1080: I am enquiring about whether there is testing of the public other than workers who deal with the hazardous substance Sodium-fluoroacetate (1080)? When you read data going back 20 years it should be of great concern and especially since the West coast applications of Aerial 1080 are at the highest. I know urine samples are taken from workers and have returned with positive readings. Land care results also shows 1080 is in the food chain. So what is done to insure 1080 exposure has not affected residents in areas of operations? Or just the general public. If I was a resident living in the West Coast could I go to my GP and ask for a test ? If I feel 1080 exposure may have affected me through my water how would I confirm this ? If I was breastfeeding my baby how would this effect my child ? 2008 Ministry of Health publications says , to date there are no epidemiology studies that have been carried out in relation to 1080 and Potential adverse effects and health effects on humans. Why?
RE Official information request WCDHB 9426
We refer to your email dated 25 April 2020 which the Ministry of Health subsequently partially transferred to
West Coast DHB on 12 May 2020 requesting the following information under the Official Information Act.
Specifically questions 1 and 2:
1. Please provide a copy of the permission granted by Greymouth MOH for the 2014 Kaiata Range aerial
1080 operation conducted by Tb-Free NZ. The File Reference number is 4/767/GRYPH/CB.
A copy of this permission is attached as Appendix 1.
2. Please provide a copy of the audit of this operation.
A copy of the field audit notes and photographs taken by the field auditors are attached as Appendix 2.
Please note we have redacted information pursuant to section 9(2)(a) of the Official Information Act “… to
protect the privacy of individuals”.
RE Official information request WCDHB 9417
We refer to your email dated 14 April 2020 requesting the following information under the Official Information Act from West Coast DHB regarding 1080 operations in the Buller region. Specifically:
1. Could you please supply the log sent from DOC officer 9 (2)(a) to the WCDHB Medical Officer of Health for applications 19/1228/CB/GRYPH and 19/1183/CB/GRYPH to supply “..sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with EPA Communication Guidelines for 1080 Operations” and supplying the records of the consultation on managing the public health risks prior to the aerial two 1080 operations above
2. What was the evidence provided that demonstrated that the guidelines had been complied with?
3. What public health risks were identified and how were they to be managed, and how were they managed?
4. Please supply the audits and reports of the whole 1080 operations that resulted in the large presence of carcasses of rats and non-target species on the beach at Westport; including the decision to bury (as opposed to the required disposal in a toxic waste site) and the actual burial.
5. As there was no supervision of the operation by DHB staff who decided that beach burial was adequate in order to safeguard public, animal and environmental health?
RE Official information request WCDHB 9406
We refer to your email dated 13 March 2020 requesting the following information under the Official Information Act from West Coast DHB regarding clarification of our responses to Official Information Act requests WCDHB 9391 and WCDHB 9394. Specifically related to Buller River 1080 aerial operation November 2019.
RE Official Information Act request WCDHB 9394
I refer to your email dated 6 February 2020 requesting the following information under the Official Information Act from West Coast DHB.
1080 poisoning of the Buller river catchment in 2019 resulted in poisoned animals washed down the Buller river and poisoned marine life washed up onto west coast beaches. Animals poisoned by 1080 operations are a public health hazard as the poison can remain active in carcasses as fluoroacetate, especially in intestines and bones.
1. Please provide a dated list of the visits made by HSNO Enforcement and Public Health Officers which relate to the poisoning operation. The visits may include the helicopter loading site, checking that buffer zones and public pathways were not poisoned, the river banks and mouth and coastline where poisoned carcasses were deposited, the testing laboratories, the disposal area, and any other sites connected with the conduct and effects of the poisoning operation.
2. Please provide copies of the reports produced by these officers.
3. Please provide copies of reports produced by or for the Board reviewing the 1080 poisoning operation.
RE Official Information Act request WCDHB 9391
I refer to your email dated 17 December 2019 and received by this office on 30 January 2020 requesting the following information under the Official Information Act from West Coast DHB. Specifically, regarding 1080.
1. Please provide copies of applications received by the DHB from Department of Conservation that sought permission to use Vertebrate Toxic Agents in the Te Maruia, Inangahua, and Buller catchments for the period around September-November 2019.
2. Please provide copies of the permissions granted by the DHB (Public Health HSNO Enforcement Officer) in response to these applications, together with the conditions of permission imposed by the DHB.
3. The VTA permission application form states: “Have you provided evidence to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of ERMA NZ’s Communication Guidelines for Aerial 0180 operations?” Please provide copies of the evidence of compliance which accompanied the applications for permission.
4. Please state how the Public Health HSNO Enforcement Officer verified the statements made by the applicant. Or did the DHB officer accept the statements at face value?
5. Did the Public Health HSNO Enforcement Officer or other DHB officer attend and observe the operation?
6. The West Coast DHB gave permission for a poisoning operation that has appalled the public. Marine creatures harvested by the public were found dead amongst poisoned rats at the mouth of the Buller river, indicating that human health was not protected by the DHB’s conditions of permission. Do you consider that the DHB should not be party to permitting the use of Vertebrate Toxic Agents which have the capacity to harm human health by the way they are being used?
RE Official Information Act request WCDHB 9377(a)
I refer to your email, dated 16 December 2019, requesting the following information under the Official Information Act from West Coast DHB. This request being a follow up to our response to WCDHB 9377. Specifically:
1. Re Q2 If someone should show signs of 1080 poisoning after contact with buried, or non-buried, carcasses what differential diagnoses will be considered and used for treatment and will
2. DHB staff ignore both the precautionary principle and the results from an independent lab but use the results from a lab which does not test for fluorocitrate, the toxic compound, and uses a testing method which is over 30 years old?
RE Official Information Act request WCDHB 9332
I refer to your email dated 5 August 2019 requesting information under the Official Information Act from West Coast DHB regarding an alleged incident at Larry’s Creek Road near Reefton on 25th July 2019 at approximately 12pm on the Inangahua East operational area.
RE Official Information Act request WCDHB 9302
I refer to your email dated 25 April requesting the following information under the Official Information Act from West Coast DHB regarding Perth, Bettison Whataroa drop zone.
1. A copy of track clearance logs in this area that should be made available to you as per consent conditions?
2. Also any records of actions taken by operators to comply with consent conditions re Scone Hut water supply and 50 metre buffer zone around hut?
Scone Hut clearances (Conditions 16 and 17)
3. Were any checks done there? Please supply evidence of this.
4. Can we also have a printout of all toxic flightpaths in this area?
Showing 1-17 of 17 results, page 1 of 1.
Page last updated: 24 May 2021
Is this page useful?