• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Reputable Support

Posted on: Wednesday, 9 November 2005, 15:00 CST

I acknowledge Christchurch does have an air pollution problem. I disagree that the major cause is the burning of solid fuel. To back up my conclusion, I quoted reputable scientists.

Gavin Fisher quotes these scientists' conclusions as "erroneous" (Nov 3). Is this because the Seneratne et al study is one of the first scientific reports to suggest that 50 per cent of Christchurch PM10 pollution is caused by road transport, that 25% is from solid fuel burning and 23% is from sea spray? Or is it because it is a credible scientific report that challenges the validity of ECan's claim that 80% of PM10 is made up by solid fuel burning?

Has Gavin Fisher read his own study? Page IV, Executive Summary, states: "Most of the PM10 is sourced from diesel vehicles, with at least 70% estimated to come from heavy duty vehicles." Page V states that it is impossible at this stage to ascribe the annual health effects attributed to air pollution to sources. The 80% of PM10 that ECan attributes to solid fuel burning is only a crude breakdown. Page 19 of the HAPiNZ study states not all deaths are truly preventable. People still die of old age and many of the deaths during the worst polluted days have nothing to do with air pollution.

MARK OAKENSHIELD St Albans

Source: Press, The; Christchurch, New Zealand

More News in this Category