In the “Scammell Report”, Environmental Problems Georges Bay, Tasmania , it was hypothesised that a toxic compound killed the oysters in Georges Bay following a flood in January 2004.
It was further hypothesised that fresh water delivered that compound to the oysters during the flood event.
It was hypothesised that the compound floats and was a man made chemical used in the catchment. Further, this compound was being increasingly used and was therefore associated with a growth industry in the catchment.
Is a toxic agent present or absent
The “Scammell Report” called for an immediate investigation, but that has not been forthcoming.
In January of this year the authors of the “Scammell Report” decided to instigate a toxicity testing program in the George River catchment. The value of toxicity testing is that the instigator does not need prior knowledge of what chemicals are in use in the catchment.
The test simply answers the question is a toxic agent present or absent.
Given that oyster mortality occurs after rainfall events it was believed that the toxic agent would most likely be present during the first flush of rainfall events.
Accordingly the authors first set out to establish that the surface layer was not carrying a toxin during dry weather flow. In mid January surface water concentrating devices were deployed at three locations in the George River catchment.
These locations were:
1. The South George River, upstream of dairy farms and downstream of a timber plantations (South George),
2. The George River just downstream of the confluence of the North and South George, adjacent to dairy farms (George River),
3. George River one kilometre upstream of the town water uptake pipe (Upstream).
Sampling was undertaken on the 17th of January following three weeks of dry weather. The purpose of this sampling was to establish a baseline survey to demonstrate that the surface waters are typically harmless to test organisms.
In addition to the above three locations a grab sample was also collected from the North George River.
The test organisms were oyster larvae and sea urchin larvae. Oysters are relevant to the observed mortality of oysters and sea urchins would give some information to establish if the problem was oyster specific or capable of affecting other species.
Toxicity testing was initiated on the 18th of January at a commercial Sydney Laboratory.
Results of that testing follow in:
These unexpected results were immediately dispatched to Tasmanian Health and it was agreed that the testing would be repeated.
It was agreed that re-sampling would occur on the 14th of February and that scientists from DPIWE would also collect samples.
A scientist was sent from the Sydney Testing laboratory to collect the samples from the George River catchment.
An additional test animal was included in the next round of tests. This additional animal was the water flea (Ceriodaphnia duba), a freshwater filter-feeding crustacean.
The Government is yet to release their findings
Additionally a surface sample collection devise was deployed in the North George River. Three hours prior to sampling it was discovered that the sampling devices in the North and South George Rivers had been interfered with. Both were redeployed, however, the collection devices were normally left in place for 48 hours prior to sampling.
Thus, the samples from the North and South George Rivers are not comparable to the two downstream sites.
In discussion with the DPIWE scientist it was made clear that they would be running the 48-hour toxicity test on the water flea so that they could independently confirm our findings. Table 2 lists the findings from this round of toxicity testing.
An additional sample from Crystal Creek was sent to the Sydney Testing facility on the 15th; however, this sample failed Chain of Custody documentation and was therefore deemed non-defendable, i.e. the integrity of the sample cannot be guaranteed.
Results from the second round of testing were completed on the 18th of February.
The government is yet to release their findings.
Mark
March 10, 2005 at 15:40
Dearie me! You answered your own question. Obviously the urchins in goverment and the forest industry are 100% suppressed in their response.
Dave Groves
March 11, 2005 at 00:29
Water, water everywhere, drink it up if you dare, pass this on if you care.
I was present at a water quality presentation at UTAS Launceston last night.
I am amazed and deeply concerned at events in Tasmania concerning water quality, pesticide use and lack of government concern.
This forum reinforced my concerns. For all those who have any doubts about how these things are managed in Tasmania, I urge you to remove your blinkers and dig a little for the truth.
I can assure you, you won’t have to dig too deeply to find some disturbing facts.
Make no mistake; this is all real, here right now in your own homes, today.
It is no accident that Tasmania has the dubious record for diseases such as cancers and MS.
It is about as subtle as a train smash.
Please don’t just take my word for it, do your own independent homework.
Accept nothing but what is real.
Pass this note to all who use water in Tasmania, for it is their concern.
Cheers,
Dave
David Obendorf
March 13, 2005 at 03:38
Independent monitoring and evaluation of water quality is essential to the long-term health of Tasmania’s ecologies. Toxic water systems can affect human health, our economic potential and biodiversity.
If you reflect on the reactive catch-up that has taken place after the Sunday program on Tasmnania’s water quality was aired on September 27 2004 you’ll understand.
Sadly, the principled people who have stuck their necks out ‘in the public interest’ to protect this vital asset will not be thanked for action by this government or its minders.
As a Tasmanian I ask my government and its bureaucracies, why is it that our community must depend on Sydney-based water ecologists and laboratories to investigate these matters. Thank goodness some poeple genuinely care for a sustainable Tasmania, even if our government apparently doesn’t.
Is it because it doesn’t cost our government anything if the community has to pay for these scientific evaluations?
Is it because the government doesn’t care about the well-being of its people, its wildlife, it’s marine & freshwater ecosystems and it’s potential ecnomic wealth?
The Unitied Nations reports that by 2050 the world’s human ppopulation will rise from the current 2,600,000,000 people to 9,100,000,000 a staggering 40% increase in the next 45 years!
At the same time global biodiversity is plummeting exponentially to make room for all the extra people and our insatiable demands.
I guess in these worrying circumstances, ignorance is bliss.
What’s the consequence of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing?
Paul de Burgh-Day
March 15, 2005 at 17:37
Today I have been doing some research on the water quality and contamination issues we confront in Tasmania today.
After reading what Minister Steve Kons has had to say, and in line with what I have written before, I am posting for the edification of all who wish to come to grips with some scientific truth, an enlightening document that places Tasmanian government sponsored science where it is – in the dark ages.
I commend the url below as a remarkable resource that will shed some badly needed light on a subject that is being being exploited by government and corporations to the severe detriment of the people of Tasmania (and the whole world).
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/lowdose/lowdose.htm
Paul de Burgh-Day
Pete Godfrey
February 16, 2010 at 09:11
Bryan #4 may deride the comments of Paul and David but I also have plenty of data and first hand knowledge that these chemicals do harm. Having been oversprayed while at a friends house by a helicopter operating at least a kilometre away I can assure Bryan that alphacypermethrin does do serious harm. If losing your ability to concentrate for 5 days, having vision problems, feeling nauseous, having headaches for days and losing balance are not a problem then I don’t know what is.
Of course the government found that no harm was done. Even though the sprays went into the Mersey river as the photos show.