Potential Contamination of Waters from Plantation Catchments

[Funky_Bunch]

even the writers of the report said there was no specific science behind it and the reason for the report was to try to get some science involved due to the circumstances involved. from watching the show i believe their agenda was to bring the issue to attention based on their theory and try to get science involved to prove or disprove it.

100 years ago what they did may have been classed as science, these days its not and they openly acknowledged that. is there a link Maybe, Maybe not but it seems worthy of propper investigation. im looking forward to the second part of the story.

myself i believe in industry and also in conservation and would like to one day see a solution to the issues tasmania faces, perhaps we could buy new zealand and turn that into tassie2 and plant it out lol.

[Taurë-rana]

perhaps we could buy new zealand and turn that into tassie2 and plant it out lol.

Too late, someone's already done that!

[volcboy]

I often feel bad commenting on forums like this when I read such disinformation by those whose scientific knowledge is lacking.

Some of the chemicals used in farming for pesticide and herbicide use have been shown to be extremely toxic to human beings (or whatever lab animal they choose to use). If you drink water in catchments where plantations and/or regrowth areas where forest operations have occurred, you run the risk of ingesting these compounds. Many of these compounds have been shown, scientifically, to have significant effects on the biochemistry of the body (i.e. they are carcinogenic, they mimic hormones, they interfere with natural biochemical processes in the body including the structure of DNA and RNA).

Some of the compounds that have been found to be present in catchments in Tasmania (including in town supplies) are introduced by spraying, particularly by the spraying of herbicide and pesticide on plantation or regrowth forestry. The relevant 'authorities' claim that the levels of these chemicals are below 'guidelines'. What people don't understand is that many of the 'guidelines' that the government sets have a few issues:

1. Because the effect of chemicals has never been tested over a significant time period, many chemicals are not tested directly in 'real world' conditions, but have their official guideline levels set based on laboratory only testing of similar chemicals on subject animals (i.e. rats). If you don't think this is a problem, try drinking methanol instead of ethanol, which are closely related (I'm joking, don't try this).

2. The 'safe' level of many toxic chemicals (e.g. mercury and many organic pesticides) is set at 0.005 mg/l or less, or around 10 parts per billion. Most labs in Australia cannot test to this level of accuracy.

3. The 'safe' level is only required to limit the increase in detrimental effects (i.e. increase in cancer rates for carcinogens) within the 95'th percentile. That means, even if the 'safe' level is maintained, based on the research (or otherwise) of the chemical substance, if 5% more people die because of ingestion of the substance, the guidelines would be considered to be met.

If you drink water from a stream or river in a catchment where the water may have been affected by runoff from agriculture or forestry, you need to take this into account. It disappoints me extremely when I read posters in this forum talking about a 'beat up' in the media that shouldn't be believed when this is an issue they don't have the training to understand or they have an personal agenda to push. Especially when they are starting other threads that ask suggest that we should 'keep politics of this forum' in other threads (not that I have mentioned politics at all!). God forbid we might actually have the training to actually approach some level where anybody may have dedicated their lives to learning about an issue to the point that they may approach an 'expert' understanding and be develop their compassion for fellow citizens to a point that encourages them to come forward and voice their concerns.

FWIW, I am a scientist with 20+ years experience, including as an Environmental Scientist managing soil and groundwater contamination issues at transitional industrial sites and teaching earth and chemical sciences at secondary and tertiary levels.

[corvus]

I often feel bad commenting on forums like this when I read such disinformation by those whose scientific knowledge is lacking.

Some of the chemicals used in farming for pesticide and herbicide use have been shown to be extremely toxic to human beings (or whatever lab animal they choose to use). If you drink water in catchments where plantations and/or regrowth areas where forest operations have occurred, you run the risk of ingesting these compounds. Many of these compounds have been shown, scientifically, to have significant effects on the biochemistry of the body (i.e. they are carcinogenic, they mimic hormones, they interfere with natural biochemical processes in the body including the structure of DNA and RNA).

Some of the compounds that have been found to be present in catchments in Tasmania (including in town supplies) are introduced by spraying, particularly by the spraying of herbicide and pesticide on plantation or regrowth forestry. The relevant 'authorities' claim that the levels of these chemicals are below 'guidelines'. What people don't understand is that many of the 'guidelines' that the government sets have a few issues:

1. Because the effect of chemicals has never been tested over a significant time period, many chemicals are not tested directly in 'real world' conditions, but have their official guideline levels set based on laboratory only testing of similar chemicals on subject animals (i.e. rats). If you don't think this is a problem, try drinking methanol instead of ethanol, which are closely related (I'm joking, don't try this).

2. The 'safe' level of many toxic chemicals (e.g. mercury and many organic pesticides) is set at 0.005 mg/l or less, or around 10 parts per billion. Most labs in Australia cannot test to this level of accuracy.

3. The 'safe' level is only required to limit the increase in detrimental effects (i.e. increase in cancer rates for carcinogens) within the 95'th percentile. That means, even if the 'safe' level is maintained, based on the research (or otherwise) of the chemical substance, if 5% more people die because of ingestion of the substance, the guidelines would be considered to be met.

If you drink water from a stream or river in a catchment where the water may have been affected by runoff from agriculture or forestry, you need to take this into account. It disappoints me extremely when I read posters in this forum talking about a 'beat up' in the media that shouldn't be believed when this is an issue they don't have the training to understand or they have an personal agenda to push. Especially when they are starting other threads that ask suggest that we should 'keep politics of this forum' in other threads (not that I have mentioned politics at all!). God forbid we might actually have the training to actually approach some level where anybody may have dedicated their lives to learning about an issue to the point that they may approach an 'expert' understanding and be develop their compassion for fellow citizens to a point that encourages them to come forward and voice their concerns.

FWIW, I am a scientist with 20+ years experience, including as an Environmental Scientist managing soil and groundwater contamination issues at transitional industrial sites and teaching earth and chemical sciences at secondary and tertiary levels.

Wow an expert Scientist working for whom ?? I am the devils advocate asking for real proof as I believe animals still live and survive in those waters
corvus

[sirius Tas]

It's very interesting why possible water contamination(supposedly due to forestry activity) has only occurred in the NE(that we know of)....yet all the NW populations from Port Sorell through to Wynyard have quite substantial plantation forestry embedded in their water supplies...with no known problems.
Also a quite large oyster farm exists in the Rubicon estuary which is right beside the Branchs Creek plantation...has now been totally clear felled and replanted....with no known(to me anyway) effects on that particular oyster farm.
In fact...right along the NW all of these pine plantations have been clear felled and replanted over the past 10 yrs or so in addition to the vast increase in eucalypt plantations....all with no known problems.
Before we continue to point the finger....as of now...the jury is still out until next Monday....then let's see if the mud sticks??

[flyfisher]

I think the helicopter which crashed in the n e would not have helped the water in that area.

I must ask , if anyone knows the answer, do the plantations HAVE to have all these chemicals o grow successfully?

If the answer is yes, then it makes one wonder that we ever had any good old growh forests to start with. Those indigenous foresters didn't even have any book learnt science to fall back on.

Years from now it may be like ddt was and we may rue the use of these poisons.

ff

[Robbo]

I must ask , if anyone knows the answer, do the plantations HAVE to have all these chemicals o grow successfully?

The obvious answer to this is, yes. Bill Mollison was wandering through the subtropical rain forests of NW Tasmania many years ago and realised that this was a self sustaining ecosystem. This got him thinking, as I understand it, and came up with the term, permaculture. Basically this is the opposite of the farming practices, be they timber, agriculture, aquaculture, or whatever; this he termed 'monoculture'.

When the natural systems to deal with problem organisms is altered, for whatever reason, there will be a consequence. To deal with the problems we as humans have created for ourselves by developing economic based farming practices for example, pesticides or herbicides, are used. And so the issues cycle on from there.

Answer to all this? I don't have one except to say the problem lies with all of us not just 'them'...
In the 70's, for those who are able, or wish, to remember back that far, a group called Supertramp released a song that included these words:
Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let's see.
But that's not right - oh no, what's the story?
But, there's you and there's me…

A healthy scepticism of all things is to be applauded; however, suggestions that are easily interpreted as supercilious are unbecoming.

I too look forward to part 2, although I won't get a chance to see it until Wednesday

TR

[flyfisher]

http://www.oztoxics.org/ntn/jonkers_tas.doc - - Cached

An ineresting read.

[flyfisher]

http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/news ... n_0502.php - 25k - Cached

More

[sirius Tas]

I think the helicopter which crashed in the n e would not have helped the water in that area.
I must ask , if anyone knows the answer, do the plantations HAVE to have all these chemicals o grow successfully?
ff

From my own knowledge of having worked alongside the plantation guys...the only chemicals applied to plantations are prior to replanting/or planting in the case of new plantations.....and then the application of a fetilizer(by hand) So normally this is a once off application during the plantations life span...which is approx. 30 yrs plus for saw log production and approx 12-15 yrs for pulp...the original pine plantings grew for around 40-45 yrs. The only other time it may be necessary to apply chemicals(by spraying)...would be due to severe insect attack(mainly beetles). Also another application of fertilizer may be applied(by air) some years after the initial planting and only if warranted on poor soil types/slow growth rates.
So normally it is a once off application....which is never mentioned...where as farmers of course are using twice the quantities per hectare on a yearly basis...and possibly more often than that depending on type of crops. So the residual effect is obviously ongoing and effects all of us ...all the time.
As I mentioned...the Ulverstone water supply....Lake Isandula...... sits smack bang at the very edge of a substantial plantation...with no known problems occurring.....with a very healthy trout/black fish population.

It may very well be that the Helicopter crash contributed to the contamination which is totally inexcusable if that's so.

The rather puzzling aspect to all this is that we have 4 Geens in Tas parliament plus 2 Green Senators(unsure as to that status in 2004)...you would have thought that if any issues regarding the contamination had been raised with them then they would have moved heaven and earth to get to the bottom of it...considering their track record with regards to forestry issues.....and I'm sure we'd of all heard about it other than via a TV program.
As I said.....the jury is still out....until then???

[Joel]

volcboy - Thankyou for your information based on on science, rather than the hunches and mis-information provided by others. Why comment if you have done no research, haven't watched the show mentioned and have no scientific background or knowledge on the subject?

[Ent]

Sorry I have experienced first hand a media beat up with silicon in gravel compete with ACA camera team onsite. Appears they confused silicon with a lung disease of a similar name Looks like swimming at the beach is off the agenda. Maybe this personal experience has soured my opinion of the media but then again Chariots of Fire was a stunningly success for persudeo science and reading 18th century medical journals does suggest our enlighten ones are not always so. That does not mean that testing of water supply should be ignored. Just that the "usual" suspects get put through the mill every time.

Cheers Brett

[corvus]

volcboy - Thankyou for your information based on on science, rather than the hunches and mis-information provided by others. Why comment if you have done no research, haven't watched the show mentioned and have no scientific background or knowledge on the subject?

What research ? did I see the word "some" being used what sort of science needs to castigate others yet quantify statements by using the get out of jail clause "some" if you believe it be positive.
Dont get me wrong if the water is polluted it must be corrected however as Sirius pointed out we dont have the same problem in the NW where we are surrounded by plantations,more so I believe than the NE area in question.
As for expert comments I am aware of a Phd Doctor of Fine Arts being quoted as a Doctor when quoting on environmental topics giving the lie that he was a scientific expert.
What makes you think that some of us are mis- informed or have done no research,other than watch a TV presentation what research have you done ? and as for the allusion from volcboy that I have a vested interest get over it as I am a self funded retiree with years of life experience and answer to no one
corvus

[Taurë-rana]

Answer to all this? I don't have one except to say the problem lies with all of us not just 'them'...
In the 70's, for those who are able, or wish, to remember back that far, a group called Supertramp released a song that included these words:
Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let's see.
But that's not right - oh no, what's the story?
But, there's you and there's me…
TR

You obviously have very good taste in music Robbo

[flyfisher]

Showing a mature outlook (age) as well.

ff

[Taurë-rana]

A most unexpected result and scary stuff given the vast scale of E. nitens plantations in Tassie. How can a government ignore something which is causing such damage to industry let alone poisoning its citizens? The response of the Tasmanian government to this information is beyond belief!

[corvus]

Pollution caused by Trees well thats a new one who would have thought ? so does that mean that every water catchment surrounded by Shining Gums is now polluted ? do we not treat our water? Cradle Mountain Water I want an answer now. And wow the video of choppers spraying meant a lot in the Storyline
As stated before if the water is polluted it must be fixed however the drinking water in this instance is sourced well under the foam that was tested and blackfish and trout still live in the Georges to the best of my knowledge as do Platypus and (Oysters in the Bay)good clean edible Oysters

corvus

[Taurë-rana]

It's well known that Eucalypts are allelopathic - produce chemicals to stop plants growing from near them. Obviously in a mixed forest they aren't going to cause major problems, but apparently if that is all that is growing en masse the combined production of chemicals is enough to cause problems.
Killer trees!

And the oysters were dying - the only reason the industry is managing to struggle along is because they have moved the oysters beyond the inter-tidal zone to where they don't get any of the fresh water reaching them, and they don't harvest them after a lot of rain to make sure they are free from the poison.

As stated before if the water is polluted it must be fixed however the drinking water in this instance is sourced well under the foam that was tested
corvus

I wondered about that too, but if I was living in St Helens I wouldn't be drinking the water, you don't get clusters of rare cancers and immune system diseases without some reason.

[volcboy]

Wow an expert Scientist working for whom ?? I am the devils advocate asking for real proof as I believe animals still live and survive in those waters
corvus

As shown last night, the toxins have been shown to be concentrated in organic material and leaf litter, often (but not always) in a foam on top of the water. The tests involving the toxin have been carried out by a number of different university toxicology researchers (3+) with similar results. The locals who carried out the initial studies were M.D.'s, but subsequent studies have been carried out by researchers with PhD.s in chemistry, environmental chemistry and related fields.

On AS last night, they described the ability of the toxin to kill human cells. Obviously the toxin will not immediately kill a human or any animal living and surviving in the water containing the toxin. What will happen is that any toxin, when ingested, will kill or weaken a number of cells and, therefore, directly or indirectly weaken the organism overall, leading to possible direct effects and/or an increased risk of secondary ailments due to immunosupression, cell damage and interference with natural biochemical processes.

It was also correctly pointed out by scientists on the show that they cannot be certain of the exact effect that the toxin would have on a human body, as there are a huge number of complicating factors once the toxin enters the digestive system and/or is directly contacted. The only type of study that can be conducted to actively involves tracking the health of a population known to be exposed to a toxin over a long period of time and comparing the results to a population of very similar profile which has not been exposed to the toxin. Many people grasp at this and say 'there is no real proof that the toxin is a problem', but to them I would say 'Knowing what the toxin is capable of in a laboratory situation, would you be comfortable ingesting that toxin once or, in fact, every day in your drinking water?'

The source of the toxin, Eucalyptus Nitens, is a species that is not native to Tasmania and the form that is grown extensively as a monoculture in plantations has been 'genetically improved' according to Forestry Tasmania, although they will not specify in what way the species has been 'improved'. I would be fairly certain that, given the biggest cost to plantations is the destruction of young seedlings by grazing animals, the 'genetic improvement' is likely to include producing a plant with a higher level of natural toxicity in its leaves to discourage foraging. If this is the case, then how can the owners of the plantations not be held to account for the effects of their production on the surrounding environment?

I am not currently employed as an Environmental Scientist - I became jaded and worn down after years of working for clients who put constant pressure on me to 'soften' reports to benefit them financially and legally, which I never did. I am currently a teacher, which is an altogether more rewarding (although exhausting) experience. The views expressed above do not represent anyone's views except my own.

[sthughes]

So we're all gonna die from Gum tree poisoning! What an Australian way to go out!

Okay so we've identified a potential problem, surely there is some way (short of banning plantation forests and ripping out the trees) that any potential risk can be minimised? For example inducing the water to froth, then removing it. Or perhaps introducing buffer zones around waterways (really should have these anyway).

Would it not be a very simple experiment to see if this "toxic" water is behind the Oyster issues. In a lab simply stick some in "toxic" water and some in "clean" water and see what happens?

I think a bit more science is needed before we start getting too panicked. It's just a shame the government is too one eyed about forestry to even consider funding it.

[sirius Tas]

I wondered about that too, but if I was living in St Helens I wouldn't be drinking the water, you don't get clusters of rare cancers and immune system diseases without some reason.

Given the original insinuations regarding spraying/chemicals in general plus helicopter crashes...which were proven to have had no residual effect in this case...I didn't see any of the proponents apologizing for those original assertions. They also gave only one side of the story...very convenient....to get the rest you have to go to the ABC website...so hardly a fair and complete story.
Another puzzling aspect...WHY wasn't the actual drinking water tested for the same toxins....or are we just led to believe the worst. The testing done on human cancer cells proves exactly what???.....AND if the drinking water is not contaminated then those tests are groundless. It may very well be that these toxins if ingested may well prove to be overall beneficial to humans...who knows????
In this particular case...we have one farming method causing some..and I'd suggest minor problems to another farmer...who might well be causing considerable damage to the ecosystem in which they operate....but of course they wouldn't want to go there would they.
The proponents obviously didn't have any concerns with any toxins present in the oysters...as they were happily scoffing down large quantities at the end of the show...so who's kidding who.
Also the scum collected was obviously in the most concentrated form and it was this that was tested. I didn't see them apply the same testing to the normal water flows...at any level....BUT why ruin a good story.
I personally would have no qualms what so ever in drinking any water going through the actual water supply. Also the NOTION that specific cancers etc. are occurring unnaturally in this region are totally groundless....as the Health Dept. has said.
And who has said the tree toxins are carcinogenic to humans???????
For those that are concerned...then I suggest you stay out of the forest and refrain from drinking all water???

[sirius Tas]

So we're all gonna die from Gum tree poisoning! What an Australian way to go out!

Okay so we've identified a potential problem, surely there is some way (short of banning plantation forests and ripping out the trees) that any potential risk can be minimised? For example inducing the water to froth, then removing it. Or perhaps introducing buffer zones around waterways (really should have these anyway).

Would it not be a very simple experiment to see if this "toxic" water is behind the Oyster issues. In a lab simply stick some in "toxic" water and some in "clean" water and see what happens?

I think a bit more science is needed before we start getting too panicked. It's just a shame the government is too one eyed about forestry to even consider funding it.

Yes...you'd be forgiven for thinking that the Govt. has done absolutely nothing, especially after viewing the program...which conveniently leaves out the tremendous amount of work THAT HAS been carried out by specialists to get to the bottom of the problem. I'm sure all Tasmanians benefit from all types of farming..whether that be tree, oyster, fish, livestock or cropping...so why would they in fact favour one particular section over another. The following links suggest the Govt has been very proactive.

Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, have recently undertaken an
analysis of the Georges Bay area, see the report online
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/6768/.

• The Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, have
extensively studied the Georges Bay Area and the issue of Oyster Health. See
report at http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Pu ... 3H354?open

The AS story was biased in the extreme and only questions their own motives.

[Ent]

Congratulations the likely cause appears to have been found. Can people that blamed the government and industry in a conspiracy theory of covering up spraying problems please have the common decency to apologise. It is worthwhile pointing that bad science (air spraying was the cause blamed continuously) resulted in a delay in identifying the issue. Such things are not uncommon with often health issues been traced to unexpected causes (cholera to the air) but finding the caused is delayed by the hostility caused by slandering attacks on people's ethics and motivations. Sadly such accusations of impropriety by government officers and attacks on their integrity means naturally once they eliminated the claimed suspects they lost interest. Would you not do the same? As pointed out a plantation demand for chemicals is very low especially once established so I can understand why government officers were left shaking their collective heads over the repeated claims. Further claims of conspiracy should be treated with the respect they deserve. Also congratulations to the local doctor for following through when the political ill feeling generated by repeated false claims of conspiracy theorists had poisoned the study. The residents of the area are well served by such a dedicated individual and the people that supported her.

Do not worry conspiracy theorist you now can zero in on genetically enhanced trees and make wild unsupported claims about them. I have no idea if they were Genetically Modified or was a tree selected that had the highest resistance to insect attack then propagated on mass. As well known, toxicity is related to levels, with even water been toxic to humans if consumed in ridiculous quantity and most likely in the past such super-resistant trees were only a small percentage of the total population but the large scale monoculture of such super-resistant trees has caused the underlying natural toxicity of forest to exceed the ability of certain organisms to cope. Also it might be that the native oyster has a natural resistance to such toxins and the oysters being grown are not native to the area and do not have such resistance. I do remember reading about the huge impact on the local eco-system from introduced oyster varieties. I.e what is the oyster variety and is it native? Let us not forget that we are largely an introduced sub-set of human specie that has no history of dealing with native Australian toxins and yes we are skin cancer central due to low pigment levels and yes a man-made ozone hole. It is not uncommon with something a common as sulphur derivatives that for a percentage of the population that repeated exposure is dangerous while others sail on through with no problems. Why can I happily eat peanuts while for others it is a death sentence? As you may gather I am rather annoyed by so called scientific people that form a simple theory, it is pesticides, and then wander around with their eyes close attacking anyone for questioning their statements and stature simply because they are wearing a white coat. Nature is a complex system and fixed belief structures throughout history have compromised the understanding of it.

Also is the problem expedited by the local dry conditions that allow a toxin to refine in the leaves while in damper areas it is broken down by natural decomposition? One thing is certain the issue does justify further research and such research should be publicly funded. I look forward to seeing such funding coming through and the private authors of the report reimbursed for their study, assuming it holds up under academic review, which if the program is accurate I would expect it to.

It is worthwhile mentioning that if you adopted a simple natural lifestyle of say the 1850 residents of many areas of Tasmania you would have a reasonable expectation of cretinism in the children born. Yes conspiracy lovers blame the government for poisoning the ground or dig back and find out because of the ice age much of the iodine was washed out of the soil and then ensure sufficient iodine comes in from some source, milk from sterilising cups in iodine, tablets, or seafood.

The doctor very much reminds me of the one that identified and found a means to control diabetes. Worthwhile watching the program "Glory Enough for All" to understand that scientific community is not immune for prejudices and arrogance so it even could be a little disregard for a GP in a remote area that might have delayed more "prestigious" minds to look at the results. Maybe as suggested the first start can be an open apology to the people that were accused of covering things up in a cosy alliance between industry and government. Or more likely a wonderful display of twenty-twenty revisiting of history and a cover-up of such claims by using words I "only suggested", etc, etc, etc. As we are finding out the words to the song "Short memories" do have resonance

Maybe for theories more research and less conspiracy

Regards Brett

[stepbystep]

Congratulations the likely cause appears to have been found. Can people that blamed the government and industry in a conspiracy theory of covering up spraying problems please have the common decency to apologise.

Haven't had a chance to criticise Govt yet, but c'mon it took the determination and concern of the public to get these findings against all the best efforts of Lennon/Kons/Llewelyn/Green/Roscoe Taylor and the AMA.
Criticism for Govt inaction and stonewalling stands, it is obvious where there concerns lay.

How about some congratulations for those that pursued this at great personal risk.
As was stated in the program the Oyster Farmers have nothing to win no matter what the findings.
Brave people as opposed to patsies for the forest industry, otherwise known as your noble political representatives.

Hopefully Alison and the others who only have concerns for THE HEALTH of the WHOLE community will get what they were chasing from the start, an OPEN investigation into what is destroying a pristine environment and HOW best to fix it.

.....or maybe we should just trust our pollies and big business

[sthughes]

Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, have recently undertaken an
analysis of the Georges Bay area, see the report online
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/6768/.

• The Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment, have
extensively studied the Georges Bay Area and the issue of Oyster Health. See
report at http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Publications/LBUN-
63H354?open

The AS story was biased in the extreme and only questions their own motives

.

Well after a brief read: The first of those reports, although it's more about Georges Bay then Georges River, basically states more research is needed. Which is what is being asked for. Note: it too finds the surface waters/foam toxic.

The second report is a bit of a non event now that Scammell has proved his own hypothesis to be incorrect . It is focusing on aerial spraying which is no longer the big question.

So far everyone agrees that there is toxic foam coming down Georges River.
So in my opinion the questions that need to be answered are:
Is the amount of toxic foam more than usual in other similar Tassie Rivers?

If so then...
Is it due to the large scale plantations of Eucalyptus Nitens or what? and
Does it pose an unacceptably high risk to health and/or the environment? and
Can any risk be mitigated by engineering controls, simple changes to plantation practices etc.?

The only question that would be difficult to answer is the risk to health and environment, which could take significant time and money to answer. Instead, if it shown that the foam is indeed unusual and that it can be readily fixed/mitigated (which I suspect it can), then just fix it rather than fart *&%$#! around with testing for it's effects.

P.S.
I really don't think Scammell has anything to apologise for, he made a reasonable hypothesis, based on obvious statistics. Then set about scientifically proving it. Turns out he was wrong in his hypothesis and has published as such. That's science for you, if scientist's hypothesis were always right we wouldn't need to do experiments, testing etc. The idea that Cholera was in the water might have been considered radical in it's day. But if someone hadn't set out to prove it anyway then we might still be scared to breath. What if he had been wrong and cholera was not in the water, should he have been publicly shamed for trying to prove it was?

I wish Greenies and big business/major parties could work together more, it would serve them both much better. Is everyone this polarized or is it just most people in the centre don't comment?

[Ent]

How about some congratulations for those that pursued this at great personal risk.

I think at last my post gave that congratulations to the doctor and the people that supported her and asked that they be reimbursed for their efforts. It will not surprise me that this being an election year there will be an acknowledgement into the work done.

Stonewalling? Every year councils receive numerous complaints with some linkage to public health. They are generally accessed on risk to cost and yes some matters that should be investigate do fall through. The simple problem is testing everything, every time means incredible cost. A risk assessment on a bridge clears it beyond reasonable doubt of failure but does not clear it from "all" possibility of failure. The problem is when a bridge does fail then because it failed then the argument is put that with twenty-twenty hindsight it should have been identified as going to fail. Is the argument that a council that takes an engineering report as fact of no reasonable exception of failure is stonewalling if the residents complain it is failing? Hint, might be that the residents want a double lane bridge rather than a single lane one or the bridge rebuilt to a point more convenient to them.

I for one find it extremely hard to believe that the people you mentioned would deliberately stonewall and compromise peoples safety. I have sat on the other side of a table wrangling money from Paul Lennon and while I can say many things about him (and did to his face) I can not believe that he would compromise people safety. You are looking at a person that despite huge lobbying hammered through smoke free pubs, while being a smoker himself. I can understand them being rather feed-up of having the spraying argument repeatly put up and finding test reports do not substantiate the argument so simply switching off. I suppose at the end of the day you walk around with a sign saying that the end of the world is coming you will be proven right, might take a billion or so years.

One thing that does come out as Sthughes says there is such animosity and break down in trust it is hard for the real reasons to be identified. Also it does suggest that toxicity testing is not a bad thing for all catchment areas rather than looking for specific toxins.

When reading this thread I thought in decreasing order the following might have been the cause.

1. Shonky operator disposing of chemicals into the river.
2. The river running pass an old industrial site long since forgotten.
3. Maybe chemical usage causing problems as the dryer climate meaning that the normal purging effect of rain is not as great hence a different regime is required.
4. Something intrinsically strange with the environment, such as natural high levels of something.
5. Statistical issue (Ie yes picking Tattslotto is very remote but every week an equally remote series of numbers come up)

Turns out is appears more on point four which is considerably more remote compared to the first two points so consider the above list logarithmic in its likelihood. You will notice that there is no conspiracy theory against government officers or an attack on the doctor for attention seeking. As for media beat up well do we drink red wine or not as an endless stream of media reports crop up on that issue

Cheers

[photohiker]

I wish Greenies and big business/major parties could work together more, it would serve them both much better.

Wake up, you're dreaming.

Problem is that each side is trying to remove the other's lunch, and they only want all of it. Under those circumstances, it's pretty hard to find a middle ground.

[Nuts]

Hey good comments there sth, well done, it does always seem that there are two sides and little useful middle ground with these things.... Perhaps what lets the status quo continue so long.
I have a feeling that the 'green' side often falls into a trap in this way.


At the end of the day there is much common law precedent for expecting water courses to continue unaffected in either quality or quantity.
It seems in tassie that these rights are forgotten till the point where business and government are Forced to listen, it's a shame.

[stepbystep]

I have sat on the other side of a table wrangling money from Paul Lennon and while I can say many things about him (and did to his face) I can not believe that he would compromise people safety. You are looking at a person that despite huge lobbying hammered through smoke free pubs, while being a smoker himself.

More non-smokers vote than smokers, nuff said really

Sorry if I missed your congrats for those that needed it, I do find it difficult to read your posts in their entirity.....

Despite what you may think I am only slightly left of centre and know better than most the spin put out by The Greens, TWS, etc - for their own ends.
But there was stonewalling on this issue and they, the pollies, chief gov scientist and the AMA went on a concerted campaign to attack these peple rather than looking into the possibilities, now 10 years on guess what, after a bit of media pressure, they promise to look into it - activists for the community aren't greens they are just people trying to create a better and safer community, something I cannot give to pollies from any party as a rule, but, rules are made to be broken

P,S, Good comments StHughes

[Ent]

Hi SBS

Never critical of people that voice their opinions and hunt facts out nor worried what side of the political fence they sit, in fact, it is the fence sitters that I rather struggle with unless there is rather murky waters in that case I do look if such fence sitters are actively seeking to clear the fog of politics and if so ok, if not well much easier to be a nice guy if you have no allegiances to principles. The best con artist are the ones that can change like Tassie's weather and appear charming to everyone. As for personal beliefs I hold strongly to the secret ballot for the public so deliberately make it hard for people to figure my voting preferences out. Also strongly believe people should carefully consider their vote at each election and differentiate between local government, state and federal party positions and vote accordingly.

IMHO there are two basic types of politicians, those with conviction and those blow with the wind. Within both groups are capable and incapable ones. In my experience political party does not provide any real guide rather it is the individual that why I love the proportional voting system (senate and state) as I can dodge around what I believe are fair-weather politicians or incapable ones.

One of the pleasing things in dealing with Paul Lennon was you knew if you won or lost unlike a few other characters that haunt all sides of the political divide. A few people called him a bully when in fact I found him only wanting arguments to be well researched and pushed with genuine conviction. Go into a meeting half hearted or prepared against him and there can be very few places on this planet as uncomfortable. In fact, I genuinely believe that people accusing him of bullying were either cowards or bullies themselves that attempted to use such claims as tactics to get their way. I know I annoyed the living daylights out of him more than once but never did he reach past the current issue and seek to apply pressure elsewhere. I am sure had the argument been put as well as it now has been the response would be different rather than believing an elaborate conspiracy existed. Maybe a little bit of scientific snobbery might better explain some things better than conspiracy.

This issue in a way restores my faith that people of genuine conviction can prevail for the betterment of the community. It also shows that sometimes they have to spend way too long and personal cost in doing this and we need to have a better way. Sadly I have no simple answer apart from encouraging people to stick to their guns and slog it out and keep an open mind that the other side might be right and be prepared that the real answer might not belong to any side.

Cheers Brett

(PS never really understood the falsity that the answer lies in the middle ground. Something are just wrong and something are just right and the middle is accepting democracy sorry I meant to type mediocrity )