{"id":2960,"date":"2013-09-02T19:35:12","date_gmt":"2013-09-02T19:35:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/?page_id=2960"},"modified":"2020-06-21T17:32:30","modified_gmt":"2020-06-21T17:32:30","slug":"part-3","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/whatliesbeneathrattlechainlagoon.org.uk\/?page_id=2960","title":{"rendered":"Part Three"},"content":{"rendered":"

troisieme partie- the human health red herring<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\"scan0027\"<\/span><\/p>\n

THE HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

The first two links of the Rhodia solution involved environmental consultants backed up with bad science and PR fiction forming the second link. When these did not work, elements of the former two links progressed to form the third. It is worth considering what led to these events involving a “Human health risk assessment”.<\/p>\n

Chronological chain leading to events. OUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS.<\/h1>\n

\u00a0The genesis started with our\u00a0freedom of information request\u00a0 <\/a>made to DEFRA on 1st<\/sup> MARCH 2010,\u00a0<\/strong>and subsequently passed to The Food Standards agency <\/span>which involving \u201cthe work of Chemical Hazards and\u00a0Identification\u00a0 Risk Surveillance Group (CHaIRS)\u201d<\/span><\/h1>\n

The final response on 15th<\/sup> April 2010 contained minutes which were heavily redacted for reasons which \u201ccould prejudice ongoing investigations.\u201d I questioned these redactions. <\/span>This Second request\u00a0\u00a0<\/a>made on April 19th<\/sup> 2010\u00a0 asked<\/span><\/h1>\n

\u201cConfirmation if redacted information relating to minutes of the CHaIRS group contains information relating to Rattlechain Mere and white phosphorus poisoning of wildfowl?\u201d<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Following conclusion of an\u00a0\u00a0internal review response\u00a0<\/a>, the following was finally published on 18th<\/sup> June 2010.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

From minutes of CHaIRS meeting held on <\/span>9th December 2009<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cRhodia incident<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

4. JP gave an update on recent developments, as follows:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Tissues from a swan that was post mortemed by VLA in the spring were submitted by Rhodia to Harlan Laboratory, Derbyshire to be tested for the presence of white phosphorus (P4). P4 was detected in the gizzard content of the swan, confirming that exposure had occurred. P4 was identified in the gizzard but P4 levels in other tissue samples were below the Harlan Laboratory LOD. The identification of P4 in the absence of evidence of any alternative cause of death suggests the death was probably caused by P4,<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 A dead canada goose was submitted in October for post mortem. The goose had allegedly shown nervous signs prior to death. No alternative cause of death was established at post mortem. Rhodia have indicated that they will again submit tissues to Harlan for P4 analysis.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2022 Rhodia are continuing their work on the lagoon to make it safe.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

5. The Chair commented that as P4 probably caused the death of the swan the investigation confirms current environmental contamination with P4 and suggests the levels of contamination in or around the lagoon could poison wildlife or humans. MB confirmed that HSE had inspected the site and advised Rhodia about security there. It was agreed that members were effectively joined up regarding this case, however if any further incidents or changes arise then the matter should he discussed again by the CHaIRS group.\u201d<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

It is clearly evident that after these minutes had been publicly made available for the first time, they offered a damning assessment of the lagoon, contrary to that trying to be communicated by the company. \u00a0Despite the belated backpedalling of the CHaIRS group trying to add<\/p>\n

“the CHaIRS group has asked that I clarify that this comment only applies to wildlife or persons coming into direct contact with sediments in and immediately around the lagoon by swimming, wading or interfering with sediments or soil in or immediately around the lagoon, where P4 may have been disposed of or contaminated.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Between June and December of 2010, it is obvious that Rhodia wanted to try to draw a different interpretation to their toxic lagoon.<\/p>\n

From minutes of the CHaIRS group 14th<\/sup> December 2010<\/strong> which can be read\u00a0\u00a0here<\/a>, Graham Urquhart from HPA<\/p>\n

\u201cANY OTHER BUSINESS <\/b><\/p>\n

22. The Chair asked members whether they had any other issues that they would like to discuss under AOB……<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0GU provided an update to members on the ongoing Rhodia incident involving alleged white phosphorous poisoning amongst wild birds at a Rhodia site. GU informed members that the HPA had been contacted by Rhodia in relation to concerned members of the public who had seen material released as part of an FOI request.<\/span> Due to the public concerns Rhodia is looking to commission an independent study to consider human health risks.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

So according to this statement, \u201cthe public concern\u201d- was raised only as a result of the Freedom of information request by swanwatch, and this request being made public, was the result of\u00a0 this company making a decision. The question should be asked that if this request had not been made and not been made public, then what action would Rhodia have taken concerning Human health risk assessment? Laissez- faire?<\/p>\n

It should be noted that Rhodia would want to attempt to dilute the associations of risk to human health identified in these minutes, identified only as a result of our persistent insistence that white phosphorus was poisoning the birds that neither they or the CHaIRS committee wanted to address.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have broken down the individual parts of this chapter into Freedom of Information requests made to relevant authorities\u00a0as it represents the best way of explaining this highly deceptive part of the chain. \u00a0They also include our analysis of the responses and material supplied.We will look at the Human Health Steering group second meeting, also set up as part of this exercise.<\/p>\n

The proposed Human health risk assessment.<\/a><\/p>\n

Also analysis on the 1st Rattlechain steering group meeting<\/p>\n

The HHRA contract between Rhodia and the HPA<\/a><\/p>\n

This outlined the scope of the proposed study. It confirmed the following.<\/p>\n