News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Singleton Shire Healthy Environment Group 

Singleton Shire Healthy Environment Group

19 Nov, 2010 09:33 AM
FOR the first time a panel of state government representatives fronted the community in Singleton last Thursday in an open dialogue exchange seen by some as the start of a new era of dealing with coal mining issues.

It has been two years since the Singleton Shire Healthy Environment Group (SSHEG) was formed and last week’s meeting gave unanimous support to the group to continue to pursue health, environment and mining practice issues on behalf of the community.

While the meeting two years ago largely consisted of Singleton residents, last week’s meeting attracted an audience from a far broader area.

Residents from throughout the Upper Hunter and other mining areas in Gloucester and Wyong were joined by groups supporting the thoroughbred industry, those against coal seam gas exploration and activists planning a climate action camp at Liddell Power Station in December.

Dr Tony Merritt and Dr Phillipe Porigneaux, representing NSW Health, spoke about results already reported on in The Argus that shows concern for asthma and respiratory disease is warranted.

Dr Merritt went on to explain that the rates of all types of cancer in Singleton and Muswellbrook were no different to anywhere else in the state and that residents should find some reassurances in that finding.

Speaking on the air monitoring network, Department of Environment Climate Change and Water, Mr Mitchell Bennett said the network had the ability of not just determining if air quality was good or bad but would identify where there was a problem.

Some angst was voiced by the audience about the location and ability of the system to monitor the smaller particulate matter 2.5s and a new reason was offered to explain why the majority of the 14 air monitors will only measure pm10s.

Mr Bennett said pm10s fell to the ground more rapidly and therefore the new monitoring system would give a clearer understanding of where the dust was coming from.

In turn, this would give the department the ability to pin-point problems and to address them.

He said pm2.5s stay in the air longer and travel further and that three monitors was adequate.

He added that there was no National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for pm2.5s.

There is for pm10s. This lack of NEPM for 2.5s is an issue many in the audience will pursue.

“2.5s are clearly an important part of the network, we know we need to get a clear picture of 2.5s, there is no question on that,” Mr Bennett said.

He added that there may be campaign monitors that would be placed at different locations from site to site and that it was an opportunity to further measure for pm 2.5s.

“This is still being discussed by the expert panel,” he said.

Afterwards SSHEG chairperson John Drinan said while there were many questions still to be answered, he felt positive in the manner in which the debate was moving forward.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The decision to limit PM 2.5 monitoring to only three monitors was doubted by most audience members. It is based on a theory from an air modeller from melbourne who believes PM 2.5 particles are so light and are emitted from multiple locations that they will become evenly distributed throughout the Upper Hunter airmass and so each monitor will give the same reading. The theory is unproven and local meteorologist Martin Babakhan believes local microclimates will draw the dust particles down to ground level unevenly.

Modern monitors measure a range of particle sizes simultaneously and so there would only be a saving if they plan to continue to use the old fashioned gravimetric monitors that obscure peak readings of dust by averaging data over long periods of time. It is the peaks that trigger acute asthma and cardiac arrhythmias and we should know all the places that occurs. The obstinacy of the committee to side with the mines and limit public access to vital information persuades me this committee is too influenced by the government and does not have health interests as it's No 1 priority.

Why did none of the experts think it important to come to the meeting?

Steve Robinson

Posted by Steve robinson, 20/11/2010 1:40:47 PM, on Singleton Argus
see how quick they determine air quality in the nz mine disaster currently underway?
Posted by Accountable, 21/11/2010 8:27:36 AM, on Singleton Argus

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
TALKS:  NSW Department of Planning’s Mitchell Bennett addresses last Wednesday’s meeting.  Also in the photograph is meeting chairperson John Thomson and (seated at head table) Dr Tony Merritt, NSW Department of Planning’s Scott Brooks, NSW Health Dr Phillipe Porigneaux and Singleton Shire Healthy Environment Group’s Neville Hogkinson.
TALKS: NSW Department of Planning’s Mitchell Bennett addresses last Wednesday’s meeting. Also in the photograph is meeting chairperson John Thomson and (seated at head table) Dr Tony Merritt, NSW Department of Planning’s Scott Brooks, NSW Health Dr Phillipe Porigneaux and Singleton Shire Healthy Environment Group’s Neville Hogkinson.

Most popular articles




Singleton Argus







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...