DOCTORS campaigning for cleaner air to protect human health say fireworks emissions should be included in a review of national pollution standards.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Doctors for the Environment, which has argued against Hunter open cut coal mine proposals and greater pollution controls for Hunter coal-fired power stations because of human health impacts, has told a Federal 20-year review of the National Pollutant Inventory that fireworks should be included for the first time.
The recommendation comes in the wake of international studies, including a Spanish study showing large fireworks displays “are highly concentrated, contribute significantly to total annual metal emissions, and are on average fine enough to be easily inhaled and a health risk to susceptible individuals”.
A 2015 American National and Atmospheric Administration study of fireworks was the first to look at the regional impact of fireworks emissions. It found that national average, 24-hour fine particle PM2.5 levels were increased by 42 per cent after fireworks displays, with a site close to a display showing a 370 per cent increase in 24-hour PM2.5 levels.
Heavy metal air pollution levels, including lead, mercury salts, copper, aluminium and barium that give fireworks their colours also increased.
Countries like Australia and America with national pollution inventories that use industry-collated figures to show annual industry contributions to air pollution do not include fireworks emissions, despite the regularity of large fireworks displays for events like New Year’s Eve celebrations.
Doctors for the Environment backed Environmental Justice Australia and other environment groups arguing the need for state regulatory responses to be linked to National Pollutant Inventory data.
“There have been numerous reported air quality alerts in the Hunter Valley over the last 12 months with little meaningful response. Licensing requirements for heavy polluters such as coal-fired power stations bear no relationship to the National Pollutant Inventory,” Doctors for the Environment said in its submission.
The EJA argued Australia needed a national pollution watchdog with “teeth” after two decades of pollution monitoring by the states that had “failed to protect the environment and the community”.
The doctors’ group also backed the EJA and Australian Minerals Council on the need for the NPI data to be accurate, and inaccuracies to be addressed.
In its submission the Minerals Council of Australia acknowledged NPI data unreliability and said it detracted from the value of the data and “may misinform users”.
“The use of proxy calculations, potentially insufficient sampling, and the margins of error associated with calculations and measurement methods can make emission figures meaningless,” the Minerals Council said.
Doctors for the Environment member and Hunter public health lecturer John Van Der Kallen said while the NPI could be considerably improved, it was a valuable source of data that would otherwise be unavailable.
“I saw the NPI data used to help monitor the coal seam gas industry in Queensland, an industry that otherwise has no effective monitoring,” Dr Van Der Kallen said.
“If it weren’t for the NPI, even with its inaccuracies, we would not know what is going on.”
The NPI review is considering submissions for a report to Australia’s environment ministers.