This website is an archive research resource for issues relating to 1960 to 1972 Paritutu families and workers and their children and offspring (along with those elsewhere) who have suffered adverse effects from significant dioxin exposures, as well as their likely exposures the mixture of other chemicals released into their residential and industrial environments.
Dioxin contaminated 2,4,5-T was also a component of the controversial defoliant Agent Orange. New Zealand exposures and impacts have been noted as being relevant to the international Agent Orange debate by Professor Neil Pearce . The potential liabilities from the apparent effects in Vietnam*FM04 are huge and have been dominant in shaping Governmental denials and research. In particular the lack of research into intergenerational reproductive effects from maternal 2,4,5-T and TCDD exposures, such as those in Vietnam and 1960-1972 Paritutu.
|Pres. Ronald Reagan|
A 1984 memo from the Executive Office of the USA President also noted, “we will be in the tenuous position of denying dioxin exposure compensation to private citizens while providing benefits to veterans for in many instances lower levels of exposure.”
In New Zealand and especially in New Plymouth in a country largely dependent on pastoral production Ivon Watkins and from 1964 Ivon Watkins Dow were perceived as the innovative Mr Dow*FM06 champions of the post World War II “grasslands revolution”. The use of agrichemicals such as BHC, DDT, Aldrin, Deildrin and in particular IWD 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D led to significant increases in primary production.
This led to many New Zealand institutions and individuals investing in the company and earning returns on their shareholdings. Unfortunately some local shareholders and officials may have lost perspective and been influenced by productive gains so much so they ignored the responsibilities of their influential positions within the local community, neglecting to notice early warning signs such as the very high 1965-1970 rates of birth defects, or by ignoring the trauma caused by the many premature diseases and deaths among 1960-1972 residents. Some examples of this possible loss of objectivity are the 1960’s Obstetrician*FM07 and from 2000 to 2006 nine dismissive editorials*FM08 on this issue by the local Newspaper. Both held significant 1960’s shareholdings.*FM09
Ministry of Health files note that in 2004 when elevated TCDD was detected in historic residents the Mayor*FM11 and local hotel owner Peter Tennant was not keen on having a public meeting, as he was concerned the issue may become political and he wished to avoid that, with elections looming, as ESR social scientist V Baker noted, ” the NPDC and other local authorities , for instance, were interested in maintaining New Plymouth’s image as a clean and safe tourist destination.”
An example of this approach was the TRC 2001 report which primarily focused on investigating 2001 risks from several hundred tonnes of historic onshore buried wastes, yet remarkably described the Paritutu and Elliot Street marine outfalls as only discharging Ivon Watkins and IWD storm-water and occasional spills.
By example neglecting to mention the annual 1978 discharge of approximately 105,000 tonnes of liquid wastes from chemical manufacture, containing around 2900 tonnes of suspended and dissolved solids and 27 tonnes of phenols. The 1960 to 1987 marine discharges were the primary (yet largely ignored) Ivon Watkins and IWD waste discharges and IWD had only installed liquid waste treatment in the early 1980s, twenty years after commencing operations at Paritutu Road.
|The Power Players in this Story|