KEY POINTS:
I read with interest the argument in a letter to the editor that fireworks are responsible for "children being exposed to cancer-inducing nitrates".
Of all the chemicals used in fireworks, nitrates are among the most inert and least toxic. Indeed, potassium nitrate, the oxygen-supplying chemical in gunpowder, is
also a food additive. The nitrate exposure from fireworks is minor compared with the nitrate absorbed through everyday sources such as toothpaste. Cooking meat produces many aromatic carcinogens, such as benzopyrene, which are much more potent than nitrates. The same applies for cigarettes.
Why not ban meat, or put instructions for minimising carcinogen production during cooking on every packet of sausages? I am sure the writer could have come up with a stronger case for banning fireworks than their nitrate content.
If a child managed to eat the powder from a few green sparklers, the barium levels could well be fatal if not treated. But I can think of several household items - especially cleaning products - toxic enough to kill a curious child. If we are to be consistent in our paternalism we should surely ban these too.
It is not just the barium content of sparklers which makes them dangerous. Sparklers are the leading cause of fireworks-related injury. They burn at higher temperatures than most other fireworks and when misused cause quite serious burns.
People with pyrotechnic knowledge are not the ones making the laws, and the results reflect this. They simply do not make sense.
A major source of the explosions commonly heard around Guy Fawkes involves people dismantling fireworks to make into "bombs". ( I personally disagree with the term bombs, as it implies a device designed to cause destruction, whereas most will simply be used as noise makers). This year the individual sale of sparklers has been restricted to try to and cut "sparkler bombs". But a potentially greater problem is people dismantling other fireworks - especially Ground Bloom Flowers and Colour Wheels.
Because the sale of these two fireworks, among others, has continued, I can only assume that those in charge of firework control are unaware of their value to modified firework "bomb" makers.
If I contribute to their ban, I apologise to those who enjoy using these neat (and quiet) fireworks as they are intended. Banning fireworks will not prevent idiots doing damage, they will simply move on to the next method of creating loud explosions, vandalising property, or otherwise causing others discomfort.
As an animal lover and a loving member of a family which has always included and embraced animals, I understand how stressful loud fireworks can be for pets and their owners.
I believe fireworks are an art, and while very loud bangs can be thrilling, they are not always necessary and are greatly overused. Surely a ban on fireworks that are noisy purely for the sake of noise would be more appropriate than a blanket ban.
Contrary to what correspondent Robert Hall says about New Zealand needing to be brought into the 21st century with a total firework ban, I think New Zealand needs to come into the 21st century by importing the quality products, such as the Millennium Silent Knight range, which are widely available on the international market.
Most consumer fireworks imported now are of a low quality, leading to a dangerously high rate of malfunctions, and substandard effects. As for people who say fireworks are dangerous, of course they are! So are cricket matches.
We should be wary of people who lump all fireworks into "flashing lights and loud bangs". Should these people be calling the shots for everyone on a subject about which they are quite obviously ignorant?
* Seymour Burgess of Grey Lynn describes himself as a fireworks buff and animal lover.
