The Panel has come to the conclusion that the toxin or toxins present in the George River are within acceptable limits, and therefore pose no threat to the ecosystem or the community.
This is despite recognition that there have been oyster mortality events and apparent other anomalies within the catchment. It was these mortality events and anomalous ill-thrift that led to our investigations.
Our study consisted of four parts:
1) Is there a toxin of concern in the George River that can enter the oyster growing areas?
This was addressed in the study by grab samples that found the river water and natural occurring foam returned toxic results in ordinary samples.
The Panel appears to have disregarded this data on the basis that, in their opinion, inappropriate test organisms were used (ie. oyster larvae, sea urchins and daphnia). The choice of organisms will be discussed in detail later, but, oysters were specifically chosen because we were investigating oyster deaths following rainfall.
2) What is the cause of the toxicity observed following part 1?
No toxic man-made chemicals were chemically identified in part 1 of the study so a concentrating technique was employed: the skimmer box.
Despite the concentrating technique, no man-made chemicals were detected over the following year of investigation. Ultimately a chemical signature from E.nitens leaf was finally matched with a chemical signature from the toxic water.
The Panel accepts this finding but disputes its relevance to undiluted water samples. The Panel says that the skimmer box concentrates toxicity by 1400 times (although they have no measurements to prove this) and says that there are multiple stressors in the bay with no new supporting evidence.
3) The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) in New Zealand was asked to repeat the study to determine if our conclusions were correct.
The Panel has been sent NIWA’s public presentations by the author but does not appear to have take them into account.
4) NIWA was asked to determine the environmental relevance of the toxin, ie. calibrate the toxin and determine if it is likely to cause the oyster deaths that have been repeatedly observed.
NIWA concluded that if the particulate matter in the water column increases by a factor of 3-5 times above the river’s particulate concentration during dry weather flow then exposed oysters would be at risk of toxicity. Turbidity data for the river demonstrates that particulate matter is well above a factor of 5 following rainfall. Oyster deaths are observed following rainfall. NIWA concludes that this is a very likely scenario resulting in the observed oyster deaths.
The Panel has rejected NIWA’s conclusions but has not clearly indicated why, in discussions to date.
The Panel also rejects Dr. Fiona Young’s tests of undiluted river water on human cell lines.
A detailed examination of the Panel’s conclusions, and the discrepancies with our results, will take some time but will be forthcoming.
Bartlett’s apology demand …
Nick Clark, Mercury
PREMIER David Bartlett has called on the ABC to apologise for a “poorly researched and alarmist” report.
In February, the ABC’s Australian Story quoted a doctor who feared contaminants in the George River were causing increased rates of cancer in St Helens.
Mr Bartlett has written to the ABC asking for a correction a day after an expert panel found there were no problems with the water.
The George River Water panel found the perceived “toxicity” of water was caused by a faulty method of collecting samples that distorted results by a factor of 1400.
“The scientific study commissioned by the Government has found that the report by Australian Story was wrong,” Mr Bartlett said.
“These two episodes of Australian Story caused fear and distress in the St Helens community and damaged the town’s tourist reputation throughout Australia.”
Mr Bartlett said Australian Story had alleged toxins from eucalypt nitens plantations in the George River catchment might have been linked to abnormally high cancer rates.
“All of these things have been shown to be wrong by the study of national scientific experts,” he said.
“Yet this poorly researched and alarmist program is still available on the ABC website.”
Mr Bartlett said he had asked the ABC to remove the program from the website.
“If that is not possible I have asked for a disclaimer to the effect that the information on which it was based has been shown to be wrong and to direct viewers to the website of the scientific report,” he said.
“In addition, I have asked the ABC at the end of one of its current series of Australian Story episodes to explain to viewers that the St Helens water story was based on wrong information, and to apologise to the people of St Helens for the distress that it caused,” Mr Bartlett said.
St Helens GP Alison Bleaney said she would not apologise for raising the issue.
Dr Bleaney said the panel’s report did not disagree with her comments about a rise in cancer in the area.
