Comments

<Back to Article

  1. Thats my drinking water being contaminated by Lennon-Gunns. I’m a West Tamar resident and I know the Trevallyn Dams water comes from the Meander Dam.
    I also know Tasmania has the highest cancer rate in Australia. I’m very,very angry. I’ve had enough of this retarded regime.

    Posted by no pulp mill  on  16/02/08  at  09:40 AM
  2. It is mind-boggling fact that a dam catchment supplying drinking water for four towns would be allowing industrial forestry and chemical spraying within 150 metres of the water’s edge.  When you subtract the average 500 metre spray drift from a helicopter, the spraying actually blankets your water supply.

    The chemical in question, Dominex Duo, or alpha-cypermethrin, is the same stuff which snuffed $1,500,000 worth of oysters in Georges Bay in 2004.  It is never to be used where it could get in to water even in the smallest concentrations detectable, where it is still lethal. For its other effects, we have to rely largely on the manufacturer, remembering that it was also a manufacturer who gave a similar harmless rating to atrazine, now banned in the EU and US as a carcinogen and endocrine disrupter. 

    At Western Creek yesterday it was sprayed directly over waterways in some instances. Of five observers surveyed, who all could smell the spray from neigbouring properties, all reported feeling unwell with symptoms of sudden fatigue and in two cases,  headaches.

    The spray day was highlighted by the appearance of the DPIW’s only spray drift officer.  This gentleman distinguished himself by asserting that there was no spray drift on the basis that he couldn’t see any.  He based his confidence on the fact that no one has ever been convicted in Tasmania for breaches of the spraying regulations, although a review of the regs a few years ago conceded a successful prosecution was virtually impossible under current legislation.

    He also conceded that he has never conducted any aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys, which would detect mass mortality after spraying, and was unaware that another branch of his department does. He was also unaware that the pesticide is buoyant, and can only be detected from surface water samples. He did allow that he depended on the pilots to observe the regulations.

    Although Lennon has not described the “vision” that he is now claiming as his sole objective as Premier, it seems safe to infer that it applies only to his apparently sole constituent.  That constituent obviously does not want any effective regulation of spraying, or of the unfettered conversion of Tasmanian land to forestry jurisdiction. 

    If this means that the rest of us have to leave, or to drink and breathe the toxins that the sole constituent uses in a similarly unfettered way, or to pay for the dams needed to permit more plantations, then tough luck.

    John Hayward

    Posted by john Hayward  on  16/02/08  at  01:48 PM
  3. This is monumental stuff! Gunns have breached the “General principles”- (see download), and while escaping present legal ramifications at present, a database of such actions must be kept for the possibility of class actions later.

    It will be interesting to see what spin can be put to this. Perhaps a more accurate spray might be achieved if the drift monitor remains out in the open.

    The fact that this spray is being used near water is criminal in itself, if not by statute, at least morally.

    Expect more of this from Gunns. Sloppy work on the field, chip mills and then a Pulp mill.

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  16/02/08  at  06:05 PM
  4. Tree growers must be rubbing their greedy big gands together at the thought of all the new dams and irrigation pipelines proposed.Doubtless they will be able to obtain water for a pittance to feed more tree orchards.
    One would have to suspect the motives behind the Meander dam.Plenty of water for plantations from Liffey to Mole creek and beyond,and for the pulp mill.
    My biggest worry with the pulp mill is not only the mill itself but the conversion of native mixed forests all over Tassy to monocultures suitable for nothing other than pulp.In the process they poison our insects and polute our waterways,not to mention the road kill, both animal and human.

    Posted by John O'Keefe  on  16/02/08  at  06:50 PM
  5. Esk Water, a consortium owned by the the northern councils, is required to test water for (a very monimal) set of chemicals.

    Any contaomination from this event should be detectable at Trevallyn Dam (the water intake for West Tamar drinking water) in matter of days. Samples in recent years from Trevallyn have shown some herbicides (including Simazine) above the detection level.

    Pity, however, that Esk water tend to take their sample in a fairly ad hoc way and typically report the results 3 months after the sampling date….....

    Anyone thought of taking some samples over the next few days and sending them to Sydney for analysis (the only way to get truly independent and unadulerated scientific data in Tasmania, being to send samples elsewhere !).

    Posted by In the esky  on  16/02/08  at  09:20 PM
  6. Nice work Pete!
    Hope bye bye Barry is having a nice big drink down there on the West Tamar.
    My kids and grand daughter drink bottled water on the West Tamar….cheers you forestry clowns!
    You are fair dinkum cowboy imbeciles and I hope you choke on the crap you pour over innocents.
    Dave Groves

    Posted by Dave Groves  on  17/02/08  at  07:35 AM
  7. Maybe this is part of the drought proofing, the Lemon was talking about. Who wants to use water that could be dangerous to ones health?

    But obviously the Forest Practices Authority will be investigating? And find nothing untoward more than likely. Just like the FT guy on site - they see what they want or are told to see or not see, end of story.

    Bloody hell, how far away do people need to get from this lot?

    “Aerial spraying should not be conducted when there is a risk of drift into streamside reserves.”!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    That’s where they like to plant their trees, for their free water.

    Where are the pre tests on the water, the post tests?

    And FT and the Gunnerment wonder why people are angry. You’re a cruel joke Forestry.

    But they haven’t been able to hide the truth forever. Thank goodness for concerned members of the public.

    What a story. Who are you going to champion now Examiner? When will you lot start some proper investigative journalism into this corrupt, dangerous industry? Get over being so anti-green and anti-environmentalist, and so pro Lennon, Gay and Forestry. The downstream effects are now washing your way!

    Posted by Charles and Claire Gilmour  on  17/02/08  at  10:27 AM
  8. Our criminal governments are - in their full knowledge - allowing poisons to be sprayed in a manner GUARANTEED to harm (even kill) people and the environment.

    http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj/TheMannerOfApplicationOfPesticides_17feb06.rtf

    Excerpt:
    “..(v)  APVMA sets a spurious release height of 15 metres for forestry ops
    At a 15 metre height (that recommended by the APVMA for forestry spraying operations – see http://www.apvma.gov.au/users/spray_drift_risk.pdf) the downwind deposit at half a kilometre is 5% of the applied rate.  This computer modelling does not take into account a whole range of factors that would exacerbate this problem such as humidity, turbulence, speed of helicopter etc.  Instead the modelling assumes ideal and linear conditions that could not take into account the complexity of real world situations.  The APVMA has failed to provide any modelling of aerial spraying drift at 15 metres beyond the single and alarming graph in Figure 21, page 57 of this document.

    NOTE:  Current forestry aerial spraying more often than not exceeds 15 metres.  From my observations the helicopter is usually about 30-40 feet above the canopy but I have also seen spraying done where the helicopter was closer to 300 feet above the ground.  *Spray release heights become somewhat irrelevant when the helicopter (as it often is) is on top of a hill or at a very high altitude compared with the rest of the surroundings…”

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  17/02/08  at  10:34 AM
  9. Re Comment#3. The Meander dam has been on the books for the last 40 years. It was considered unprofitable and environmentally unsuitable. It was approved through a “fast track” approval process. ( Does this sound all too familiar??).

    Some farmers who live nearby or downstream will no doubt benefit from reliable, but costly water.
    Others will not, unless they fund the cost of a pipeline into their area, (or a mess of tree plantations are established and a pipeline goes in to service these trees).
    The furphy is that the dam has gone in for the farms. If this was true, then it would have been built 40 years ago. The fact is that the Meander,Liffey and Western Tiers region are being transformed into plantations and the dam is in place to satisfy their massive thirst.

    You quite rightly should be concerned about roadkill. The IIS predicts, modestly,that an additional 1/2 a death,(human), a year will occur per annum, once the mill is built.

    TAP has been collecting extensive data, including photos, on roadkill as a baseline and recording “specialty” kills, such as Devils. (Devil finds are submitted to the DPIWE).
    Wombats in particular are taking a heavy toll around Blessington at present with log truck movements.

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  17/02/08  at  10:48 AM
  10. I hope Sue Smith and Jim Wilkinson are watching.  This is the company they are trusting to build one of the world’s biggest pulp mills in a populated valley.

    Posted by David Mohr  on  17/02/08  at  12:08 PM
  11. I almost feel sick just reading that piss weak set of ‘practice guidelines”. People need to approach both newspapers with these photos and when inevitably they refuse to run them because they are of course shit scared of Gunns we need to ask LOUDLY and clearly why? Good enough for the media to follow the Lennon propoganda unit up to the Meander Dam, and facilitate an event that allows him to cast himself as hero and future saviour of Tasmania - victim of drought.
    Well we need to put pressure on these gutless bastards (ABC included) to cover this other darker aspect of Lennons management of Tasmanian water. Get writing, get phoning and ask the questions that you have every right to ask. If inevitably you get ignored or bumped all correspondence will still reamain as a record of media and government negligence. p.s Are the meander mob taking water samples from the Dam or any of the waterways it feeds?

    Posted by pilko  on  17/02/08  at  01:33 PM
  12. Does self regulation work??
    The ACCC should investigate the claims!
    Clean green, chemical free Tasmania???
    Here the official
    NAFI News 27th May 1995
    Aerial spraying: safety through regulation

    Aerial spraying is a heavily regulated industry where pilots are extensively trained

    As most involved in the forestry industry would know, chemicals are a necessary part of good regrowth and plantation forest management. Some herbicides and pesticides are used to maintain the health of trees.

    Chemicals are also used to prevent noxious weeds growing within plantations, which may spread to other agricultural activities. Plantation owners take great responsibility in preventing or eradicating noxious weeds for their own benefit and as a social responsibility.

    Aerial spraying is a safe and effective way of applying chemicals to tree plantations.

    The practice is regulated by relevant chemical controlling acts in each State and Territory. Aerial Agriculture, as it is known as, is concerned issues such as drift avoidance and groundwater safety.

    Pilots are trained to handle these issues by passing strict standards for pilots to practice aerial agriculture.

    In Victoria for example, when applying agricultural chemicals by air, a pilot is legally responsible for ensuring that:

    • Chemical use is recorded

    • Spray drift does not affect any plants or stock outside the target area

    • Each spray nozzle used in the aerial spraying equipment is fitted with a operating leak-proof cut off valve

    • A smoke generating device is used at ground level at or near the point of agricultural chemical product application immediately prior to,or during that application; or

    • The aircraft is fitted with a smoke generating device that is operated immediately prior to the commencement of the aerial spraying and at any time during the aerial spraying; or

    • A windsock that is in operation and clearly visible to the pilot is available at ground level at or near the point of agricultural chemical product application

    Western Australia has the Aerial Spraying Code of Practice dedicated to the control of aerial spraying.

    In Tasmania, the Code of practice for aerial spraying (currently under review), prevents restricted chemicals being used without a permit, chemicals must be registered under the AgVet Code and have approved labelling in accordance with the code.

    Need to say any more??? that was about 3 years ago http://www.nafi.com.au/news/view.php3?id=1558

    Posted by Frank Strie  on  17/02/08  at  02:07 PM
  13. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm7ddqkgzFw

    The future teaches you to be alone
    The present to be afraid and cold
    So if I can shoot rabbits
    Then I can shoot fascists

    Bullets for your brain today
    But we’ll forget it all again
    Monuments put from pen to paper
    Turns me into a gutless wonder

    And if you tolerate this
    Then your children will be next
    And if you tolerate this
    Then your children will be next
    Will be next
    Will be next
    Will be next

    Gravity keeps my head down
    Or is it maybe shame
    At being so young and being so vain

    Holes in your head today
    But I’m a pacifist
    I’ve walked La Ramblas
    But not with real intent

    And if you tolerate this
    Then your children will be next
    And if you tolerate this
    Then your children will be next
    Will be next
    Will be next
    Will be next
    Will be next

    And on the street tonight an old man plays
    With newspaper cuttings of his glory days

    And if you tolerate this
    Then your children will be next
    And if you tolerate this
    Then your children will be next
    Will be next
    Will be next
    Will be next

    Posted by The Carpenters  on  17/02/08  at  04:06 PM
  14. Just back from a pleasant day flying radio controlled model aircraft. Let me assure readers that vertical movement of air at 15M is certainly present as small thermals and also patches of ‘sink’. At higher altitudes the thermals and sink are stronger. What the helicopter sprays is bumped downwards by the rotors’ action, and then rises outside the disc and is then carried by wind and spread further by the above mentioned thermal activity.
    Over dark -coloured surfaces such as forests or ploughland the thermal activity can be stronger.
    Any ‘modelling’ of spray drift needs to take these random movements into account.

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  17/02/08  at  05:11 PM
  15. Be aware:

    http://business.theage.com.au/watchdog-crackdown-on-green-claims/20080216-1slj.html
    Watchdog crackdown on green claims
    February 17, 2008

    COMPANIES that make misleading “green” and “environmentally friendly” claims for their products could face fines of up to $1.1 million.
    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission warns it will “vigorously pursue” businesses that breach the Trade Practices Act through fraudulent “green” advertising or labelling. The ACCC last week issued the first clear green marketing guidelines on the law in this area. The guidelines are a clear crackdown on the multi-million-dollar industry of environmentally friendly products, from toilet paper to food packaging, washing machines and even cars.
    The 24-page document warns that the use of symbols such as forests or trees on products could be misleading and a breach of the act if the company concerned cannot prove that they are “greener” than conventional rivals.
    The terms “green” or “environmentally friendly” are too vague and potentially misleading, the ACCC says. In extreme cases, the ACCC can bring criminal charges that could result in a conviction and $1.1 million fine.
    Other claims that could land companies in court include stating that a product is made from recycled material when only part of it is recycled, using a business name with “clean” or “green” when it produces energy from an unclean source, or promising a product can be carbon offset when it may only apply to a certain period of its life.
    The ACCC is taking civil action against Holden GM, supplier of Saab cars in Australia, over claims it made last year that 17 native trees would be planted for every vehicle sold, which would offset carbon dioxide emissions for the life of the car.
    The ACCC says the planting would offset emissions for only a year and the claims wrongly implied Saab was a greener make than other cars.
    ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said the guidelines “could be summed up in two words: be honest”.
    “This is a whole new growth area of marketing and advertising and we are just starting to see some trends in overstating or misleading claims.”
    Friends of the Earth campaign co-ordinator Cam Walker said some companies are being cynical at best and dishonest at worst. “More people are trying to do the right thing … but a lot of the symbols on products are just completely misleading.”

    Posted by Green claims watcher  on  17/02/08  at  06:05 PM
  16. ACCC Where are you? GREEN marketing spin in your face!

    CLAIM:” Certification under the AFS provides consumers with a guarantee that they are purchasing wood products from forests managed in accordance with the highest possible standards of sustainability.”
    http://www.nafi.com.au/news/view.php3?id=1551
    News 13 February 2008

    ... Farmers growing trees for sustainable timber resources will today discover how they can make sure their forests and wood can match the environmental credentials of much larger commercial forest managers ...

    The Canberra based National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI) is undertaking a project, with the support of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, to encourage greater uptake of forest certification by farm scale growers under the internationally recognised Australian Forestry Standard (AFS).

    Certification under the AFS provides consumers with a guarantee that they are purchasing wood products from forests managed in accordance with the highest possible standards of sustainability.

    With widespread adoption of certification by large companies in News South Wales and across Australia, the challenge now exists for smaller scale growers to achieve certification of their forests.

    NAFI’s Forest Policy Analyst, Mr James Gray, will be presenting this proposal ...cont.

    ———————————————————————
    Question: What a challenge is he talking about when we have Forestry Tasmania, GUNNS and NAFI using the AFS and PEFC as GREEN promotion?

    Posted by Frank Strie  on  17/02/08  at  06:16 PM
  17. Spraying pesticides in water catchments, ignores the concepts for water management in The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and The Australian and New Zealand for Fresh and Marine Water Quality Guidelines.
    Some information for readers on alpha-cypermethrin and use in catchments.

    1-The reason alpha-cypermethrin (often Astound Duo and Dominex in Tasmania) is almost NEVER found in water is ‘coz it is so hydrophobic and sticks like glue to any particulate matter.
    So to find it in waterways , one needs to look at the sediments and particulate matter.

    2-It is still toxic at v v v low levels ie below normal detection levels. Immunotoxic, endocrine-disruptor, nerve toxin and pre-carcinogen.

    3- In Tasmania, DPIW is responsible for allowing use of pesticides from point of sale. The Review of Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying is STILL not finished and so it is ‘business as usual’ with no changes to practices from the time of the chopper crash 2003.
    To say that it is not found in water samples at post-spray monitoring for instance, is a meaningless statement with regard to performance monitoring for river or catchment health.
    4-With no chemical trespass legislation and no effective or enforced catchment protection policies, it is up to each and every one of us to protect our own water and food supplies.
    Spray drift is a reality and the risk and management of toxic chemicals from drift onto people, animals, crops, waterways etc has not been adequately addressed.

    Dr Alison Bleaney

    Posted by alison bleaney  on  17/02/08  at  06:30 PM
  18. The adverse effects of ‘chemical mixtures’ has taken a long time to be addressed, the scientific evidence has been there for many years.
    The consequences of ignoring these issues, will affect us all and is in-excusable.
    See yet another article on this topic- given below.
    Dr Alison Bleaney

    From: ENN
    Published February 16, 2008 09:19 AM
    Salmon’s brain gives clues to pesticides toxicity in people
    In his research, scientist Nat Scholz examines how pesticides that run off the land and mix in rivers and streams combine to have a greater than expected toxic effect on the salmon nervous system. These pesticides are widely used in the United States and their occurrence as mixtures in the food supply for humans may also pose an unexpected risk for people.

    “We have a pretty good handle on how to assess the health effects of single chemicals in conventional toxicity trials,” said Scholz, a fishery biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “But the real world is usually more complex, and exposures to mixtures of chemicals can be more of the rule than the exception. One of the major scientific challenges of our generation is to develop new approaches to anticipate and head off any ill effects of interacting chemicals.”
    Scholz will present his research along with five other scientists from the U.S. government, the Canadian government and academia in the symposium entitled “From Kitchen Sinks to Ocean Basins: Emerging Chemical Contaminants and Human Health.” Organized by NOAA’s Oceans and Human Health Initiative, the symposium is one of the features of the AAAS Annual Meeting.

    Scholz and his colleagues found that salmon died when exposed to combinations of pesticides that were not deadly when tested in individual trials. The findings for salmon could have important implications for the recovery of many threatened and endangered salmon populations throughout the western United States. The research also points to the need for more study of how combinations of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables may be affecting humans.

    Posted by alison bleaney  on  18/02/08  at  02:19 PM
  19. Just read 17 comments on this article and not a single one is positive.  Talk about lack of balance!!

    Don’t you whingers realise that climate change is very real and therefore water is going to become scarcer.  The choice in many disaster areas in the third world is between dying of thirst and dying from contaminated water.  What makes you think that Tasmania should be exempt from this choice?

    If Gunns decide to spray near a dam, they must have very good reasons.  Has any one of you thought to ask them what those reasons were?  If you didn’t want Gunns to be the government of this State and therefore to be the ones making this sort of decision, then you shouldn’t have elected them. 

    If you were in the minority that didn’t vote for Gunns (aka ALP or Lib) at the last State Election, then you must realise that living in a democracy entails both accepting the majority decision and dying if necessary for the sake of that democracy.  Dying by alpha-cypermethrin poisoning is a small price to pay for the chance to re-elect Gunns every four years.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  18/02/08  at  03:00 PM
  20. Apart from little matters like poisoning an entire catchment area, wiping out aquatic life in a whole river (any trout fishers out there?) and destroying an entire ecology,  the incredibly careless and contemptuous arrogance of this act defies belief.

    It is no exaggeration to say that that attitude exactly parallels the attitude that is using DU weapons in Iraq (with the resulting 13,129 malformed children born in the past 5 years).

    Who the hell do these people think they are?  And how the hell has the Tasmanian Government come to represent them ahead of the people of Tasmania?

    Posted by Bernie Turvey  on  19/02/08  at  06:48 AM
  21. I do beleive Gunns are the forces of evil, I do beleive their second in commands, the pretenders of Parliment are the followers of evil and have become a serious enemy of the state.
    The robotic drivel now flows like never before in our history, eroding any trust that once existed in past years. I do know and respect the fact that there is a labour shortage, but knowing that these interlectual rejects are able to become elected, simply hide away and become un-noticed for a short term and pop up with a pension and in most cases with absolutely no points on the board. Tasmania was classed as the jewel of Australia before the vandalism was encouraged on an industrial level leaving our island as a living reminder of a paradise scarred by greedy mass destruction, Gay rights in the extreem.!!!

    Posted by Tenanabit  on  19/02/08  at  12:07 PM
  22. I’m a trout fisher who comes to Tasmania every year and I have to say this is unbelievable. Gunn’s is risking the lives and livelihoods of many Tasmanians for the profit benefit of their corporate few. Beautiful Tasmania = Poison Island? What does it take to throw these bastards out on their arses? They should be booted off Tassie, period.

    Posted by David Alford  on  19/02/08  at  03:19 PM
  23. I am deeply saddened by what has transpired last Friday. My husband and I had seen the helicopter fly over our property and wondered what was up. How is it a corporation who’s main interest is power and greed, all corporations for that matter, not have a conscience when the health and well-being of people are at stake not to mention the animals and trees that keep sustainability upon the planet? I cannot fathom why Paul Lennon retained his seat in politics unless the common game of “rigging votes” played a hand in the election. The loggers claim what they’re doing as employees of “Gunns, Inc.” are maintaining a living. That’s true but at the expense of their, their families and others lives? There are so many other options to increase employment in one of the most beautiful places on the planet. Now look what is happening to this wonderful state. It breaks my heart to see the “rape” of forests when driving from one town to another. All I can say is God forgive you Gunns, Inc. and the employees who are employed by this insidious company for putting the health and well-being of the people, animals and trees in this once beautiful state in such jeopardy I’d hate to think what Tasmania will look like in a few years time if the Federal Government doesn’t step in and put a stop to these criminal acts against state and people. Keep up the good work Peter. You are a blessing to the people, animals and forests in Tasmania!! You are actually putting your life in danger by keeping us the general public informed about the subversiveness that is occurring on a daily basis here in Tasmania.

    Posted by MT  on  19/02/08  at  07:49 PM
  24. Hey, Tomas, Woodworker, Barking Toad, Mr Doctorbonham, Herbert, anyone other than the green whingers, how about a comment in support of my post #18?

    Don’t let the negative anti-Gunns mob have it all their own way.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  20/02/08  at  10:39 AM
  25. Oops, that should have been #19, of course.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  20/02/08  at  02:41 PM
  26. Perhaps they all realize that this is unarguable, Justa (#24). These photographs are not lying. This is our water they are poisoning.

    Posted by Valleywatcher  on  20/02/08  at  02:42 PM
  27. Justa-#24-, We are not a “mob”. We are people who care about the health & well being of those who live in Tasmania, this wonderous state in Australia, and the beautiful, intelligent animals who depend upon the forests for their life span. We also care about those who do not share the belief that animals and forests help to sustain life upon this planet. Look at what happened to the Rain Forest in Brazil. That’s one of the reasons the planet is in big trouble and is affecting us here as well. Please understand we don’t want our children and ourselves poisoned because of greed and power. We, as human beings, are the caretakers of planet Earth. Let us all live in peace together in this most beautiful state, Tasmania.

    Posted by MT  on  20/02/08  at  05:33 PM
  28. I don’t believe that the photos are lying (#26), but I do believe that the majority of Tasmanian voters wanted exactly this sort of thing to happen when they cast their votes in the last election.

    It is those who object to their water and air being poisoned who are in the minority and who are therefore, in a democracy, in the wrong.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  20/02/08  at  06:59 PM
  29. Justa Bloke said: “I do believe that the majority of Tasmanian voters wanted exactly this sort of thing to happen when they cast their votes in the last election.”

    Actually I refused to vote for the the Lib-Lab criminals who poison my family’s water and refuse to enforce appropriate fire breaks between plantations and dwellings etc.

    My vote was made invalid.  There is a reason after all why these bastards keep getting into office.

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  20/02/08  at  08:05 PM
  30. so, if most of us don’t agree with a law, we flout it, then that is OK ‘coz this is a democray?
    I don’t get it!
    Why then did we the change the gun laws after the Port Arthur shootings, ‘coz most of us wanted to keep our guns? I mean we often need them when we take money to the bank at the end of a day- this is rural Tasmania!
    What is this democracy arguement?
    Is that what is used when we can’t think of any other reason as logic and common sense have failed?
    or people won’t do what we want them to do?

    Posted by sanguine  on  20/02/08  at  08:54 PM
  31. Examiner of Feb 19th gave page 10 headline prominence to Gunns’ refutation of the allegations of spraying misdemeanours claiming it was done with state government authorisation and with a Departmental supervisor present. Another occasion of Greens’ mistruths.
    Examiner 21st Feb gives top letter billing to Kristina Nicklason’s anxieties in what it’s like to be under the spray.
    Can it be that the Ex. is getting soft in its old age? Or ducking Gunns’ wrath by having a letter writer do the job for them?

    Posted by Mike Adams  on  21/02/08  at  07:06 AM
  32. MT (#27), all those wonderful sentiments you express about the planet produce exactly zero in terms of profits for Gunns.  Your are right; you are not a ‘mob’.  There aren’t enough of you to make a mob.  The really big mob in Tasmania put Gunns before anything else, including their own health and that of their fellow creatures.

    Brenda (#29), I’m sure that you and I, and thousands like us, were stymied by our federal electoral system into not being able to cast an effective vote against having a Gunns government.  But in the last State Election (to which I was referring) the simple fact is that there was a huge majority who not only voted for poisoning the water and destroying the environment in other ways, but who did so knowingly and with a firm purpose.

    Sanguine (#30), generally, Gunns don’t have to flout any law because they write the laws to suit themselves.  They even, according to the Examiner article which Mike quoted in #31, are authorised and supervised by representatives of our democratically elected government when they endanger our health.

    As for the gun laws, there are probably thousands of Tasmanians flouting them right now because most of us just ignore laws we don’t like.  I’ll never surrender mine.  The difference is that we run the risk of being arrested, because we are the ruled, not the rulers.

    How democracy works in the real world:  we elect a government (variously known as Gunns, Federal Hotels, the ALP and/or the Liberals) and they do what they like.  Therefore to be anti-Gunns is to be anti-democratic until such time as Gunns are in the minority or have been bought out by a private equity company for asset stripping.  Then only the names will change; the system will be there in perpetuity.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  21/02/08  at  10:58 AM
  33. (1) “new reality”
                do you have the figures to back that statement that Tasmania has the highest cancer rate in the country ? if so ! it needs to be before a larger forum , if you don,t wish to pursue it this place ! please send me relevant documentation as i, having been of air for the past week,  am not up with the latest.
                d.d.

    Posted by don davey  on  21/02/08  at  12:18 PM
  34. To Don Davey there was a cancer study done between 1980 and 1999 showing the increase in incidences in cancer in Tasmania. It was done by the Menzies Research Institute UTAS.
    The name of the report is “Cancer in Tasmania, Incidence and Mortality 1980- 1999”
    I am not sure of the claim that we have the highest cancer rates in the country but am fairly certain that we beat the other states on some levels.
    For instance cancers such as Thyroid Cancer rose by 327% in that time, Non Hodgkins Lymphoma rose by 66.7%, Kidney cancer also rose by about 60%. These were noted as significant.
    I can tell you that from the MSDS for Simazine tha long term exposure damages, Testes, Kidneys, Thyroid,Genetic Damage, Cancer, tremors,
    Atrazine causes Shortness of Breath, Ataxia, Muscle Spasms, anorexia, and Genetic Damage.
    Roundup causes Non Hodgkins lymphoma when mixed with other chemicals.
    Remember that most of the chemicals sprayed on plantations are coctails of 2 or more chemicals.
    Many of our rivers test positive to chemicals in the inadequate DPIW water tests.
    Hope this helps
    Pete

    Posted by Pete Godfrey  on  21/02/08  at  06:59 PM
  35. I am reasonably certain Don, that Georgetown earned the distinction of having the highest rates of Cancer in Tasmania.
    Hodgkins Lymphoma and childhood Leukemia are the biggies.
    Can anyone confirm?

    Posted by Tony Saddington  on  21/02/08  at  10:23 PM
  36. Pete, don’t forget breast and bladder cancer. Very exciting prospects for the next generation, too!
    Thanks, Gunns! You are increasing job opportunity in the medical care sector!

    Posted by David Alford  on  22/02/08  at  04:41 AM
  37. Response to post 36 above: Not to mention the undertaking industry - now THAT is a growth industry…............might have to ivestigate some opportunities there!

    Have a Dorky Day

    Horse

    Posted by Horse Badorties  on  22/02/08  at  10:36 AM
  38. Prime Minister,

      Kevin Rudd.

            Dear sir,

                    Please find below some comments sent to me after my query on “Tasmanian Times” as to the incidence of the cancer % rate in Tasmania as opposed to other states.

                    Please note that contrary to Tas Forestry polls ! that the “MAJORITY” of Tasmanians “bitterly oppose” this PULP MILL in our beautiful state ! which is why the LENNON GOVT refuse to put the issue before the Tasmanian people via a referendum.                                     

     

    To Don Davey there was a cancer study done between 1980 and 1999 showing the increase in incidences in cancer in Tasmania. It was done by the Menzies Research Institute UTAS.
    The name of the report is “Cancer in Tasmania, Incidence and Mortality 1980- 1999”
    I am not sure of the claim that we have the highest cancer rates in the country but am fairly certain that we beat the other states on some levels.
    For instance cancers such as Thyroid Cancer rose by 327% in that time, Non Hodgkins Lymphoma rose by 66.7%, Kidney cancer also rose by about 60%. These were noted as significant.
    I can tell you that from the MSDS for Simazine tha long term exposure damages, Testes, Kidneys, Thyroid,Genetic Damage, Cancer, tremors,
    Atrazine causes Shortness of Breath, Ataxia, Muscle Spasms, anorexia, and Genetic Damage.
    Roundup causes Non Hodgkins lymphoma when mixed with other chemicals.
    Remember that most of the chemicals sprayed on plantations are coctails of 2 or more chemicals.
    Many of our rivers test positive to chemicals in the inadequate DPIW water tests.
    Hope this helps
                  Pete.
    Posted by Pete Godfrey on 21/02/08 at 07:59 PM
     
       
        I am reasonably certain Don, that Georgetown earned the distinction of having the highest rates of Cancer in Tasmania.
    Hodgkins Lymphoma and childhood Leukemia are the biggies.
    Can anyone confirm?
          Posted by Tony Saddington on 21/02/08 at 11:23

     
          Pete, don’t forget breast and bladder cancer. Very exciting prospects for the next generation, too!
    Thanks, Gunns! You are increasing job opportunity in the medical care sector!

    Posted by David Alford on 22/02/08 at 05:41 AM

            ======================
        ” Having ,in the past few days contacted the P.Ms office on an unrelated matter and having recieved a reply within 48 hours ,i figured it was worth a run.”
                 
          If enough of us CONTINUALLY bombard him in this way ,we WILL get a result, remember ! “the pen is mightier than the sword” (or in this case !
    typing skills ) forget “Garret” head for the “top honcho”
                     
                      d.d.

    Posted by don davey  on  22/02/08  at  10:49 AM
  39. Plain and simple, there needs to be a “class action” lawsuit against Gunns and it should be a big one.

    Posted by David Alford  on  22/02/08  at  05:26 PM
  40. David #39 What about a class action against the contractors who spread this insidiuous poison.
    Perhaps they will not be as boof-headed as Gunns Inc.

    Posted by Rocky  on  22/02/08  at  11:03 PM
  41. Send these photos to all the countries in the world that eat tasmanian produced food ...  the pricks need to be exposed internationaly .

    Posted by steve  on  26/02/08  at  10:44 PM
  42. To don davey #33.
    Here are the latest mortality rates from cancer statistics on this page:

    http://www.uniquecomputers.com.au/StateCancerRate.HTML

    The data is from ABS. Tassie is higher than the national average,
    as well as every state and territory including Queensland, melanoma capital of the world.
    Cheers.

    Posted by no pulp mill  on  27/02/08  at  05:01 PM
  43. Disgusting state of affairs.
    Perhaps the pilot became disorientated with the smell onboard, or
    Couldn’t see the river because of the smoke that day.
    Bet afterwards he/she didn’t see the aquatic life rise to the surface either, or the wildlife feeding on it.

    Posted by Clive Stott  on  06/06/09  at  12:49 PM
  44. The government is the Authority so it must be telling the truth, which means that either these so-called photos are not of Tasmania at all, or the spray in use is entirely harmless. There’s a drought, perhaps they’re spraying water!

    No, more likely these clearly misleading photos are taken somewhere else where Eucalyptus are growing, and there is no restriction on spraying the waterways. Zimbabwe? New Zealand? Brazil?

    It’s a big world out there people.

    Posted by Blair Trumpet  on  06/06/09  at  04:10 PM
  45. Should Mr Llewllynn consider early retirement?
    The whole of agency is corrupt,possibly from the minister down?

    Posted by Ken Johnson  on  06/06/09  at  07:19 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.