<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:extra="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.ehjournal.net/feeds/articlecomments?arxId=1476-069x-7-1&amp;format=rss&amp;version=&amp;quantity=">
        <title>Article Comments - 'Lessons from the removal of lead from gasoline for controlling other environmental pollutants: a case study from New Zealand'</title>
        <link>http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/1/comments</link>
        <description>The latest comments on the article 'Lessons from the removal of lead from gasoline for controlling other environmental pollutants: a case study from New Zealand'</description>
        <dc:date>2008-04-09T11:03:26Z</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                                <rdf:li resource="http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/1" />
                            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
                 <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </channel>
        <item rdf:about="http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/1/comments#296595">
        <title>Article nicely captures the frustrations of policy advice in New Zealand</title>
        <link>http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/1/comments#296595</link>
        <description>&lt;p&gt;Wilson and Horrocks have nicely captured many frustrating  features of policy advice in contentious policy areas, such as environmental health, within the New Zealand policy advisory environment. I myself worked within policy advice in the New Zealand public sector for around 20 years, and often noted the sort of behaviours that Wilson and Horrocks point to, such as industry lobbying on policy matters, poor technical advice by some senior policy advisers who should have known better, and ideological decisions by Ministers based on selective reading of the evidence. Wilson and Horrocks have done a nice job illuminating these in this case study. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
                <dc:creator>Ralph Chapman</dc:creator>
                <dc:date>2008-04-09T11:03:26Z</dc:date>
        <prism:references>http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/1</prism:references>
        <prism:person>Wilson et al.</prism:person>
        <prism:publicationName>Environmental Health</prism:publicationName>
        <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
        <prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
        <prism:publicationDate>Mon Jan 07 18:16:03 GMT 2008</prism:publicationDate>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" />
    </item>
        <cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution" />
        <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks" />
    </cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>

