Burwood fire .

I question the information given by Humprey in the below link .

We have a massive pile of timber that's from hundreds , if not thousands of buildings/houses built over the last 150 years .
Does he honestly expect us to believe that this rubble has been sorted into treated and untreated timber ? and that its only untreated which is burning ?
IMO we are being fed a crock

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/70903751/fire-likely-to-burn-for-days

golfaholic2, Aug 8, 5:09 pm

On Nat Rad today they said it was treated and untreated.

wanderer52, Aug 8, 5:15 pm

Of course it is .

golfaholic2, Aug 8, 5:26 pm

One must question either the knowledge of these health experts , or their integrity ?

CDHB bigwig David something or other was quoted as saying the Chch hospital expansions would be heating with coal , and that wood burning produces far far more sulphur dioxide than coal burning .

I would hope this was a misquote , but am not so sure . wood doesn't contain sulphur of any significance , the same cannot be said of coal .

golfaholic2, Aug 8, 5:32 pm

When I was carting it in there,if the load had metal through it,it was sorted as in the metal pulled out.
If it looked like it was basically mostly wood and gib ,it was load onto one of the dumpies running around and taken over to where the old stage 2 of the Burwood Landfill was and dumped into the heap.
Originally the so called rubbish was to go to Kate Valley,but they quickly worked out it would dam near fill the valley.
So it looks like it going to stay .
Lots of wood and what ever,bet your bottom dollar there will be more fires out there.

fineo, Aug 8, 7:46 pm

Pretty impressive if you drive to the end of Bower ave and see the huge glowing smoke cloud,we saw it from Sumner too!

gr8day4it, Aug 8, 9:11 pm

This pile will continue to smoulder away for years -

cloffie, Aug 8, 11:34 pm


You can see from the photos it is untreated wood

andrewcg53, Aug 8, 11:52 pm

Family have said the staff have had repeated warnings about making sure the piles of rubbish were watered down. Also know moh have a keen interest in dust flying around before the fire. Unlikely to be toxic smoke was statement released once the fire had started. I would like that verified more scientifically, I don't have complete confidence in the dump, the ccc or the media reports really.

tennisfanz, Aug 9, 7:51 am

We only have to look at the handling of the pit fire over the other side of town .
All that smoke , and the monitored levels of PM10 wont change , yet , a few more mile FUTHER north is Spencers Park area , people rebuilding there are not allowed to retain log burners because the PM10 levels in Woolston are too high . ECan are a joke

golfaholic2, Aug 9, 7:54 am



There are alternatives to coal . sulphur dioxide , according to WHO , is nasty nasty nasty .

The CDHB should be leading the way , not adding to our woes , and they should get their facts right before lying to the public . unless of course , he was misquoted

golfaholic2, Aug 9, 7:55 am

What is this? 1790? Have we truly not got to a point where we can work out what to do with a lot of old wood besides have huge burnoffs for days and weeks on end? Can we not work out how to heat a hospital besides with coal? Heating a hospital with coal is like starting a restaurant that only serves e.coli.

omnicow, Aug 9, 10:37 am

If they're burning West Coast coal, then it's low-sulphur. One of the reasons that they had a viable business exporting coal from NZ, the low sulphur NZ coal was blended off with lower cost but high sulphur coking coal from Aus etc for use in steel production. In a bit of a "coal to Newcastle" twist, mainly because of it's low sulphur, some of the West Coast coal was even exported to Philidelphia.

mm12345, Aug 9, 12:06 pm



So is cyanide .

golfaholic2, Aug 9, 12:28 pm



If they are burning low sulphur coal .
SO2 is easily scubbed but you can bet your bottom dollar it wont be .
Let us not forget CO2 and global warming . a crock IMO but still .

If anyone wants to see the sulphur dioxide levels in Woolston compared to St Albans , heres a link .
http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Reports/annual-ambient-air-quality-monitoring-report-2009-000310.pdf
Scroll to around page 52 , and look at graphs A4-3 amd A4-4

Ministry set SO2 levels are , from memory , about 10 times higher than the limits set by WHO .
PM10 levels set by WHO call for a limit of 30 high (+50ug/m3) per year , MfE are demanding 1 per year .

Why are poor home owners being punished way beyond WHO limits trying to heat themselves , at the same time being exposed to levels of SO2 (industrial) way beyond WHO limits ?

The graphs are shocking viewing

golfaholic2, Sep 14, 4:34 am

Share this thread