| Page |
No. |
Source |
Quotes from Decision Documents |
| 323 |
1 |
Agency App. B |
“An unexpected finding was that the serum of control rats contained..fluorocitrate [possibly from]..cross contamination” |
| 415 |
5 |
Agency App. C |
“Control solutions..had a measured concentration of 0.2 mg/kg..residues were..measured in the control frogs” |
| 416 |
1 |
Agency App. C |
“A number of frogs died during the study, including one of two control Archey’s frogs which contained 1.4 mg 1080/kg” |
| 447 |
3 |
Agency App. C: Fisk |
“It was hypothesised that this [finding 1080 in water samples after an aerial operation] was due to contamination, as control samples also tested positive” |
| 447 |
5 |
Agency App. C: Fisk |
“One of the positive [water samples for 1080] was collected before aerial dosing began” |
| 447 |
6 |
Agency App. C: Fisk |
“The one criticism is that soils and water used in the degradation studies could have been subject to prior exposure to fluoroacetate” |
| 469 |
3 |
Agency App. E |
“Eighteen [water] samples (3 from the control site..) showed traces of 1080..that were confirmed as contamination of sample containers” |
| 477 |
1 |
Agency App. E |
“[1080 concentration in dust, μg/m², inside treatment area] Day 1 3.81 , Day 5 0.1..outside treatment area (day 1) 0.2 at 200m, 0.06 at 1 km” |
| 477 |
2 |
Agency App. E |
“[1080 concentration mg/kg in leaf litter] 0.023 at day 5 inside treatment area” |
| 477 |
3 |
Agency App. E |
“[1080 concentration in dust, μg/m², inside treatment area] Day 1 0.29 , Day 5 0.01..outside treatment area Day 1 none at 200 m – 1km, Day 5, 0.11 at 200m, 0.05 at 400m, none at 600m, 0.03 at 800m, 0.13 at 1 km” |
| 477 |
4 |
Agency App. E |
“[1080 concentration in dust μg/m², inside treatment area] 2.22 (Day 1), 0.05 (day 5), Outside treatment area Day 1 0.03 at 200m, 0.09 at 1 km, Day 5 0 at 200-600m, 0.09 at 1 km” |
| 477 |
5 |
Agency App. E |
“[1080 concentration mg/kg in leaf litter, outside treatment area] Day 1 0.0057 at 200m, Day 5 0.0058 at 200 m, 0.0062 at 400 m, 0.0053 at 600 m” |
| 510 |
5 |
Agency App. F |
“Dust drift from the application of the baits was observed to contaminate the control site” |
| 517 |
3 |
Agency App. F |
“up to 1.6 mg/kg [1080] in [leaf litter samples after hand-broadcast of cereal baits] on day of treatment and 7 days after, including from control plots. Plots too far apart to be contaminated accidentally. Reason potentially redistribution by animal movement” |
| 905 |
1 |
Agency App. T: Submissions |
“1080 contamination of honey in late 1980s and early 1990s all but destroyed New Zealand’s exports of honey to Japan” |
| 12 |
2 |
Applicants’ references |
“A number of wild birds and some domestic animals were accidentally killed during the tests [of 1080 as a rat poison] despite stringent precautions taken in laying the bait and warning occupiers..it is concluded that..[1080] does not produce..consistent results; 1080 is too dangerous for general use” (Barnett & Spencer, 1949) |
| 17 |
2 |
Applicants’ references |
“A range of NZ soils, many contaminated by..1080..were examined” (Bong et al., 1979) |
| 47 |
1 |
Applicants’ references |
“Ecological risk assessments also..require [studies of] the entry, distribution and biological effect and fate of chemicals to fully characterise and understand the potential adverse implications of contamination” (Eason & O’Halloran, 2002) |
| 50 |
1 |
Applicants’ references |
“there is a need to more clearly understand how 1080 breaks down in water and to model any consequences of 1080 contamination in waterways” (Eason et al., 1994) |
| 65 |
2 |
Applicants’ references |
“The comparatively high concentrations measured in samples from one worker in 2001 and 2002 appear to be the result of contamination” (Fisher et al., 2002) |
| 123 |
1 |
Applicants’ references |
“The significant drop in insect numbers after heavy rain suggests strongly that the control plots had become contaminated” (Meads, 1994) |
| 153 |
2 |
Applicants’ references |
“traces [of 1080] were found in some [water] samples..but these could have arisen from contamination of the outside of some containers” (Parfitt et al., 1994) |
| 223 |
1 |
Applicants’ references |
“A maximum concentration of 25.2 μg 1080 mˉ² was detected in [cereal] bait dust..within the control zone..lower concentrations were found outside treatment areas..there were detectable short-term 1080 residues in water, plant, leaf litter and soil samples after 2 of the 3 baiting operations” (Wright et al., 2002) |
| 13 |
1 |
Submitter 9143 |
“Observation on the day of the poison operation showed that the fine particles and dust were blown across the forest canopy from the helicpter bait bucket” (Meads report) |
| 71 |
4 |
Committee Decision |
“Contamination of animals via consumption of stock water is considered very unlikely due to the low concentrations and rapid degradation of 1080 in waterways” |
| 86 |
1 |
Committee Decision |
“livestock deaths from 1080 poison do occur” |
| 87 |
1 |
Committee Decision |
“Contamination of farmed meat and dairy produce is unlikely to occur as livestock are excluded from treatment areas and feral deer meat for human consumption is [sourced from] 1080-free areas” |
| 153 |
2 |
Committee Decision |
“Any equipment used to handle 1080 must retain and/or dispense the substance..without leakage” |
