On 9/11/2001, the world was shocked to witness the annihilation of thousands of
people in Washington and New York. Three and a half years after the catastrophic
destruction of the World Trade Centre, serious adverse health effects are being
seen amongst people who were part of the rescue and cleanup teams and also by
New Yorkers, who in those following weeks, returned to occupy their dusty homes
and apartments.
It is now unfolding that many of these people are succumbing to serious diseases including cancers, cardiac, gastro-intestinal, respiratory and thyroid conditions. These illnesses are thought to be directly attributable to airborne dust particles PM10 and PM2.5, containing crystalline silica, cement and asbestos.
This deadly cocktail together with other toxic chemicals; benzene and formaldehyde, to mention but two, were unavoidably inhaled and absorbed during those weeks of frantic cleanup after the disaster. The occurrence and onset of diseases amongst these people is being monitored closely by New York City Health officials. There are law suits pending against the U.S. EPA, who it is said, prematurely declared the area safe for occupancy, and against WTC developer Larry Silverstein and Ground Zero clean-up contractors. (1) (2)
"Studies on particle mass concentration (PM10 and PM2.5) indicate that for particle mass there is no threshold in particle concentrations below which health would not be jeopardised. This is presented in the World Health Organization Guidelines for Air Quality (WHO 1999), which shows a linear relationship between PM10 and PM2.5 and various health indictors (including mortality, hospital admissions, bronchodilator use, symptom exacerbation, cough, peak expiratory and flow) for concentration levels from 0 to up 200 ug/m3". (3)
The foregoing is extremely relevant to us in Montrose and Kilsyth when we
realise the possible implications of living in the vicinity of Boral's hard
rock quarry and the operation of its asphalt, concrete processing and
recycling plants. With no appreciable safety buffer, pollutants including
respirable fractured silica, carcinogenic toxins; benzene and formaldehyde,
have been emitted from the Boral site for many years, floating over a large
area and into nearby houses and schools.
We have the right to feel safe in the knowledge that our health and lives are being safeguarded by our government and their agencies such as the Department of Human Services and the Environment Protection Authority... nice in theory, however:
Boral operates this plant under a Work Authority Permit granted in 1975 (before the known dangers of asbestos were made public), and you may be surprised to know that our EPA has no power to monitor air quality within Boral's boundaries nor do they choose to monitor the surrounding locality for PM10 and PM2.5 particles.
It would appear that only Boral monitors the air emissions from its own Montrose Quarry.
Technical reports covering noise, flora and fauna, air quality and hydrology (to name just a few), are required to form the final Environmental Effects Statement upon which the decision for approval of this application for expansion will be based. As Boral pays for all of the reports, the process can hardly be seen to be "independent".
Furthermore, Boral was asked by the community to provide "air-quality" and "health effects" reports as part of the Environment Effects Statement. Boral's Environment Manager, Dr Richard Strauch has summarily dismissed the "health effects" requirement by stating that levels of fine dust do not reach the EPA intervention level. This important judgement is based solely on Boral provided data and from the modelling of their hired expert, Dr Graham Ross.
It is an insult that the community is asked to accept the use of data extrapolated and modelled from readings taken at the monitoring station in Box Hill when we have a fully operational air-monitoring station located so ridiculously close in Mooroolbark.
Is it coincidental that our nearest EPA controlled air-monitoring station at Balcombe Rd, Mooroolbark, ceased releasing figures on fine particles in Sept 2003 (just prior to Boral's third expansion application launch) when it was found that "a local industry" was corrupting the figures, i.e. the readings were over the permissible levels? (4)
Is it possible that some Mooroolbark residents may also be receiving extremely high and dangerous doses of respirable PM10 and PM2.5 from not only the Cave Hill quarry but also from the Montrose Quarry?
Many have participated in the EES process with the expectation that valid community concerns, as expressed at the "scoping" workshops and in mailed submissions, would at the end of day be taken note of by our government, the DSE and the EPA, and that health and human rights would be rated more highly than Borals incessant claims for more stone.
We are left to conclude that the "Environment Protection Authority" is an ineffectual arm of this government, run by people fostering the interests of private industry at the expense of the welfare of the taxpaying public.
When, if ever, will the alarm of this community be heard at the EPA?
(1) On the 15 th February 2005, The Age `Good Weekend' published an article "Collateral Damage" written by journalist Jennifer Senior, from which part of this article is based
(2) Worby Groner Edelman Napoli & Bern.
Final Report of the Public Health Investigation to Assess Potential Exposures to Airborne and Settled Surface Dust in Residential Areas of Lower Manhattan.
Click on the link below to read the report:
Final Technical Report of the Public Health Investigation to Assess Potential Exposures to Airborne and Settled Surface Dust in Residential Areas of Lower Manhattan
(3) Health Impacts of Ultrafine Particles Desktop Literature Review and Analysis for the Department of Environment and Heritage. Sept 2004. Prepared by Associate Professor Lidia Morawska; Professor Michael R. Moore and Dr Zoran D.Ristovski.
Click on the link below to read the report:
Health Impacts of Ultrafine Particles - Desktop Literature Review and Analysis
(4) Victorian EPA criteria ( 50ug/m3 for PM10 in 24hrs and 25ug/m3 in 24hrs for PM2.5 ) |