IPENZ Engineers New Zealand

HOME > publications > engineering-NZ > volume53-1998 > 1998-04-apr > letters

Back to Publications

New Zealand Engineering 1998 March

Letters to the editor   Letters <HR>Letters to the editor can be sent to: Letters, New Zealand Engineering Freepost 3938 PO Box 12-241, Wellington or emailed to Peter@ipenz.org.nz Letters should be wise, witty and brief. The editor reserves the right to seek replies, edit and not publish letters. <HR> Now look what you've done ! With regard to the cover story of your February issue: While appreciating that your article is addressed to the engineering community as a case study showing how badly a project can go wrong, as a member of the board of trustees of Green Bay Primary, there are a number of inaccuracies in your article that I would like to see corrected. Firstly, the so called "hysteria" is based on a number of reports produced by the scientific community: • A recent study of residents living around TV transmitters in Sydney showed an increased risk of leukaemia and childhood death from leukaemia with exposure to radiation of between 0.2 microwatts/cm2 and 8.0 microwatts/cm2. A 60 percent increase in childhood leukaemia, and a 124 percent increase in childhood death were observed in the area exposed to these levels of radiation. This study was initiated by Telstra Australia. • A risk ration of 2.08 for leukaemia in Hawaii Radio transmitter studies • The Hayes study which indicates a threefold increase in testicular cancer in workers exposed to RF radiation • A study of physical therapists showing a 3.3 fold increase in miscarriage in the first seven weeks of pregnancy when using MW diathermy. A dose response relationship was shown to exist. Average exposures were estimated to be approximately 0.3 to 0.5 microwatts/cm2. While there are numerous contrary reports (many of which are coincidentally sponsored by telecommunications companies), and none of the above studies prove beyond absolute doubt that there is a relationship between these diseases and RF radiation, there certainly does appear to be some sort of connection, although, as pointed out in your article, it is very difficult to "cover the technical issues in five seconds of air time." Secondly, the school and community are not objecting to the construction of cell sites in general, but simply building them in close proximity to areas such as schools where young people are spending their developing years, particularly with reference to the Sydney TV transmitter study. As regards Linda Sanders comments about the "professionalism", I am somewhat amused. The Green Bay community has had no form of assistance from any professional (or amateur) protest groups. All protests have been organised by the people in the community.Unlike Miss Sanders, none of these people have any training in dealing with the media, and unlike Telecom we do not spend millions of dollars (or indeed any money) each year on commercials attempting to give the public "warm fuzzies" about ourselves. Unlike BellSouth, we were also unable to afford to send expensive electronic gifts to every MP in Parliament in the week prior to their debating a private member's bill on this subject. We are simply a small community who care about our kids, who we believe we have a right to protect against something which no one can as yet prove will not harm them, and which is currently being examined by the World Health Organisation. Despite all this, I do agree with the aim of your article. If Telecom had attempted to discuss this proposal with the community, rather than simply bulldozing it through, I am confident that a site satisfactory to all concerned could have been found. David and Jo Elder Titirangi <HR> Conference misses the boat? Having been a reasonably active member of IPENZ for 30 years, I felt it was about time I attended my first conference. However, for me, it missed the boat on two counts: the theme, "The Sustainable City", and the technical papers. The theme eventually boils down to either that something should not be done, or that it should be done differently to better utilise resources. In the latter case, it is an insult to the integrity and professionalism of the engineers who already make these decisions every day. In the former case, I doubt there was a single engineer present who when approached by a client to develop a project would say,"Oh, do you think that's a wise use of this or that resource?". No, the response will certainly be,"Sure, what do you want, where do you want it, and what's your budget?". If he doesn't, his competitor down the road will. The ideals of sustainable development are sound and must be practised but they don't form an inspiring subject for a conference for engineers who are constructive people.. The majority of the theme papers produced lots of warm fuzzy feelings but little of moment to tell us what we, as engineers, need to change; are capable of changing; and what someone is prepared to pay for. Many people I spoke to thought that the most entertaining and interesting keynote speakers were the two cabinet ministers (Nick Smith and Maurice Williamson). Now what does that tell us? I believe there were far too many technical papers, of limited interest, severely constrained by their 10-15 min time slot, and not enough major interest papers. I am sure technical papers are essential to the ongoing development of engineering but for many members they just don't present an inspiring prospect for attendance at the flagship conference of IPENZ. Of the identifiable participants at the conference just 13 percent represented private company designers, builders and manufacturers. The balance represented research and educational institutions, local bodies, sponsors and exhibitors (who would probably not otherwise have attended). If this is representative of the Institution, it is clear that the Institution holds little attraction for the doers and makers of the profession - certainly this conference didn't. The attendance level at the conference (about four percent of members) must have been disappointing to the organisers who I felt had done a brilliant job of planning and running it. Robert Finley Howick (Ed. abridged) <HR> More Conference views I write to express deep concern about several keynote speakers at the 1998 IPENZ Conference. Of those given the privilege of addressing the assembly on the first day, only Professor Colin Fudge gave what I and many others regarded as a balanced presentation. Of the others, two had a strong party political flavour and all came from the same, very narrow, viewpoint. Reality is much less simple than those speakers would have us believe. If it was the intention of the organising committee to expose participants to aspects of some current debates (water privatisation, new technology, transport, environmental policy) then a range of representative speakers should have been invited, to give in-depth presentations from more than one viewpoint. I am also disappointed that the Hon Dr Nick Smith chose to use the prestigious Newnham Lecture as an opportunity to give what I can only describe as a compaign speech on behalf of the National Party. Caricaturing any view other than his own and indulging in cheap shots at the expense of opposition parties may be acceptable at electorate meetings, but surely not at the Newnham Lecture. John Peet (Fellow) Christchurch <HR> A SURPLUS OF IMMIGRANT ENGINEERS I read Richard Fenwick's November article with interest. I feel I must comment of the paragraph regarding reasons why overseas engineers have found it so hard to find professional positions in New Zealand. The article stated that 48% of applicants had been told that they lacked New Zealand experience. My own experience, and that of my husband, is that British, and therefore English speaking, immigrants have had no difficulty whatsoever in finding immediate employment. We have each been told on many occasions `if you can do that, you can do this" or "we want to tap your UK experience". I therefore suggest that the "no New Zealand experience" line is. In fact, a euphemism for "you English isn't good enough". One of the qualifying criteria for immigration applicants is an ability to converse in English. There is no written test. This presents a major difficulty to employers in technical fields which is clearly not recognised by either the government or the prospective immigrant. The net result is that the government is approving visa applications only for them to be effectively vetoed by New Zealand employers. By that time, of course, it is too late and the immigrant is often financially crippled by the move down under. It is therefore doubly alarming that the government is preparing to relax the English language qualification further in an effort to encourage flagging immigration. While immigrants of all nationalities are, for the most part, welcomed by the general populous it would appear that this generosity is not shared by the professions. It is hardly surprising then, that non European immigrants are leaving again in droves or are being subjected to the humiliation of signing on for unemployment benefit. Perhaps it is timely that the government survey employers reasons for not taking on an engineer from the likes of Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Iraq or Russia. It is grossly unfair of the government to give visa applicants the impression that New Zealand is the land of milk and honey (employment wise) only to put employers in the unenviable position of disilluionging a group of highly qualified, willing, vastly experienced and potentially hugely valuable professionals. Viv Hardie (Mrs) <HR> Energy Gap Receding? John Blakeley's article "Energy Gap Possibility is Receding" (NZ Engineering, Beg '98) needs some careful examination lest its errors adversely influence our long-term policy on energy use - assuming any such policy exists! 1. It would be wonderful if those estimates of natural-gas reserves, based mainly on the top estimate for Mangahewa, were correct - but reality must suppress the sublime optimism. According to Fletcher Energy, the Mangahewa estimates vary over a range of 10 to 1. 2. Concentrating on natural gas, there is no emphasis on the contribution that coal can make to our future energy needs. Maybe that springs from the greenhouse fallacy which would exclude coal from any such consideration. Reliable estimates indicate that NZ's coal reserves are about 40 times as great as these over-estimated, natural-gas reserves. 3. The wishful claims for underground gasification of coal are just not on. UGG is a dead duck; with NZ's Faulted seams, the duck is deader. 4. Surely, new hydroelectric schemes should be considered. 5. Kapuni seems to offer the most certain supply of our future natural gas. In the early days, when information was more readily available, it was common knowledge that the raw Kapuni gas contained 50% carbon dioxide - this is removed in processing plant at the well-head. Kupe gas also requires such processing, and the association of Mangahewa with "Kapuni sands" suggests that CO2 will similarly be discharged to he atmosphere by the processing plant. The originally stated 50% CO2 in the raw Kapuni gas, destroys the spurious greenhouse argument for the use of natural gas - if only because the total CO2 emission from the raw gas is greater than that from coal. 6. Finally, New Zealand differs from most western countries in that the phenomenally-low price of electricity had always prevented the development of a traditional town-gas industry, before Kapuni and Maui gas appeared. But, without such an industry, and aided by the take-or-pay arrangements, we have disposed of nearly all the Maui gas, without having developed a substantive household-gas industry as is so important overseas and as New Zealand sorely needs now. Gasification of (mined) coal can provide a substitute natural gas at a thermal efficiency of about 75 percent, and the coal used thus will go about twice as far, in the home, as that used in power generation. The only problem is one of chickens and eggs - a large scale of operation (which might have developed over the past twenty years of surplus natural gas) would be required to make the gasification process economic. However, it is not too late for such a large scale of household-gas use to be achieved, using the natural gas remaining - albeit with some adjustment of market forces. Even if we are lucky enough to find so much natural gas that we never need to gasify coal for this purpose, the argument for natural gas used directly in the home will go three times as far as that gas converted to electricity. The logic seems so straightforward to me. If I'm wrong, I hope someone will explain my error. Peter A Toynbee <HR> IPENZ CONFERENCE 1998 I write to express deep concern about several keynote speakers at the 1998 IPENZ Conference. Of those given the privilege of addressing the assembly on the first day, only Prof. Colin Fudge gave what I and many others regarded as a balanced presentation. Of the others, two had a strong party political flavour and all came from the same, very narrow, viewpoint. Reality is much less simple than those speakers would have us believe. IF it was the intention of the Organising Committee to expose participants to aspects of some current debates (water privatisation, new technology, transport, environmental policy) then a range of representative speakers should have been invited, to give in-depth presentations from more than one viewpoint. I am also disappointed that the Hon Nick Smith chose to use the prestigious Newnham Lecture as an opportunity to give what I can only describe as a compaign speech on behalf of the National Party. Caricaturing any view other than his own and indulging in cheap shots at the expense of Opposition parties may be acceptable at electorate meetings, but surely not at the Newnham Lecture. John Peet (Fellow) <HR> SUSTAINABLE SKYTOWERS Could we please have some relief this year from articles or photographs of the Auckland Skytower? I refer in particular to the main sponsor's advertisement in the programme for "The Sustainable City" conference showing the skytower dominating the Auckland skyline. We can only wonder what on earth it has to do with sustainability. We all know it's an impressive piece of "gung-ho' technology, but hardly an inspirational symbol for this Institution which is (supposedly) trying to establish itself itself at the forefront of sustainable development and green technologies. D H Peacock <HR> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="30" height="50"></td> <td width="160" valign="top" align="left"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="160" height="50"></td> <td width="20"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="20" height="50"></td> <td width="400" align="left" valign="top" class="bodya"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="400" height="50"></td> <td align="right" valign="top" width="250"> </td> </tr> </table> <div id="footer"> © 1996 - 2012 IPENZ </div> </div> </body> </html>