spinofflive
Pages from the report published by Flora and Fauna NZ
Pages from the report published by Flora and Fauna NZ

ScienceDecember 2, 2019

The dead rats of Westport and the mystery lab: a new twist in the tail

Pages from the report published by Flora and Fauna NZ
Pages from the report published by Flora and Fauna NZ

The release of an anonymous lab report that found massive 1080 concentrations prompts Dave Hansford to ask: is history repeating itself?

The last week has seen a great deal of discussion about claims made by the anti-1080 front group, Flora and Fauna Aotearoa (F&F), in relation to the deaths of hundreds of rats and other animals that washed up in Westport nearly three weeks ago.

I explored it at length here, but a brief recap: F&F said an “independent laboratory” had found not just traces, but heavy concentrations, of 1080 in the animals. The results contradicted nil results found earlier that week by Landcare Research. F&F released a “lab report” but have refused to reveal where it came from. Since then, agencies, scientists and journalists have been trying to ascertain the identity of the “mystery lab”. Toxicologists, meanwhile, have expressed serious doubts over many of the report’s findings and methodology.


Read part 1:

Dead rats, a mystery lab, and the very curious antics of the anti-1080 lobby


So what, and who, might be involved in the mystery lab? There are a number of similarities, in my view, between the Westport case and a string of other alleged instances of chemical contamination, all of them investigated at the behest of activist groups by Timaru chemist Dr Nick Wall.

Wall cites his academic qualifications as a BSc in chemistry and a PhD in surface chemistry, both from Cardiff University. In 2015, he told Stuff that he read several hundred pages of scientific papers a day, and slept only two hours a night. He has charged that “old boys’ clubs” are hiding “dirty secrets” around New Zealand. “The place is a cesspit.”

When I asked him to comment on the mystery lab report, he dismissed my inkling that he might be involved. “I do not see why you may think I know anything worthwhile on this particular topic,” he wrote in an email.

A string of coincidences had led me to wonder whether history was repeating itself. In the summer of 2015, the Opihi Catchment Environment Protection Society commissioned Wall to test sediment from the Opuha lake bed, north of Fairlie, for DDT. That July, the society announced on national television that Wall’s tests had confirmed the evidence of a toxic dump with DDT levels high enough, said Wall, to “bankrupt” the local regional council, Environment Canterbury.

A search with ground-penetrating radar found no such dump. Divers took sediment and fish samples from the same site that, on testing by Hill Laboratories in Hamilton, ALS Laboratories in Australia and Asure Quality in New Zealand, were found to contain none of the DDT that Wall claimed to have detected. ECan chief executive Bill Bayfield told media the DDT investigation had cost ratepayers between $50,000 and $100,000.

A subsequent ECan report concluded that: “Results from the different laboratories showed us the value of using accredited laboratories that have strong quality assurance of their procedures and results.”

Just weeks later, Wall provided protest group GE Free NZ with test results he claimed showed high concentrations of glyphosate in two milk samples. Like his DDT findings, the concentrations were extraordinarily high, but Wall would not give any details about his testing process, or his equipment.

Wall’s work sparked a spate of tests by the Ministry for Primary Industries, which took 360 milk samples from farms and shops during the 2014/2015 milk season. When AsureQuality tested them, they found no trace of glyphosate or any break-down products. GE Free’s claims were never substantiated.

In comments familiar from toxicologists’ appraisals of the mystery 1080 report, a peer reviewer of Wall’s 2012-2013 testing of Rangitata river water samples said in a report to ECan: “I have seen a brief summary of the results of this study, but it is difficult to comment further, as I have not seen the methods and the quality assurance used in the analysis.”

According to a Timaru Herald report at the time, government agencies that investigated Wall’s claims were not able to establish the location of his laboratory.

In May 2015, the Timaru Herald reported that when an MPI official repeatedly asked Wall for details of his samples, he told them a laptop and lab records had been stolen from one of his laboratories. (He insists that at least part of that reporting is not true; a laptop was never stolen.) He has told media that he once received a bullet in the mail and been the victim of vandalism.

In an interview for a previous story about the identity of the “mystery lab”, F&F spokesperson Di Maxwell said she would not disclose the tester’s identity because “he’s had his tyres slashed, he’s had his computer stolen, he had his house vandalised, he had a bullet through the mail. I could go on and on.”

On November 22, Wall posted excerpts from the mystery lab report on his Facebook page.

Wall’s first response to my request for an interview seemed unambiguous. “I do not see why you may think i know anything worthwhile on this particular topic.” He was busy, he said, “but if you wish to submit your questions in writing I shall try and get them answered as well as I can.”

I asked him: “Did you produce the lab report released by Flora and Fauna Aotearoa that found 1080 in the Westport rats?”

He replied in turn: “Who I do work for is none of anybodies (sic) business, but not done anything for them to my knowledge. I am not a member of any 1080 organization, either pro or anti.”

For good measure, he added: “The last media guy who tried to put words into my mouth paid handsomely, as did his editor.”

A follow-up email from Wall – before the publication of this story –advised: “It is a non story mate,,,, you have barked up the wrong tree again and my legal team is picking it apart word by word for factual inaccuracies and supposition……I cannot be bothered to dignify your rubbish with even reading it.”

He continued: “I hope that you and your editors and paymasters have very deep pockets if my boys find anything.”

Speaking of finding things, I then cut and paste the lab results pdf into Microsoft Word, which had the effect of revealing the redacted laboratory details. A further coincidence appeared: the lab supervisor’s initials are NW.

When I asked Flora and Fauna Aotearoa about Wall’s involvement, they threatened to lay a police complaint and take legal action.

Absent any overwhelming evidence, we should, of course, take Dr Wall at his word.

I offered F&F the opportunity to defend their report’s findings, but they were silent. The mystery lab report is, like the rats it tested, dead in the water.

Keep going!
pjimage (73)

ScienceDecember 2, 2019

What’s the deal with influencers and their teeth whitening gizmos? 

pjimage (73)

Alex Casey goes in search of the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth. 

If you’ve been anywhere near Instagram this year, you are probably familiar with this image. An influencer – perhaps a woman with a messy bun and a no-makeup makeup look, or a bronzed man with a six pack lounging shirtless on his bed – proudly attempting to swallow what appears to be a miniature UFO. Glowing an ethereal blue or white, these futuristic teeth-whitening gizmos appear to be a key stepping stone on the Instagram journey to getting Huge White Teeth

But what actually are those gadgets, available with my discount code LXKC20 if you swipe up now #spon? I called Dr Usha Narshai, teeth whitening expert from the New Zealand Dental Association, to find out the tooth. 

Are you able to explain to me how these gizmos work?

In New Zealand, the highest concentration of hydrogen peroxide in whitening products available over the counter is 6%. You’ll find that across everything – toothpastes, mouth rinses, gels, varnishes. These at-home kits are just another form of that, you get the gel and inject it into pre-fabricated trays before putting it in your mouth and turning the light on. 

What is most significant is that this process dehydrates your teeth, which is what actually does the bulk of the whitening. If you were to leave your mouth open for half an hour without any product on it, you’ll find your teeth will still whiten by about 3-4 shades. And then your regular colour will come back about 24 to 36 hours later. 

How does dehydrating your teeth make them whiter? 

Whats happens is that your tooth has an outer layer of enamel and a deeper layer of dentin. When moisture is drawn from there, it acts the same as anything with water in it does when it dries out. It’s like how an apple turns a paler shade when it is dehydrated, and then when it is rehydrated it returns to its original shade.

The anatomy of the tooth allows moisture to be drawn out and, when you dry the tooth, you will get whiter teeth. With the added peroxide product, the chemical breaks down the molecule of the stains on your teeth. Your stain won’t be as bright as a result and your teeth will appear whiter once your 30 minutes is up. 

So beyond the dehydration thing, the gel still does something, right? 

Absolutely. The gel will do something eventually but it will be no more effective than a toothpaste or mouthwash with that same level of peroxide in it. I wouldn’t say you can claim 6-8 shades lighter like some brands do, though. You might be able to for the first 24 hours, but I’d say most people want their teeth staying whiter for longer than that.

For real, long-lasting results with a product like this, I’d say you’d want to use it consistently and very frequently for 6-12 months. And it could get very annoying doing it that often. If you want something more concentrated that will get faster results, you have to do that with a dental professional. 

What about the LED light? Does that actually do anything? 

The light makes the user feel like the product is being “activated”. It’s possible it might warm up and therefore speed up the process, but there’s no research provided that suggests it makes any difference in the at-home kits. What I think the light mostly does is make sure your mouth stays open. You could put the tray in without the light, but then you haven’t got that wow factor to take a photo of. Because this is all about marketing, and the marketing is great. 

What else should people know about these at-home kits? 

It’s important to avoid black tea or coffee or red wine for about two weeks while you are whitening your teeth. Because what you are doing is changing the chemistry of the actual tooth structure which makes it more prone to staining in the aftermath. You actually become more vulnerable to discolouration, which I’d imagine is exactly what people are trying to avoid. I just really wish they came with a disclaimer to consult with a professional first. 

Have you seen an uptake in people wanting to whiten their teeth since the Instagram era started? 

Definitely. In the current climate of selfies, filters and reality TV stars, there is huge a pressure to look good. Something like this product might give you a little bit of a boost, an instant hit of confidence. This is a product that has great marketing, great packaging, but you just need to question the long-term effectiveness of it. It’s easy, it’s not harmful, it’s convenient and FDA approved, but you should always seek proper advice.

Put even more simply, there is a litmus test I always like to use with things like this. Forget the influencers – how many dentists are actually using these? How many are recommending it to their patients? I’m not going to tell anyone not to get it, I just think people probably need to do their research to make an informed decision before they buy any product through Instagram.

 

But wait there's more!