Primary Industries and Water Minister Steven Kons has responded in less than flattering terms, Kons attack and, Tas Govt welcomes George River test results to the results of testing of the St Helens water catchment, first published on oldtt.pixelkey.biz:
Coming clean: what the tests reveal
But the question remains:
Please answer
Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
mike bleaney
March 14, 2005 at 06:06
My thanks go to Mr Kons for enlightening me. But why have the government taken so long to admit that they knew the source of the toxins in our drinking water catchment?
I had no idea that the culprits are the trees. It is disgraceful that the Government allows these apparently potentially lethal plants to continue to put people’s health at risk? (vide. John Mollinson’s statement.)
So perhaps Forestry have been protecting us all this time. Well done Forestry! You will now be seen as protectors of public health.
Barry Brannan
March 14, 2005 at 12:50
For anyone interested in reading the Government’s report see this link:
http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/CDAT-6AD2YQ?open
It does seem possible that the toxicity in the samples taken by Dr Scammell and government scientists was due to naturally occurring substances.
The government report seems quite speculative though. They identified some of the main naturally occurring compounds in the samples and conducted a trial that found that these compounds could be toxic in certain concentrations.
However, their report says that they couldn’t accurately determine the actual concentration of the compounds in the samples. So we don’t know whether these compounds are the cause of the toxicity.
Even though the report said there were no pesticides detected, it is possible that they were present. They didn’t test for all possible pesticides and for the ones they did test, they could be present at levels beneath the levels that the tests can detect.
Thus it is possible that pesticides were the cause of the toxicity in the samples.
Aside from all that, is it possible that the levels of the naturally occurring compounds increases after a flood and is responsible for the oyster deaths?
We need a water sample taken after a flood when oyster deaths occur. We should compare that sample with the samples from the current report. We need to know what difference there is in concentration of the naturally occurring compounds.
If pesticides are the problem then we need to find another test because the tests so far are not suitable since the test organisms are dying from something else anyway.
Barry Brannan
Sandy Bay