In November 2018, a report titled the health burden of fine particle pollution from electricity generation in NSW (known as the ‘Ewald Report’), was published.[1] The Ewald Report, which was commissioned by activist group Environmental Justice Australia, investigated the health burden of coal-fired power in NSW and made some alarming claims. It linked particulate emissions from Australian coal-fired power stations to premature deaths, underweight births and type 2 diabetes. These findings were reported in mainstream media outlets.[2]
The Ewald Report was not peer-reviewed prior to publication despite this being standard practice for a scientific paper. Consequently, the Australian Energy Council (‘AEC’) commissioned EnRiskS Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd to undertake an independent peer review (‘EnRiskS Review’) of the Ewald Report to assess the veracity of its findings.
EnRiskS encountered some difficulties when performing its review because the Ewald Report was ‘poorly referenced’ and ‘not sufficiently transparent’, which made it difficult to check and verify the claims made.[3] Providing reasonable transparency over the data and sources used is important, as the Ewald Report frequently claims its findings have ‘medium’ or ‘high certainty’. These classifications are misleading because type 2 diabetes and low birth weights are not causally linked with exposure to fine particulates. The EnRiskS review described these tendencies as ‘highly unusual in a scientific assessment and would not be acceptable in most situations’.[4] Scientific papers should discuss uncertainties and their potential impact on any conclusions made.
The EnRiskS Review also critiqued the methodology the Ewald Report had used to make its findings. Attributing specific particulate emissions from a single source (such as coal-fired power stations) to increased mortality is fraught with error as it is very difficult to isolate emissions sources. The difficulties of isolation are especially enlarged for particulate matter because most of these emissions occur naturally (often from bushfires, dust storms and sea salt).[5] Of the human made sources, wood heaters and road vehicles release more amounts of particulate emissions than coal-fired power stations.[6] It is important then that ‘any assessment of the health impacts from any one source is also considered in the context of other key urban sources’.[7]
Overall EnRiskS assessment was that the Ewald Report used ‘flawed and misleading’ analysis that was ‘not based on good science’.[8]
To read a copy of the report click .
[1] Dr. Ben Ewald 2018, ‘The health burden of fine particle pollution from electricity generation in NSW’, Environmental Justice Australia.
[2] For example, the Sydney Morning Herald described the findings as a ‘scandal’ and used emotive imagery. Peter Hannam 2018, ‘Scandal: NSW coal power plants will kill thousands before they close’, Sydney Morning Herald.
[3] Environmental Risk Sciences Pty Ltd 2019, ‘Peer review: Dr. Ewald Report’, p2.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Chang, Lisa et al. 2019, ‘Major source contributions to ambient PM2.5 and exposures within the New South Wales greater metropolitan region’, Atmosphere, vol. 10, p138.
[6] Ibid.
[7] EnRisks Review, p12.
[8] Ibid at p10.
