Potential Contamination of Waters from Plantation Catchments

[Robbo]

and yes, Forestry issues as they tend to have a huge impact on both access and enjoyment of walking

The Australian Story episode on ABC 1 last evening is one that all Tasmanians should watch and note - it is online here: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/. I believe the 2nd part is on next week. The political manoeuvrings in dealing with the highlighted issue of water catchments on the northeast coast of Tasmania have major implications for the health and safety of all who walk and drink the water in plantation catchments. This is not a reflection of one party or another - I live in another state where water issues are something of a contentious issue at the moment as well - but the way that governments of any persuasion pander to the wishes of powerful industry groups, to the apparent detriment of the 'rest of us' and the environment as a whole.

Is this too 'political'?

TR

[Taurë-rana]

The political manoeuvrings in dealing with the highlighted issue of water catchments on the northeast coast of Tasmania have major implications for the health and safety of all who walk and drink the water in plantation catchments.

TR

Scary, my family and I often camp on the banks of a river downstream from an incredibly vast plantation area in the NW and always use the river for drinking, although I have been ending up feeling unwell after a couple of days of that water so avoid it now. The same plantations also stopped the Black, and another river (can't remember which one) from flowing last year.

[geoskid]

The Australian Story episode on ABC 1 last evening is one that all Tasmanians should watch and note - it is online here: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/. I believe the 2nd part is on next week. The political manoeuvrings in dealing with the highlighted issue of water catchments on the northeast coast of Tasmania have major implications for the health and safety of all who walk and drink the water in plantation catchments. This is not a reflection of one party or another - I live in another state where water issues are something of a contentious issue at the moment as well - but the way that governments of any persuasion pander to the wishes of powerful industry groups, to the apparent detriment of the 'rest of us' and the environment as a whole.

I saw that Robbo, and am utterly bewildered (and digusted) by the attitude of the people that were outright dismissive of the
alarm bells that should be ringing. My spot on the couch next Monday is booked.

[flyfisher]

My spot on the couch next Monday is booked.

Yeah mine too, the show raises many interesting points, including the possible link between poisons and the FTD in devils.This has been dismissed before but still makes me wonder.There seems to be a lot of problems in that area that come back to the common factor, contminated water.
Makes me wonder what effect the insectisides have on the river fauna.

ff

Last edited by flyfisher on Tue 16 Feb, 2010 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[corvus]

As a bit of a stir ,interesting that Blackfish ,Eels,Platypus Trout and other wildlife live and thrive in these waters go figure
corvus

[flyfisher]

I hope you are right Corvus,it's not an area that I frequent so I don't know i the condition of the fish has dropped off or not, due to a possible lack of food insects etc. I do hope not as I would be far happier if these waters are in good shape. One can but hope so.
Might be an interesting show next week.
It would be interesting to know also, how the insect population is faring in the plantations as it would be a source of food for birds.

ff

[jcr_au]

It was certainly an interesting show, but linking Devil's facial tumors to the water makes me wonder at the quality of the science.

Still it would seem that further investigation is necessary.

Robbo, from another Victorian living on the Goulburn, GIVE IT BACK

[Neil Grose]

I think the importance of the show is the questions it has raised so far, and that our esteemed political leaders seem very intent on playing the man and not the ball.
I'd have more confidence in government if they actually undertook to investigate the questions raised, rather than attacking those who raise them.
Plantation forestry in the headwaters of our streams is a disgrace, followed closely by those who would drain rivers to irrigate poppies and spuds for McDonalds. The amount of chemical used in those forestry and agricultural practices is quite alarming.
I listened on the ABC yesterday to a farmer who has an excess of beans, as his purchaser won't take more than contracted for.
His response when asked by the host if he would run his cattle onto them was that there was too much chemical residue in them for the cattle! Ok for us to eat though!
Sorry, off topic, but the whole issue of chemicals in waterways is very important, and I think the ABC program will lift the lid of many hidden issues, not just at St Helens.

[Son of a Beach]

It was certainly an interesting show, but linking Devil's facial tumors to the water makes me wonder at the quality of the science.

Haven't they already found that the devil's tumors are caused by a virus?

[Taurë-rana]

If you are looking at the cause of a disease which has appeared suddenly like the FTD, looking at all the possible factors for its existance would seem to be logical, and discarding one because it's not politically acceptable seems somewhat less than scientific. Environmental factors can be a trigger for cancer and an immune system compromised by high levels of toxicity will be less likely to be able to fight any virus or cancer that does come along.
With regard to the platypus, I believe they are suffering from a disease as well, it's just not quite as bad as the devils.

Apparently there was a pyrethrum spill into one of the NE rivers some time ago that wiped everything out in that river.

[Ent]

Oh boy here we go again. A disease that appeared suddenly, like aids in humans or swine flue or Spanish flue? Aids is actually been traced back to before the 1950's with some written evidence suggesting it is much older. Same scare tactics used when kangaroos started dying in the 1990s when the population exploded and this was blamed on DDT or any other chemical used on farms when it turned out the same thing happened in the 1930's when the population exploded. It is a natural phenomena as a pathogen largely dormant takes on a more aggressive form or crosses the specie divide. Shonky science based on scare tactics detracts from any legitimate concerns and suggests that there could be another reason, ie, someone not wanting their scenic view compromised or a intrinsic dislike to forestry full stop. When in local government many mundane disagreements suddenly became "hot" when one of the protagonists managed to wangle in a health reason to the argument that subsequent research revealed the reason to be highly dubious. Sorry but I sense a beat up here.

Water quality has been a neglected area and lets face it the worst water quality, most degraded water systems are the ones that run through urban areas and hence the mad push by the State to enforce water quality standards through amalgamating councils sewerage and water supply areas of responsibility. Not going to defend if that is the best way merely pointing out that is the motivation. It never ceases to amaze me that people protesting about water quality are often the same people leading the charge for lower rates and taxes. An activist is an activist I have found.

Any farming or forestry action or urban development will have some effect on the existing natural systems with the challenge being to ensure that the effect is not greater than the benefit of the activity and can be sustained. I am sure if there were two buttons, one labelled eradicate rabbits and the other labelled eradicate trout both would be pushed by people identifying themselves as conservationists. I am equally sure that some people would be happy to push the rabbit one and vigorously fight to stop the trout one been pushed.

Deciding what activity and the level of it is a matter of science and trade-offs. Sure Australia over 200 years ago was a different place and again 100,000 years ago before man kind graced its shores so unless we wish to decamp somewhere else it is up to us to find a balance between employment and environment. Shonky science and beat-ups do not help. In fact the implosion on the science of climate change due to dubious science nowadays means "proper" science and reasons to act are been hidden in the clutter of deception so give excuses to our political overlords to do what they do best, nothing.

Brett

[flyfisher]

Surely clean uncontaminated drinking water, without chemical is very much as important as climate change in this country.

Why must we use so many chemicals in the catchments of our drinking water. Is it not greed ? Will nothing grow without chemicals.

This is not a discssion about whether trout can live in the water. If trout are feral, so too are sheep,cows, horses etc so lets not go that way.

This is about the right of people to spray poisons into the catchments of drinking water.

Any poison in our water is too much.

FF

[Taurë-rana]

Maybe FTD has been around for a long time, I haven't studied the science of it. The facts are that it has suddenly become a much, much bigger threat to the population of devils in Tassie for whatever reason. I'm saying that we shouldn't rule out something just because it might show forestry in a bad light. That is as much a biased opinion as saying that forestry must be the culprit (which I did not at any time say). The role of science is to put forward possible theories about how something works, then experiment to see whether the evidence supports the theory or not. There are countless examples of theories that have been put forward only to be shot down in flames because they are not politically correct, or not in the interests of established business, or threaten people's cherished beliefs, only to have been proven correct years later.

And well said FF, it would be nice to think that our water was clear of chemicals, however after doing a SprayCert course at TAFE which teaches you to spray deadly chemicals as safely as possible, I think there are plenty of farm chemicals in our water supplies, let alone forestry ones. We were taught about the vagaries of breezes and how easy it is for a whole load of deadly spray just to be lifted up and dropped several kms away. Somewhat diluted no doubt, but there all the same.

It's funny in this state, if you suggest that it is possible to have a responsible, sustainable forest industry you get told you've sold out by the radical greenies, if you suggest that what we have at the moment is causing any problems at all, you get written off as a radical greeny who ignores science and have no brains. As someone with a scientific background, with a lot of experience both in "green" bushwalking and "redneck" four wheel driving, I find both allegations insulting. Those of us somewhere in the middle can find it somewhat daunting to open our mouths, and the war goes on.

[luke_vic]

it is up to us to find a balance between employment and environment.

Not sure these should be considered competing objectives that need to be traded off, as there are plenty of ways to generate employment without compromising the environment (in the short term) and looking after it is absolutely critical for employment in the long term!

(bushwalk-chernobyl.com doesn't quite have the same appeal either)

Last edited by luke_vic on Wed 17 Feb, 2010 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[jcr_au]

Haven't they already found that the devil's tumors are caused by a virus?

Yes, exactly, but their expert still tried to link it to the spraying several times

[jcr_au]

The role of science is to put forward possible theories about how something works, then experiment to see whether the evidence supports the theory or not.

It didn't seem to me that there was any science put forward at all in support of DFT. It came across as a couple of seemingly reasonable hypothesis to which they just threw in a couple of other emotive issues from so far out of left field it was somewhere outside the stadium.

[tas-man]

Haven't they already found that the devil's tumors are caused by a virus?

Yes, exactly, but their expert still tried to link it to the spraying several times

The latest information linked here confirms that the cancers are NOT caused by a virus, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52286/
Quotes -
"Scientists have discovered the true identity of a contagious form of cancer that is killing Tasmanian devils. The cancer, called devil facial tumor disease, stems from cells that normally insulate nerve fibers, a new study shows. Genetic analysis of tumors taken from infected devils in different parts of Tasmania reveals that these insulating cells, known as Schwann cells, became cancerous in a single Tasmanian devil and have since passed to other devils, an international group of researchers reports in the Jan. 1 Science. Previously, scientists had suspected that a virus might be the source of the infection, but the new study confirms that cancer cells themselves are transmitted from devil to devil."

"How the cancerous Schwann cells became contagious is still a mystery, though. “Devils are known to be prone to cancers,” Belov says. “I think it was just some sort of freak of nature that allowed this cancer to be stable and transmitted.”

However the BIG question is to discover why a cancer that has existed in the population for possibly 20 years, suddenly become contagious starting in NE Tasmania in the last decade or so. Perhaps next weeks ABC "Australian Story" will throw some light on this.

[Ent]

It has been argued with great validity that if all chemical inputs be removed from the farming process significant food shortages would result and yes the wealthy nations such as Australia would likely be able to feed its population but the story is not so good for billions of others. I worked for a company with significant orchards and the people on the ground were constantly finding ways to reduce the use of chemicals, not only because they are expensive, but for a social responsibility purpose as well, they had kids to. Their nightmare were the occasional blocks split off and sold to "alternative lifestylers" as the trees in those blocks acted as breading grounds for the nasty things that caused the problems. I am not exactly sure of the figures but a remote orchard had significantly lower (1/5 to 1/10) use of chemicals than ones boarding such blocks. The exact same principle that happens with compulsory vaccinations of children. Sure some suffer extreme side-effects and providing all other children are vaccinated then your kid is likely safe not being vaccinated but if no kid is vaccinated then get ready for the return of very nasty illness on a large scale.

It is curious that the same people arguing against chemicals (city folk) are generally demanding blemished free fruit that can only come from regimes of constant spraying. It is pleasing that at long last a campaign has been started to inform people that the occasional blemish is ok. Basically if people only brought chemical free or reduced sprayed fruit and vegetables then the farmers would change practices or go out of business. Hand up those that are against animal cruelty. Ok all of you. Now hands up those that go out of their way to avoid buying battery caged eggs? It is easy to talk the talk but much harder to walk to walk.

As for suddenly, that is how epidemic happen such as the Spanish flue which digging up a few people from the perma frost regions of the world suggests is a variant of the bird flue that mutates and away it goes again. It might be that the road infrastructure in Tasmania has made it easier for devils to infect each other so a localised problem has now an easy path of egress to spread statewide. Solution, close all roads? You are serious about preserving the specie are you not?

I struggle with the blame game and conspiracy theories as at the end of the day if the consumer is prepared to pay a premium for a product then business will change its production methods to meet this demand. As for the science, um? Bit wary after a certain PHD spoke on a subject as an expert with a doctorate and later on turned out the doctorate was in fine arts or some similarly unrelated field and no that person did not have a history of study in the subject matter. This is a common trick that was dramatically exposed in a case in the USA on what is a science versus what is a belief. I for one like to see the qualifications and research methods used rather than headline media reports. The Soviet Union starved a large part of its population to death when it followed the principles laid down by very well educated crackpot in the central agricultural planning unit. The same thing happened in China when some idiot in central planning decided the best way to triple rice production was the increase the planting density by threefold Millions died in both cases.

Sure, we need to research things and look for better ways and also examine with vigour the evidence and err on the side of caution as we have but one planet. However, shonky science and not considering the impact on others has not and will not resolve issues. In fact the money made available for devil research is pitiful and if what is written is correct then maybe we have an excellent opportunity into gaining an insight into cancer. I would rather not be known as the generation that "killed" off the devil due to parsimony. But also would not like to be forced out of the state as many of my friends where as economic refuges due to an almost complete halt to development back in the eighties and nineties.

As for one particular catchment area issue a bit of local knowledge suggests someone is interested in preserving their views and has stumbled across this issue as a tool for their argument. As for the other catchment areas I do agree that we have a system where waterways have and are been considered more for economic than environmental value.

Brett

(PS I use trout only to highlight that there are many shades of grey between leaving on mass after removing all exotic species, sheep included, to concreting the entire state rather than saying trout should be eradicated)

[GerryDuke]

Plenty of food for thought Brett - no pun intended.

I guess when things like this happen then there is a considerable lack of trust:
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:c6 ... clnk&gl=au

An extract is as follows:

"On 15 th December 2003, an aerial spray helicopter crashed in a plantation in the upper George River catchment. The crash was not investigated until 5 th April 2004, and the Spray Information and Referral Unit then determined it not to have been hazardous despite significant quantities of the following found in soils at the helicopter crash site.This also give an indication of what was being sprayed over the whole area:•Alpha-cypermethrin (insecticide)•Atrazine (herbicide) (see attached Hayes 2004)•Simazine (herbicide)•Terbacil (growth regulator)•Chlorothalonil (fungicide). A record flood occurred on the 30 th and 31 st January 2004 following the heaviest rains on record with large-scale fauna mortality observed in early February 2004. Mass mortality of oysters growing in the intertidal farming areas was observed first by the oyster farmers . Subsequent observations by the farmers, their staff and others, sampling between 8/2/04 – 11/2/04, noted extensive mortality of filter feeders (clams, mussels, barnacles, etc.) in shoreline intertidal zone as well as prawns, crabs, sea urchins, starfish and ascidians. A variety of dead fish and "rafts of dead frogs and other insects" were also noted."

4 months before anything was known about it! The question is has a similar spillage event happened before or since?

Do we need to wait for another 'Erin Brochavich' to come along before anything is done as is happening at present in Rosebery.

Gerry

[geoskid]

Oh boy here we go again. A disease that appeared suddenly, like aids in humans or swine flue or Spanish flue? Aids is actually been traced back to before the 1950's with some written evidence suggesting it is much older. Same scare tactics used when kangaroos started dying in the 1990s when the population exploded and this was blamed on DDT or any other chemical used on farms when it turned out the same thing happened in the 1930's when the population exploded. It is a natural phenomena as a pathogen largely dormant takes on a more aggressive form or crosses the specie divide. Shonky science based on scare tactics detracts from any legitimate concerns and suggests that there could be another reason, ie, someone not wanting their scenic view compromised or a intrinsic dislike to forestry full stop. When in local government many mundane disagreements suddenly became "hot" when one of the protagonists managed to wangle in a health reason to the argument that subsequent research revealed the reason to be highly dubious. Sorry but I sense a beat up here.

Water quality has been a neglected area and lets face it the worst water quality, most degraded water systems are the ones that run through urban areas and hence the mad push by the State to enforce water quality standards through amalgamating councils sewerage and water supply areas of responsibility. Not going to defend if that is the best way merely pointing out that is the motivation. It never ceases to amaze me that people protesting about water quality are often the same people leading the charge for lower rates and taxes. An activist is an activist I have found.

Any farming or forestry action or urban development will have some effect on the existing natural systems with the challenge being to ensure that the effect is not greater than the benefit of the activity and can be sustained. I am sure if there were two buttons, one labelled eradicate rabbits and the other labelled eradicate trout both would be pushed by people identifying themselves as conservationists. I am equally sure that some people would be happy to push the rabbit one and vigorously fight to stop the trout one been pushed.

Deciding what activity and the level of it is a matter of science and trade-offs. Sure Australia over 200 years ago was a different place and again 100,000 years ago before man kind graced its shores so unless we wish to decamp somewhere else it is up to us to find a balance between employment and environment. Shonky science and beat-ups do not help. In fact the implosion on the science of climate change due to dubious science nowadays means "proper" science and reasons to act are been hidden in the clutter of deception so give excuses to our political overlords to do what they do best, nothing.

Brett

Brett, Brett, Brett,... Oh Brett
Did you see the program?
One of the things I am concerned about with regards to the show is the political manoeuvering (as said above).
From the program, as I understand, the Doctor and the Marine Bioligist prepared a Report of Observations, (alarming to them), and presented the report to the government seeking a scientific investigation.Responsible action .
When the Government scientific investigation was not forthcoming, they used their own money to start the scientific investigation - beginning with toxicity tests on the water - what they found was the Summer flow was toxic.
There is a problem.
For politicians to talk of Quackery (our own Kon Job), is infuriating.
I am glad we have people in society that will stand up and share their alarming observations - probably knowing they will pay a huge personal price.
The truth (when it is uncovered) may be inconvenient, but is infinitely better than burying ones head in the sand.

[flyfisher]

but is infinitely better than burying ones head in the sand.

Couldn't agree more, Geoskid, they are often trying to hide someting.
ff

[corvus]

Geoskid,
Please dont get sucked in by the bells and whistles of "experts" are the wild things in the water still living ? if so good if not where is the real proof that they are dieing in droves caused by farming procedures/activities.
Always suspicious of "activists" and their motives or agenda.
corvus

[geoskid]

Geoskid,
Please dont get sucked in by the bells and whistles of "experts" are the wild things in the water still living ? if so good if not where is the real proof that they are dieing in droves caused by farming procedures/activities.
Always suspicious of "activists" and their motives or agenda.
corvus

Did you see the program, Gerry?

[BarryJ]

Haven't they already found that the devil's tumors are caused by a virus?

Yes, exactly, but their expert still tried to link it to the spraying several times

It could be possible that the spray fall out caused a more benign virus to mutate and become more virulent.

[corvus]

Geoskid,
Please dont get sucked in by the bells and whistles of "experts" are the wild things in the water still living ? if so good if not where is the real proof that they are dieing in droves caused by farming procedures/activities.
Always suspicious of "activists" and their motives or agenda.
corvus

Did you see the program, Gerry?

Mark,
Did not watch it and I I believe that Televised "beat ups " are just that!! , great for emotive comments but sometimes lacking in real scientific content what did it really achieve
corvus

[geoskid]

Geoskid,
Please dont get sucked in by the bells and whistles of "experts" are the wild things in the water still living ? if so good if not where is the real proof that they are dieing in droves caused by farming procedures/activities.
Always suspicious of "activists" and their motives or agenda.
corvus

Did you see the program, Gerry?

Mark,
Did not watch it and I I believe that Televised "beat ups " are just that!! , great for emotive comments but sometimes lacking in real scientific content what did it really achieve
corvus

Well....what are you comenting on? How do you know it's a beat up? You need to look at the program to (on line in OP) really appreciate what the concerns are.
I think part 1 will be summarized next Monday prior to getting into part 2.

[geoskid]

Haven't they already found that the devil's tumors are caused by a virus?

Yes, exactly, but their expert still tried to link it to the spraying several times

The latest information linked here confirms that the cancers are NOT caused by a virus, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52286/
Quotes -
"Scientists have discovered the true identity of a contagious form of cancer that is killing Tasmanian devils. The cancer, called devil facial tumor disease, stems from cells that normally insulate nerve fibers, a new study shows. Genetic analysis of tumors taken from infected devils in different parts of Tasmania reveals that these insulating cells, known as Schwann cells, became cancerous in a single Tasmanian devil and have since passed to other devils, an international group of researchers reports in the Jan. 1 Science. Previously, scientists had suspected that a virus might be the source of the infection, but the new study confirms that cancer cells themselves are transmitted from devil to devil."

"How the cancerous Schwann cells became contagious is still a mystery, though. “Devils are known to be prone to cancers,” Belov says. “I think it was just some sort of freak of nature that allowed this cancer to be stable and transmitted.”

However the BIG question is to discover why a cancer that has existed in the population for possibly 20 years, suddenly become contagious starting in NE Tasmania in the last decade or so. Perhaps next weeks ABC "Australian Story" will throw some light on this.

Wow - This sounds big - and messy!

[GerryDuke]

Just watched it Geoskid - thanks to Robbo for the link.

Gerry

[sthughes]

Yeah I think watching it before making too many comments might be an idea. There were no wild accusations made, at least not in part one. The people in the show simply noted that at around the same time (97/98-on) and around the same place (NE Tas) the following events occurred:
1. Oysters in the St. Helens area (is it Georges Bay?) began dying after rainfall events as well as suffering deformities in general.
2. The local GP noticed an unusual amount of unusual cancers in the community.
3. The Devil Facial Tumour Disease was discovered and took off in the north east.
4. Plantation forestry in the catchment area increased greatly.

They prepared a report stating nothing but this (hypothesising there was a connection) and requesting scientific testing be carried out. The government shot them down in a big way, with apparently no reason.

The people in question then funded scientific research themselves. The only results that have been mentioned are that they found the water in a river (not sure which) is toxic, even with summer flows. Something they did not expect to find.

They have not accused forestry as being to blame, simply noted that the problems mentioned above have coincided with increase plantation activity in the catchment, and that the largest oyster kill occurred not long after the aerial spraying helicopter crash mentioned above. None of this is really questionable; it is like stating water is wet.

Personally I would have liked to see more data, such as:
1. Have similar problems occurred with oysters around the world?
2. Do the unusual cancers in people constitute something statistically significant, or is it a nation wide trend or likely to be coincidental?
3. The current state of play with DFT research.
4. How much extra plantation forestry are we talking about? Millions of hectares or what?

It certainly isn't a conclusive portrayal of how forestry is ruining the rivers, but nor is it a so called "beat up". We will see in part 2 if it becomes either. After all, the prelude did say that they find the opposite of what they were expecting. Until part two has been televised I withhold my judgments on the show and the issues involved.

(Perhaps the oysters are poisoning the river and causing the trees to die so they have to be sprayed? Perhaps the DVT has got in the water then mutated and affected the oysters? Perhaps a DVT infected devil got in the helicopter and attacked the pilot thus causing him to crash? Perhaps the chemicals used in plantations are causing issues as is hypothesized? As yet we don't know and the people involved simply request the government to look into it )

Last edited by sthughes on Fri 19 Feb, 2010 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Ent]

Good post Sthughes. Was not aware of the helicopter crash nor the complete disinterest in examining the effect that this might have caused. Even if it was a low level chemical the concentration in the immediate area should have justified a significant clean up, that is assuming that the tanks were ruptured. Heck, huge amounts of money is been spent rehabilitating old service station sites so surely the same care should have been afforded a chemical spill.

As for oysters, they are sensitive little blighters so goodness know what might of been the reason but I would have imagined, hoped, that a test could have identified if a range of common chemicals were the cause. I would be curious what a study of frogs will reveal as they are often the best indicator of water quality.

I made the mistake of thinking that the program was about another area where my local knowledge means I am aware that the concerned residents were concerned about their views and then used the water catchment issue when they found out that the local council had no control over the harvesting of trees. If you ever tried to remove a tree when an action committee of concerned residents lobby to stop you doing this you will have a similar view on such "concerned" residents and the laws that allow them to interfere. They are not concerned about your sewerage drain been blocked, your gutters being blocked, foundations being lifted, or limbs randomly dropping off, they are only concern about their "amenity" and if it cost you thousands of dollars attempting to preserve a dangerous tree then that is not their problem.

As for the Devil issue not so sure but would like to see more resources been directed to the research on both the tumours and the control along with say a breeding program (reports suggest that Parks is against this but that is just a report) if the wheels really do fall off. History tends to only report on epidemics in the human population such as plagues and in the old days it was blamed on the devil or malicious forces, nowadays chemicals get the bogey man role. Cervical cancer is now considered more a transmittable virus rather than a random cancer so as information comes out views change. Will tape Monday's report but hope like mad it sticks to the science rather than conspiracy theories. Note the letter in the Examiner from the senior health officer for the state and still can not figure out what he was getting at. Was he misreported or not concerned enough on the program?

Cheers Brett