Alison Bleaney My submission on the pulp mill and threatened species.
Specifically, the proposed pulp mill will add dioxins and other environmental pollutants to the surrounding air, water and soil. When POPs are incorporated into the food chain they bio-accumulate and continue to cause harm. Furthermore, the effects of pesticides, other POPs, and pollution such as PM 2.5 on native animal wildlife including the Tasmanian Devil have still not been thoroughly researched.
Dr Alison Bleaney OBE
MBChB FACRRM
PO Box 294
St Helens Tas 7216
Binalong Bay, Tas 7216
Email: [email protected]
Submission re Referral Notice Ref No 2007/3385
I am writing in response to the invitation for public comment on the referral of Gunns proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill project as a potential controlled action under the EPBC Act.
I am a medical practitioner who has worked Tasmania for 19 years.
I am deeply concerned about the effects that environmental pollutants have on our ecosystems particularly with regard to their impact on human health and the expenditure of the health dollar.
The current use of pesticides to support monoculture plantations is an unsafe practice that puts ecosystems supported by their water catchments, and people living within these ecosystems, at serious risk of harm.
It is now realised that dispersal of air pollution is dependent on many variables and can spread for many hundreds of kilometres from source. Water pollution also travels for many hundreds of miles from the original source. The adverse health effects of particulate matter (PM) 2.5 are well documented. DEH’s own research has led to the realisation that high-intensity forestry burn-offs (especially with chlorinated pesticides on the ground) can lead to a high release of dioxins into the air with flow-on pollution effects. Dioxin is a persistent organic pollutant (POP) that has been shown to have no level below which harmful effects have not been demonstrated.
Specifically, the proposed pulp mill will add dioxins and other environmental pollutants to the surrounding air, water and soil. When POPs are incorporated into the food chain they bio-accumulate and continue to cause harm. Furthermore, the effects of pesticides, other POPs, and pollution such as PM 2.5 on native animal wildlife including the Tasmanian Devil have still not been thoroughly researched.
It is also timely to re-emphasise that the interaction among pollutants is more often present than absent. Furthermore, the total effect of a large number of minor pollutants may be as great as that of one major pollutant. The most significant aspect of human action is man’s total impact on ecological systems, not the particular contributions that arise from specific pollutants. The total pollution burden may be impossible to estimate other than by direct observation of its overall effect on ecosystems.
It is planned to increase plantation acreages greatly in the next few years to accommodate the proposed pulp mill and chip exports. Plantations will also take up more water than the current land use, but this will not be factored into water allocations until after 2011. Current climate change information and weather forecasting predicts that water will become scarcer in Tasmania over the next decades adding further stress to ecosystems. Therefore, if current practices continue, environmental pollution will increase, adding further damage to existing adversely impacted ecosystems.
This week the Department of Health and Human Services have toured Tasmania consulting communities on the Tasmanian Primary Health Care system review.
From this certain facts have emerged which demand immediate attention:
1. The average age of death in Tasmania is lower than the Australian national average.
2. Tasmania has the second-highest death rate from all cancers-second only to Northern Territory (age standardised) and 1 in 3 people can expect to develop a cancer in their lifetime.
3. Tasmania has the second-highest death rate from diabetes-second only to Northern Territory (age standardised).
This is a Tasmania that sells its clean and green image including the health advantages that this should bring. However these statistics tell otherwise.
We depend on our elected leaders to make the right decisions based on rational, reasoned debate and to provide us with good and effective government.
Governments have the ability to prevent the use and release of many of these environmental pollutants. Not to take this course of action in the light of the increasing evidence of harmful effects puts us all — individuals, communities and our ecosystems — at risk.
Two of today’s most pressing issues are for clean and non-contaminated water and for protected, sustainable ecosystems. These underpin the preservation of threatened species.
For these and the above reasons, the pulp mill in its present format should not be allowed to go ahead.
Alison Bleaney
10 April 2007
N.B. I enclose my original submission to the RPDC regarding the proposed pulp mill.
References
Bleaney,A. 2007 ‘Risk Awareness and Incident Response Capability in Water Catchments in North Eastern Tasmania, Australia – A Community Based Audit’, Upper Catchments Issues Tasmania, Vol 3 No 3, ISSN 1444-9560.
http://www.resource-publications.com.au/uppercatchment/uciall.html
National Toxics Network -“a community network working for pollution reduction”
http://www.oztoxics.org
Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith
PROPOSED TASMANIAN PULP MILL
– not chlorine free
Submission on Review of Environmental Guidelines on new bleached Eucalypt Kraft Pulp Mills in Tasmania.
http://www.oztoxics.org/ntn/ntn_pulpmills.doc
DIOXIN – NTN response to the National Dioxin Reports
Summary (Adobe Acrobat pdf 81KB)
Full Paper (Adobe Acrobat pdf 395KB)
www.ourstolenfuture.org a website with an emphasis on endocrine disruptors
Australian Medical Association ¬ Tasmania http://amatas.com.au/issues.html
Submission from the Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Medical Association
Re: Draft Guidelines for Integrated Impact Statement (IIS) for Proposed Kraft Pulp Mill in Northern Tasmania (pdf file)
