Infant mortality rates at electoral ward level in Nottingham

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear Nottingham City Council,

I've been looking at the electoral ward-level data in the report below and noticed that you provide several ward maps with data, but not one showing the infant mortality rates:

http://www.empho.org.uk/Download/Public/...

I should be grateful if you'd provide all electoral ward maps showing infant mortality rates that your council has seen and also provide a table of data showing the infant mortality rates, the live births, and also the infant deaths aggregated for the seven years 2003-2010.

Your map showing premature death rates for deaths under 75 years fails to show which ward has the worst death rate, but data released by the Office for National Statistics show that St Ann's ward had the highest death rate out of all Nottingham wards for deaths of "persons" (ie males plus females) under 85 years, from all causes during the five-year period 1999-2003.

St Ann's ward, with SMR=180, is close to and downwind of the incinerator which is in Bridge ward.

I should also be grateful if you'd release any assessment that's been made regarding the adverse impact of emissions from the Eastcroft incinerator on infant death rates or on any other adverse health outcome.

The following data are SMRs for Nottingham electoral ward for deaths of persons aged under 85 years, from all causes, for the five year period 1999-2003 and pasted from the ONS spreadsheet.

Anywhere with SMR greater than one hundred has a higher death rate than the average death rate for England & Wales.

Arboretum 163
Aspley 127
Basford 128
Berridge 145
Bestwood 121
Bilborough 129
Bridge 155
Bulwell 152
Bulwell Forest 100
Clifton North 109
Clifton South 117
Dales 135
Dunkirk and Lenton 112
Leen Valley 104
Mapperley 133
Radford and Park 141
St Ann's 180
Sherwood 117
Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 86
Wollaton West 72

The following is from the BBC News item "Nottingham Eastcroft incinerator to burn extra waste" (13 July 2012) which suggests that someone might have been looking at health impacts.

"An Environment Agency spokeswoman said: "We have taken into account all relevant considerations, comments from the public, and legal requirements.

"We are now confident... that a high level of protection is provided for the environment and human health."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-not...

Yours faithfully,

Michael Ryan

Nottingham City Council

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR ENQUIRY

Dear Michael Ryan,

Nottingham City Council acknowledge the receipt of your email.

Your enquiry has been given the reference number IGO/2430. A case officer will be assigned to your request and you will receive a response in due course.

Please note that for requests that fall under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 you should expect a response within 20 working days commencing the next working day following receipt of your enquiry. For requests that fall under the Data Protection Act 1998 you should expect a response within 40 calendar days from the day your enquiry was received in the Authority.

We trust the above is clear however in the meantime should you have any queries regarding your enquiry please contact this office using the details below.

Regards,

Information Governance
Nottingham City Council
Loxley House
Station Street
Nottingham
NG3 2NG
Tel: 0115 8763855
Email: [Nottingham City Council request email]

The full line up for this summer's Splendour has been announced. On 20 July 2013, see Jake Bugg, Squeeze, KT Tunstall, Dog is Dead, Nina Nesbitt, Maximo Park, Peter Hook & The Light plus many more...Buy your tickets now at www.splendourfestival.com

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content
and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal.

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may
contain personal views which are not the views of
Nottingham City Council unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from
your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information
in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately. Please note that Nottingham City Council
monitors e-mails sent or received for the purposes of
ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
The contents of e-mails sent or received may have to be
disclosed if a relevant request is made under current
legislation, such as, but not limited to, the Data Protection
Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Gadawodd Michael Ryan anodiad ()

No response so far.

Dear Nottingham City Council,

You have failed to comply with my Freedom of Information request within the specified period of twenty working days.

If the requested information isn't supplied within seven working days from today, I shall refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

I therefore expect the information to be provided by 17 July 2013.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Ryan

Information Governance, Nottingham City Council

5 Atodiad

Dear Mr Ryan

 

Please find attached response and supporting documentation re the above
request

 

 

Kieran Williams LLB (Hons)

Information Governance Officer

Information Governance | Development | Nottingham City Council | Loxley
House Station Street | NOTTINGHAM | NG2 3NG

t: 0115 8763167 | e: [[email address]] |

w: www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk

 

Tell us what you thought of Nottingham Armed Forces Day for your chance to
win a £50 Amazon Voucher! [1]www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/armedforces2013hys

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may
contain personal views which are not the views of
Nottingham City Council unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from
your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information
in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately. Please note that Nottingham City Council
monitors e-mails sent or received for the purposes of
ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
The contents of e-mails sent or received may have to be
disclosed if a relevant request is made under current
legislation, such as, but not limited to, the Data Protection
Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000

References

Visible links
1. http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/armedfo...

Dear Nottingham City Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Nottingham City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Infant mortality rates at electoral ward level in Nottingham'.

My request included four items and I seek clarification on the responses to two of them as follows:

1. Could your please confirm whether or not Nottingham City has ever seen an electoral ward map showing infant mortality rates? Many Councils have had access to such maps and it’s likely that Nottingham City would also have seen such maps before the released one showing 2003-2012 data. If such maps existed, I still wish to see them. It’s likely that such maps had been produced – even before the press release of BLISS (28 March 2006) which revealed Nottingham City PCT as having the seventh-highest infant mortality rate of the 303 PCTs in England at 8.3 per 1,000 live births (2002-2004 ONS data) as reported in the Birmingham Mail (28 March 2006), Birmingham Post (29 March 2006) and several other newspapers– but not in the Nottingham Post as far as I’m aware.

http://www.bliss.org.uk/2006/03/28/top-t...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MIDLAND%3A...

2. The “Report of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of the Proposed expansion to the Incinerator at Eastcroft, Nottingham (January 2006), by Nottingham Health Action Team” has been heavily redacted and I wish to challenge the legitimacy of such action.

The redacted names of those who are public servants, or who have received payment from public funds in respect of work connected with incinerator health effects, should be revealed as there’s no valid reason for their omission. There’s no need to hide the name(s) of those at Birmingham University who provided input or advice to the health impact assessment as it’s unlikely that such a person or persons will not have had research published under their names(s).

Page 49 of the report includes the following under “Technical questions”:

“ONS data shows high rates of birth defects in the Nottingham PCT area in 2001 and 2002. This may be linked to environmental causes including incineration (but probably not traffic as low rates of birth defect were recorded in areas with high traffic levels). Are the figures for Nottingham City correct? If so has any analysis of possible causes been carried out?”

Nottingham City Council must have known (in 2005 when the report was being prepared) that if birth defects rates were high, then infant mortality rates must also be high and that it would take a few minutes to determine the infant mortality rates for Nottingham City for 2001 and 2002 which are 9.5 per 1,000 and 9.9 per 1,000 live births respectively. These are very high rates, which should have prompted the examination of infant mortality data at electoral ward level by Nottingham City Council or their expert advisers on health

Page 51 of the report has the following under “Points for noting”:

“The smaller the particle of pollution the more effect it has on the body, especially on unborn babies and very young children. (ref XXXXXXXX. (this question falls outside of our remit)”.

The people who spent unpaid time and effort working on the above report probably had no idea how close they were to identifying the truth of the “incinerator infant mortality” matter which could have been revealed in 2006 if person or persons unknown hadn’t decided that the “remit” was restricted as mentioned on page 51 above.

Dr Patrick Saunders (named on page 49 of report) misled Chris Benfield of the Yorkshire Post as revealed in the FoI request made by Mr Carroll on 1 June 2011:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...

Half of page 16 and all of page 17 of the report have no text. These pages deal with the “Baseline profile of the community or population affected by the (incinerator) proposal – Nottingham City Health Inequalities”.

Dales ward was discussed at some length, but that ward isn’t home to the incinerator – despite it being linked to the incinerator on page 16 of the report as follows: “Life expectancy in the Dales ward, which is in the location of the incinerator, is 77.7 for females and 70.6 for males.”.

Comments on other relevant matters:

No mention is made of who decided that the remit of the HIA study should exclude the effect of pollution particles on “unborn babies and very young children”.

Back in August 2003, the HPA promised (articles in The Guardian, Western daily Press, Daily Post, all 6 August 2003) to check health data around incinerators but failed to do so. That failure was exposed in both the Dorking Advertiser and also the Surrey Mirror on 22 May 2008 following a Freedom of Information request. The August 2003 “promise” should have been known to every Council which had, or was considering an incinerator and should have prompted such councils to press the HPA for details. The HPA have promised a study into an association between incinerators and rates of infant mortality, stillbirths, low birth weight babies and birth defects and your Council should also have been aware of that promise and realised that the Eastcroft incinerator would be likely t be included:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/NewsCentre/Nationa...

Birmingham University, the Health Protection Agency, Nottingham City PCT and the Environment Agency would have known (or should have known) in 2004 that a study of infant deaths around 63 incinerators in Japan concluded:

“CONCLUSION: Our study shows a peak-decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined.”
(J Epidemiol. 2004 May;14(3):83-93.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15242...

Wollaton West, which had the lowest discolosed infant mortality rate (2003-2012) also had the lowest under-75 death rate for all years in the table and is also mostly “upwind” of the Eastcroft incinerator and is therefore rarely exposed to incinerator emissions.

All except one of Nottingham’s electoral wards had Standardised Mortallity Ratios (deaths of persons under 85 years, all causes) that were both higher and also “statistically significantly higher” than Wollaton West (1999-2003 ONS data). That exceptional ward is Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey, which also had a low (but not disclosed) infant mortality rate (2003-2012).

The HIA report makes reference to “deprivation” as if that might be a causal factor for ill-health, infant mortality and premature deaths at all ages.

The infant mortality rates for London Boroughs (1970-2010) show that the previously falling infant death rates in the Boroughs of Lewisham (home to SELCHP incinerator), Newham, and Tower Hamlets suddenly rose after SELCHP incinerator started in 1993. There wasn’t a sudden decline in “deprivation” or “socio-economic status” in those Boroughs after SELCHP started – just “deprivation of clean air”.

The ONS data is at:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/what...

This graph shows how the infant mortality rate in Wandsworth Borough had been falling at a similar rate to the above three Boroughs, but Wandsworth is “upwind” of SELCHP incinerator and is far less exposed to emissions from that incinerator.

http://ukhr.eu/incineration/selchp.htm

These PQs by Lyn Brown MP, which relate to SELCHP incinerator, failed to get full responses:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

(Lyn Brown MP: Hansard, 18 January 2013, Column 945W)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

(Lyn Brown MP, Hansard, 22 January 2013, Column 142W)

just like these earlier ones:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

(Andy Love MP: Hansard, 22 July 2011, Column 325W)

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-off...

Hansard link for 30 Nov 2009 (Paul Holmes MP)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

17 Sep 2007 : Column 2209W
Hansard link for 17 September 2007 (Norman Baker MP)

Note that response to the PQ by Paul Holmes the Health Protection Agency in November 2009 advised against looking at data around incinerators:

“The HPA also advised that studies of public health around modern, well managed municipal waste incinerators are not recommended, since any possible health effects are likely to be small.”
(Hansard, Column 539W, 30 November 2009)

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

Michael Ryan

Nottingham City Council

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR A REVIEW

Dear Michael Ryan,

Nottingham City Council acknowledge the receipt of your email.

Your request for a review of case reference number IGO/2430 has been received and logged. A appropriate officer will be assigned to your request and you will receive a response in due course.

Please note you should expect a response within 20 working days of receipt of your enquiry.

We trust the above is clear however in the meantime should you have any queries regarding your request for a review please contact this office using the details below.

Regards,

Information Governance
Nottingham City Council
Loxley House
Station Street
Nottingham
NG3 2NG
Tel: 0115 8763855
Email: [Nottingham City Council request email]

Tell us what you thought of Nottingham Armed Forces Day for your chance to win a £50 Amazon Voucher! www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/armedforces201...

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content
and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal.

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may
contain personal views which are not the views of
Nottingham City Council unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from
your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information
in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately. Please note that Nottingham City Council
monitors e-mails sent or received for the purposes of
ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
The contents of e-mails sent or received may have to be
disclosed if a relevant request is made under current
legislation, such as, but not limited to, the Data Protection
Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Steve Harrison, Nottingham City Council

2 Atodiad

Please find attached a response letter and additional material.

 

Regards

 

 

Steve Harrison

Information Governance Manager (Interim)

GIS, Data and Information Team

0115 87 65512

 

Tell us what you thought of Nottingham Armed Forces Day for your chance to
win a £50 Amazon Voucher! [1]www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/armedforces2013hys

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may
contain personal views which are not the views of
Nottingham City Council unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from
your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information
in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately. Please note that Nottingham City Council
monitors e-mails sent or received for the purposes of
ensuring compliance with its policies and procedures.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
The contents of e-mails sent or received may have to be
disclosed if a relevant request is made under current
legislation, such as, but not limited to, the Data Protection
Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000

References

Visible links
1. http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/armedfo...

Dear Steve Harrison,

Thanks for sending the unredacted Health Impact Assessment report.

You've failed to supply "all electoral ward maps showing infant mortality rates that your council has seen".

I find it difficult to believe that no electoral ward map of Nottingham showing the infant mortality rates had been prepared before my Freedom of Information request.

I should be grateful if you'd reconsider and complay with that part of my request within seven working days from today, otherwise I'l refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Ryan