Doctors criticise air report

Press, 3 August 1976, Page 15

Doctors criticise air report

Three Christchurch doctors have levelled strong criticism at statements by Dr J. M. Bamford on air pollution and health in the city.

Dr Bamford’s statements were contained in a recent report to the Minister of Health (Mr Gill) on a proposed clean-air zone. He had been the appeal authority hearing objections earlier this year. In a letter to the Christchurch City Council, released yesterday at a health and general committee meeting, the doctors said Dr Bamford’s comments “are in general incorrect. and the result of his ignorance of the subject and acceptance of an incorrect, and worse than useless, report on the subject in 1966 by the Regional Planning Authority.” The doctors are Dr J. McLeod, a chest physician; Dr H. J. B. Guy, a respiratory physiologist, and Mr H. T. Thompson, a cardiothoracic surgeon.

“His comments on air pollution and health in Christchurch are virtually all incorrect.” they said, "and an excellent example of the assessment disaster which is inevitable when made by an investigator with no knowledge of medicine, health, nor disease, nor of human epidemiology and toxicology.” The doctors said they considered the 1966 report by Dr F. A. de Hamel “absolutely worthless as a scientific document related to air pollution and health,” and said it must simply be ignored. “If we had known it would

,have risen up to disturb us I now, we would have ;demolished it at the time of iour report (in 1975).” They said Dr Bamford had jbeen unable to recognise how {useless the 1966 report was, | so that he had been forced to use it to support his statement of ‘Little evidence available of a significant health hazard.’ Cr John Burn said that the letter was couched in an offensive and sarcastic vein and displayed a prima donna attitude on the part of the doctors.

On the other hand, they made it clear that their own calculations on the relationship between air pollution and disease were debatable.

“I would not like to see this council taking too much notice of Appendix B (the doctors’ letter),” Cr Burn said.

In an accompanying report, the Chief City Health Inspector (Mr A. P. Millthorpe) noted that Dr Bamford did not have the advantage of specialist knowledge when hearing objections to the clean-air zone proposal. “The evaluation ot air pollution data as an injurious factor in human health is essentially a medical matter,” Mr Millthorpe said, “and it is to be regretted that Dr Bamford did not report any attempt on his- part to seek such specialist advice.”

Dr Bamford, who has experience in zoology and forestry, possessed no medical qualifications, Mr Millthorpe added, and was not in a position “to hear expert evidence to counter and cor-

rect the clearly-biased and: emotive submission made to I [him.”

The committee chairman (Cr Newton Dodge) said in

his report that much of Dr Bamford's comment and criticism had to be answered because it was “incorrect or based on inadequate knowledge of the subject.”