something that cannot be ignored.

Mill effluent goes into our waterways. It discolours water, and reduces the amount of oxygen present. Solids in the effluent settle on the riverbed. Chlorine and its derivatives, producing dioxins and other contaminants, as well as many other highly dangerous substances are also known to be present in Kraft mill wastewater. Half of the discharged waste comprises of condensate wastewater, the other half is made up of thousands (too many to list here) of the most dangerous and poisonous substances known to mankind. Some of these dangerous substances are released at levels that often well exceed any worldwide safety guidelines. There is no proper monitoring and any breaches are ignored.

But it’s not just our waterways they’re polluting; our air gets a good hammering as well. Gaseous emissions consist of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, chlorine dioxide and reduced sulphur gases, just to name a few. The typical kraft mill odour is due to discharges of hydrogen sulphide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide...

Hydrogen Sulphide: Carcinogenic, Gas is heavier than air. Exposure symptoms: Cardiovascular or blood toxicant, neurotoxicant, reproductive toxicant, respiratory toxicant, H25 irritates eyes at 50 ppm and causes death at 100 ppm to 300 ppm. Rapid loss of sense of smell on exposure to gas concentrations above 150 ppm.

Dimethyl Sulphide: Severe eye irritant. Harmful if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through skin.

Methyl Mercaptan CH35H: Chemical Asphyxiant. Odour: Rotten cabbage. Gas is heavier than air and may travel along the ground. Substance decomposes on burning producing toxic fumes including Sulphur Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulphide. Reacts badly with strong oxidants. Reacts with sunlight, water, steam, or acids to form flammable and toxic gas. Forms explosive mixtures with oxygen at low levels.

(International Programme on Chemical Safety) Exposure symptoms: Irritates eyes and respiratory tract. May cause adverse effects on the central nervous system, resulting in respiratory depression. High levels of exposure may result in unconsciousness and/or death. Effects may be delayed.

(US Dept. of Labour Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Coughing, sore throat, shortness of breath, headaches, nausea and unconsciousness. Pulmonary Edema (Delayed). CS effects: Narcosis, Cyanosis and Seizures. Respiratory failure.

(Intergas Safety Data) Exposure symptoms: Fatigue, Mucous membrane irritation of lips mouth and nose. May affect central nervous system causing muscle weakness, tremors, narcosis, convulsions, unconsciousness, paralysis of the respiratory tract, cyanosis, coma and death. Chronic blood and lung effects: Liver injury has been documented after inhalation. Exposure to 4 ppm for several hours results in headaches and nausea.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There are also significant mercury levels because of the toxic releases from pulp and paper mills. With no studies done into multiple gas exposure and their synergistic effects on the human organism, it’s no wonder New Zealand has the highest cancer rate in the World? But hey! The export dollar is worth more than people’s health isn’t it?

Pollution kills plants and other life in our rivers. In 1997, Environment Bay of Plenty described life on the bottom of the Tarawera River, used by the Tasman mills, as “Completely obliterated”, although they have done little to remedy the situation.

The major categories of water pollution of concern to the pulp and paper industry are: suspended solids (mainly fibre), biological oxygen demand, toxicity and colour. The effluent from the bleaching process contains of variety of substances, some of which are known or suspected of being toxic, genotoxic or mutagenic. Chlorinated organics that are produced in the chlorine bleaching processes are of particular concern. Chemicals (especially the dissolved lignin) are detrimental to the environment.

Colour can be a problem, especially when the effluent is discharged into receiving waters with a high transparency, like New Zealands waterways. Most of the colour derives from the bleaching process, and oxygen delignification. External removal of colour can be carried out, but it is difficult and expensive.

Waste water generation rates should not exceed 50 m3/t of air-dried pulp (ADP), and levels of 20 m3/t of air-dried pulp (ADP) (or product) should be targeted. For paper mills, effluent discharges should be less than 5 m3/t of ADP. I could not find a m3/t for chlorine plants, but would presume that it is less than 5 m3/t making Kinleith fail to meet recommended effluent discharge recommendations. Considering what that pollution contains, any amount is too much to release into the environment.

Kinleith – 2 Kraft Pulp Mills: 2 Paper Machines – Product = 235,000 Tonnes per annum (TPA) 1 Pulp Dryer – 420,000 TPA. Total product 655,000 TPA – Effluent discharge = 3,102,500 TPA. Just under 5 m3/t.

Penrose – (uses paper given for recycling, not wood chips or logs) 1 Paper Machine – 67 000 TPA

Whakatane – Pulp mill: 1 Paperboard machine – 80 000 TPA

Kawerau – Pulp Mill: 3 Paper Machines – 55 000 TPA

Mataura: 2 Paper Machines – 25 000 TPA

Tasman Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. Kawerau

3 Paper Machines – 400 000 TPA

2 Mechanical Pulp Mills – 315 000 TPA

2 Kraft Pulp Mills – 290 000 TPA

Pan Pacific Forests Industries (NZ) Ltd. Karioi: 1 Pulp Mill – 125 000 TPA

Kinleith Mill is one of the largest polluters, with a discharge consent, allowing for a wastewater volume of up to 165000m3/d, of which it was originally expected that up to 155000m3/d may be discharged to the Kopakorahi Stream and 10000 m3/d to the Waituna Stream. US giant International Paper owns the majority of Kinleith. NZ is receiving around 10c for every tonne of waste produced. It’s most likely going to cost us more than 10c to clean up, so there is no financial reason to continue with these dangerous dinosaurs.

 
Kinleith’s discharge into our waterways may have reduced somewhat since 2004 but this is due to new massive sludge pits which allows evaporation and absorption into the earth, thus reducing the overall amount released but increasing the toxicity.

Wastewaters are usually discharged at a rate of 20–250 cubic meters per metric ton (m3/t) of ADP. They are high in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), at 10–40 kg/t of ADP; total suspended solids, 10– 50 kg/t of ADP; chemical oxygen demand (COD), 20–200 kg/t of ADP; and chlorinated organic compounds, which may include dioxins, furans, and other adsorbable organic halides, AOX, at 0–4 kg/t of ADP. Wastewater from chemical pulping contains 12–20 kg of BOD/t of ADP, with values of up to 350 kg/t. The corresponding values for mechanical pulping wastewater are 15–25 kg BOD/t of ADP.

For chemimechanical pulping, BOD discharges are 3 to 10 times higher than those for mechanical pulping. Pollution loads for some processes, such as those using non-wood raw materials, could be significantly different. Phosphorus and nitrogen are also released into wastewaters. The main source of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds is raw material such as wood. The use of peroxide, ozone, chlorine and other chemicals in bleaching makes it necessary to use a complexing agent for heavy metals such as manganese, all very dangerous stuff.

Fish stocks around Kinleith waterways are greatly affected by its pollution. The effects of which are mainly located in areas where the most discharge takes place, like Lake Maraetai, but have also been found to affect fish in the Waikato River. Fish within the downstream of effluent discharge have been found to contain Dioxins and are not safe to consume; no official is going to tell you that though. The official conclusion is that a build up of toxins is due to historical releases and more testing needs to be done.

Because of an increase in temperature from waste, some fish have apparently increased in number. Fish in these areas have been shown to have a disproportionate female/male ratio and studies have shown this is due to discharged chemicals which change their sex from female to male. I’m sure the same effects are found in fish stocks around Kawerau’s mills.

The likely presence of mutagenic and genotoxic compounds in the discharges into the Tarawera River as well as many other areas of New Zealand, have been shown to cause deformations in fish. There seems to be a correlation between this and the high cancer rate in the people who have eaten eels, whitebait and fish from the sea outside the river mouth. Given the amount of overseas evidence that such compounds are often present in Pulp and Paper Mill discharges, I found it quite extraordinary that Pulp and Paper Mills are still gaining consents to pollute.

Conclusion: Get rid of these outdated monoliths.

A Toxic Legacy

Audio Version.


Pulp and Paper mills, what’s really in your factories waste discharge? It wouldn’t be methyl mercaptan, hydrogen sulphide and chlorine by-product perhaps, as well as the sludge containing dioxins, PCP and other toxins? All discharged into our waterways. What does Environment Waikato and the Minister for the Environment think about this, or do they even care? Do they not know the danger of the substances they play with? On so many occasions, representatives refuse to acknowledge that the substances being released as waste by-product from their factories are toxic and cause ill health. But there are ample examples to prove them wrong.

It is not only paper mill workers who are affected by these toxins. As you're most likely aware, the waste contains carcinogenic substances. Yet the companies state; “because there’s no conclusive studies done into the effects of the waste on the human organism, then the waste cannot be proven to cause adverse health effects.” But there are numerous studies showing adverse reactions to these substances. What I would like to know is what proportion of the inhabitants living in proximity to these polluting industries, have cancer and other diseases attributed to substances contained in the waste discharge? These statistics are kept very secret.

Carter Holt Harvey believes that because the substances are released into the environment away from the populace, that the word “toxic” should not apply. Now I’m not one to nit pick but the word Toxic, is exactly the correct descriptive terminology. We’re talking about some of the most poisonous substances known to mankind. To think that the estimated 10,060,000 Tonnes of waste discharged yearly from pulp and paper mills into NZ waterways, does not cause a toxic reaction is just moronic! The pollution contains dioxins, mercury and other harmful substances, which finds its way into the Waikato River and thus into Auckland’s drinking water. People who eat fish from these areas are highly affected.

Yet Carter Holt Harvey says they will not be limiting the amount of waste discharge from Kinleith in any way even though there are limiting specifications in the resource consents. When waste by-product discharge is above the resource consent limits, what happens? Nothing! They can do whatever they like because the authorities that are meant to protect the environment and your health are in their pocket, paid off by blood money earnt at the people’s and Earth’s expense.

It is difficult to remedy the mindset of big business, even with the body of evidence presented to polluting industries concerning the destructive effects the substances they release cause. Common sense would dictate that such waste should be contained and correctly disposed of or not created at all. Instead it’s dumped into the environment without a second thought. It would appear that New Zealand is not as clean and green as it is purported to be. With one of the highest cancer rates in the world, New Zealand should really take a closer look at itself.

It’s not just the big C though, reproduction abnormalities, breathing and skin disorders (just to name a few reactions) are some of the ailments attributed to waste by-product from Pulp and Paper mills. What a horrendous legacy, which will cause untold misery in our country for many centuries to come.

Don't Piss in the Pool

Audion Version.

Scientists consider chlorine one of the most toxic elements around. Exposure to chlorine vapour can create adverse health effects for allergy and asthma sufferers. Checking out your drinking water might be a good idea if you or a family member has asthma and/or allergies.  A Belgian study in 2009 concluded that chlorine, a common chemical added to water to help kill bacteria, could be making asthma in children worse. 

Fumes from chlorine in pools, and even in the shower, could trigger an attack for some people with asthma and allergies.  Those who suffer are often sensitive to gases that are produced when chlorine sanitizes bacteria in sweat or urine.  These gases can build up in an enclosed shower, irritating the lungs of children and adults who have asthma and allergies.

Researchers carried out tests on 226 healthy children who swam regularly, in order to determine the levels of lung proteins in their blood. An increase in these proteins indicates that the cells lining the lungs have been damaged, which can lead to asthma. The researchers also measured the lung proteins in 16 children and 13 adults before and after exposure to an indoor chlorinated pool. As well as this, they studied relations between pool attendance and asthma prevalence in 1,881 children. The study found that those who attended pools regularly, whether they were swimming or not, were most likely to have high levels of lung proteins. However those who swam most often had protein levels similar to that of a regular smoker.

Synthetic chemicals are all around us: in the products we use, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the air we breathe. It's no wonder that many people have become sensitive to the chemicals around them. In fact, it's estimated that 15 percent of the population has become sensitised to common household and commercial products like chlorine, bleach, detergent, cosmetics, perfume, and paints.

Chemical sensitivity is defined as an adverse reaction to toxic chemicals in the air, food, and water. It can affect your breathing, digestion, and heartbeat, as well as cause headaches, arthritis, and urinary tract infections. Judgment, perception, and memory may also be impaired. Other symptoms include bloating and gas after eating, irritability, extreme fatigue, muscle and joint aches, and recurring throat infections. Almost 30 percent of those diagnosed with chemical sensitivity are exposed to chemicals at their jobs. Special testing is available to diagnose chemical sensitivity, and treatment will depend on the type of chemical involved. The best treatment is to avoid or eliminate the harmful chemicals.

Clean water is one of the most important requirements for a healthy body. It is a sad fact that something as essential to life as clean drinking water can no longer be granted to us. Unsafe water is not just a third world problem, with many areas of New Zealand falling under safety standards. National has failed to properly regulate this sector removing many of Labours initiatives to clean up our water.

More than 700 organic chemicals have been identified in drinking water, and some of them are suspected to be cancer-causing agents. There are 35,000 pesticides containing 600 chemical compounds. Yet water management is required to only test for a small amount of poisonous substances. Many of these chemicals are known to cause birth defects, nerve damage, sterility and cancer.

Chlorine, the chemical used to keep swimming pools clean, increases a child's risk of developing asthma. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of asthma in the world.

It appears that when chlorine reacts with organic matter such as sweat or urine a mixture of harmful chemicals result, which are then inhaled.  Based on these findings, the Belgian researchers concluded that 'the increasing exposure of children to chlorination products in indoor pools might be an important cause of the rising incidence of childhood asthma and allergic diseases in industrialised countries'.

The finding offers an unexpected explanation for why asthma rates have risen so sharply over the past few decades in industrialized countries.