Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Frank Newman: Meth myth

There is no risk to human health from third hand exposure to houses where methamphetamine has been consumed. That is the conclusion of a report released last week by the Government's chief scientific advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman.

In speaking to the report he said, "There is absolutely no evidence in the medical literature of anyone being harmed from passive use, at any level. We can't find one case…Mould is more dangerous than meth."

The report concludes, "In the absence of clear scientific and health information, there has been an assumption among the general public that the presence of even trace levels of methamphetamine residue poses a health risk…This situation is largely unique to New Zealand – in other countries methamphetamine investigations focus mainly on identifying meth labs (or former labs), and remediating them when found. Non-meth lab contamination generally does not lead to any particular consideration or action. The question thus emerges, is the New Zealand approach over-precautionary or appropriate?"

The answer to that is clearly yes, the current threshold levels are over-precautionary, and no, the  approach is not appropriate.

The report goes on to say, testing is not warranted in most cases and is only warranted where a site is suspected of being used to manufacture meth or where the use has been very heavy. It recommends  the threshold level for further room by room testing and decontamination should be 15μg/100cm not the current standard of 1.5 µg/100 cm.

As it happens, the Gluckman report states manufacturing is less prevalent than one may think. "The number of confirmed meth labs detected has been decreasing in recent years. Seventy-four meth labs were identified in 2016 of which 50 were rental properties and four were Housing New Zealand properties.  This may reflect a preference for obtaining fully synthesised methamphetamine from overseas rather than manufacturing locally."

In response to the recommendations in the report, Housing Minister Phil Twyford said, “In December 2017 I commissioned Sir Peter to assess all the available scientific and medical literature about the risks of exposure to meth residue…I was concerned at the time, and I remain so, that there has been some anxiety about meth contamination, and a testing and remediation industry has grown up around this…There has been a widely held perception that the presence of even low levels of meth residue in a house poses a health risk to occupants. As a result, remediation to eliminate contamination has been an extremely costly business for landlords and an upheaval for tenants being evicted at short notice."
He said changes to the meth regulations will be included in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) which is soon to have its second reading in the House, and a public consultation document on meth regulations will be released later this year. He expects new standards to be in place within the next year.

Housing New Zealand is not waiting around for the new legislation. There are reported to be some 200 state houses empty because of "contamination" issues. These will be put back into use immediately. HNZ has spent $100m on testing and remediation in the last four years and is expected to save $30m a year as a result of their changes.

If Housing NZ is changing its policy as of now, then so too should private sector landlords and property managers. Far too much money has been wasted by landlords being forced to comply with a testing regime designed to deal with a problem that in most cases does not exist.

I have written previously about the rorting that has gone on in the testing industry. In January I raised concerns about cowboy operators and cited an example of one house being tested by two different companies. One said it was clean with no traces of meth, the other said it was contaminated with a recorded level of 7.62, well above the 1.5μg/100cm2 standard. They recommended further testing - at a cost of $1,322.50!

Quite understandably the meth' testing companies are not happy. One testing company fired out a press release in response to Prof' Gluckman's report, implying the report had been influenced by Minister Twyford who, they say, is primarily motivated by the housing shortage.

The Minister is to be congratulated for addressing this issue from a scientific perspective, and bringing some common sense to the table. And Housing NZ should be congratulated for responding now and not waiting for the new regulations to catch up with reality. Private landlords should now do the same:

·        - Only test where a meth lab or heavy use is suspected, and
·        - Use > 15μg/100cm2 as the new standard for further more specific testing.

The meth testing and decontamination racket is now at an end. Amen to that.

Frank Newman, an investment analyst and former councillor on the Whangarei District Council, writes a weekly article for Property Plus.


Lolitas brother said...
Reply To This Comment

Meth contamination is Societal paranoea. It's like saying I can't go into that place a dog was there, or they smoked cigarettes.

Nemesis said...
Reply To This Comment

Although I've not read Gluckman's report in full, what I've culled gives me cause for concern. He appears to have ignored the long-established rule of science which holds that an absence of evidence for something does not automatically thereby prove that it doesn't exist. For example, there is no evidence, as yet, in the scientific literature (the reputable, peer-reviewed sort, that is) that extra-terrestrial life exists. However, this doesn't, for a moment, demonstrate its absence. Certainly, Gluckman has scoured the world literature, and come up with nothing, but it would be reckless to extrapolate from that by saying that there's no risk. I can demonstrate this error in one word: asbestos. For decades, it was considered to be a safe, non-toxic building material, and perusal of the world literature in the thirties or forties would have shown up no possible hazards. It was only years later, when people (usually men from the insulation and building trades) started to turn up with mesothelioma (arguably, the worst of all cancers to suffer from), that the penny dropped regarding the association with asbestos, and the connection has since been made with certainty. We're all hyper-aware now, and go to great lengths to avoid even microscopic contact with the fibres (especially blue asbestos).
I'm not saying that Gluckman was wrong (although his saying that a toddler could safely lick the floor, was an instance of letting his mouth run away with him), but the certainty with which low levels of exposure to methamphetamine or its chemical precursors has been pronounced safe is, in my view, scientifically untenable.

Post a Comment

Thanks for engaging in the debate!

Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.

Please note - if you use the new REPLY button for comments, please start your comments AFTER the code. Also, the Blogger comment limit is 4,096 characters, so to post something longer, you may wish to use Part 1, Part 2 etc.