After the no-drink notice was issued, Mr Hawkins told RNZ's Checkpoint programme council staff did not advise the public of the elevated lead level back in August, following advice from Public Health South.
However, RNZ reported yesterday that SDHB medical officer of health Dr Susan Jack said that was not the case.
When asked by the Otago Daily Times yesterday to explain the different version of events, Mr Hawkins would not be drawn, but said that was why a review was needed.
"This is exactly why we need a review of what has happened up until this point, which we have committed to doing independently, informed by the review of the Ministry of Health."
The council’s priority was working with the SDHB to support the affected communities, and focus on identifying the source of the problem so it could be fixed, he said.
Mr Hawkins did not say whether he still stood by his comment to Checkpoint.
Dr Jack told RNZ the SDHB’s advice was to increase testing, but not that the city council should not go public.
"For a one-off exceedance, the recommendation and guidelines are to increase the testing to work out if there’s a possible reason why it was elevated and then if there are obviously more results, then action would be taken," she said.
"Our recommendation was to increase the testing. We didn’t advise that they shouldn’t go public. But the usual process is that you would not go public with that information if they’re following the recommendations of increasing the testing and working out what’s going on."
As for any plans to change that process, Dr Jack said the Water Services Bill that would support the new drinking water regulator was out for consultation and that was likely to be an area closely looked at.
More than 1000 people have had their blood tested for lead contamination since the no-drink notice was issued, with a community testing clinic in place in Waikouaiti from Tuesday until Friday.
Results have already started returning, with residents describing a mix of relief and confusion.
The World Health Organisation states on its website there is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects and lower exposure levels could still cause health problems.
Dr Jack said the SDHB was using an internationally accepted threshold for lead blood levels that the New Zealand guidelines were going to be using, just as a cutoff for its management.
"We’re not planning to reconsider that threshold. Anyone above that 0.24 gets a call from our public health unit and a detailed discussion about what their possible exposures may be," she told RNZ.
- Additional reporting RNZ
Advertisement
Comments
We have a mayor who has been at the head while people have been poisoned. Was in charge when the council did nothing for weeks. Was there when they misinformed people about the levels of poisoning. And now it looks as though he is lying again about SDHB to try to cover his own failings. Any politician with a shred of dignity would have offered their resignation by now. He has no shame and no mana.
Typical ott tirade. Read the obfuscatory DHB 'this, that and the other thing' response.
Don't accuse local government of 'poisoning'.
When something goes wrong in the community, there must be someone to blame, to lynch, to make me feel better. So we throw this lot out & replace them - with who. You threw the last lot out cos they were no good & the lot before that built the stadium so you threw them out.
It doesn't look as though anyone is lying until the findings come out. BTW has anyone actually been poisoned yet??
Whether or not anyone out here has been 'poisoned' is a moot point and likely not for open debate on this forum,
Poisoning is not always an absolute accutely sick phenomena. In many ways the chronic dose by dose exposure is more dangerous building up and damaging cells, tissues, immune and other systems in the body. There is no level of lead that does not cause harm - therefore a degree of poisoning has likely occurred.
Oh dear has a leader had a case of memory loss or another example of the inability to be honest and lead this council needs to provide effective and safe services that we all expect perhaps they and the ORC need to collapse move on and we begin with a group of people who wish to stand up for Dunedin not their own selfish interests. Dont worry Mr Mayor even if you do read this you are likely to forget
100% he made the mistake. Now he has to own it.
PLEASE PLEASE remember all this come election time.!!!
Oh, don't worry, I will! I don't think I fully appreciated Dave Cull until now.
Testing continued weekly after the first high lead reading - the one that wasn't communicated with urgency as it should have been. Weekly, meaning the "spikes" could have been highest of the week, on that one day when test was done, or other days it could have been higher.
How could anyone with a brain, with understanding of danger of ingesting lead, and with a sense of responsibility, recommend leaving people to keep on drinking the poison till investigations were completed?
Processes around lead painted buildings such as sanding surfaces before painting,, disposal of demolition materials, and not using wood as firewood, are strictly regulated. Why?
Soil contaminated with old building debris is a known danger that has to be remediated. No vege garden. No children's play area. Why?
Does the mayor not understand those regulations, can't he get his head around "ingesting lead is dangerous to health"?
He's the mayor. Whatever SDHB may have said is of no relevance to his duty to the people on council-responsibility water supply. Interesting if believed, it's not an excuse.
Dereliction of duty, I call it.
Lets face it, he's not really a Mayor. He's a single cause anti car zealot who happened to be the last one standing when his greens mates on council voted for a leader.
He has no idea of anything other than ridding Dunedin of cars and he (and hs predecessor), has stacked DCC staff with like minded single idea people. You can't expect him or the DCC staff to change.
His green mates on council did not vote him as leader.
The mayor is elected at large by all eligible voters.
At least get your facts right.
Seems to be some confusion over this. My understanding is the SDHB did not advise the council to issue a No-Drink notice. That left it up to the council to use that advice (further testing etc.) as they chose. I do not believe that A Hawkins has ever stated the SDHB instructed the council not to make a public notice as suggested, but that the DCC decided that was not necessary. Maybe that was a bad decision, but it wasn't an error (e.g. clerical) or a lie.
Old city. Old plumbing. Time for councils to deal with basics. Water and waste must be a priority in future. As must be public transport.