Clean air criticisms ‘vague, criticism’

Press, 14 August 1976, Page 10

Clean air criticisms ‘vague, criticism’

The man who heard objections to the proposed establishment of a clean air zone in Christchurch, Dr J. B. Bamford, has hit back at three Christchurch doctors who have criticised him.

Dr Bamford, who heard the objections on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr Gill) has described the criticism as “vague and imprecise.” In a letter to the Christchurch City Council, the three doctors said Dr Bamford’s comments were

“in general incorrect, and the result of his ignorance

of the subject and the acceptance of an incorrect and worse than useless report on the subject in 1966 by the Regional Planning Authority.”

The three doctors were Dr J. McLeod, a chest physician. Dr H. J. R. 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, (then Medical Officer of Health in Christchurch, «ow at Otago University,) “absolutely worthless as a scientific document related to air pollution and health,” and said that it must simply be ignored. Dr Bamford replied this week that his instructions had been from the Minister of Health as provided for in the Clean Air Act, 1972, and had been to hear objections and report back to the Minister on those objections. He believed that he had fulfilled those instructions to the best of his ability and, consequently, was not persuaded that he should amend or alter his report. “The criticisms of the three doctors should be directed to 'the Minister,

and I do not propose to respond to them unless invited to do so by the Minister,” he said. “In any event, 1 consider the reported criticisms vague and imprecise. “The Clean Air Act and, in particular, its provisions relating, to the hearing of objections to clear air zones, does not provide that grounds of physical health shall be the sole criterion by which the establishment of clear air zones should be considered.”

It wgs implicit that economcis, energy resources. personal satisfaction and preference, and other relevant criteria should be heard and considered before an appropriate recommendation was made.

“Whether these additional factors could be weighed in proper perspective by a person qualified in medicine, health, disease, human epidemiology, or toxicology, is not for me to judge,” Dr Bamford said.

He also questioned a statement attributed to the Chief City Health Inspector (Mr A. P. MilIthorpe) that Dr Bamford had experience in Zoology and forestry but possessed no medical qualifications and was not in a position “to hear expert evidence to counter and correct the clearly-biased and emotive submission made to him.”

Mr Millthorpe said: “The evaluation of air pollution data as an injurous factor in human health is essentially a medical matter and it is to be regretted that Dr Bamford did not report any attempt on his part to seek such specialist advice.” Dr Bamford confirmed that he had no medical experience, but said “Mr Millthorpe might also have added that I have some experience in evaluating public responses to various developmental proposals, and I assume it was on these grounds that the Minister considered that I was suitably experienced to hear what Mr Millthorpe describes as ‘clearly-biased and emotive submission’.” Dr de Hamel’s 1966 report was presented to Dr Bamford, during the hearing, by Mr Millthorpe on behalf of the Christchurch City Council. Dr Bamford 'alluded to it in appendix IV of his report.