Tasmanian Times


Launceston …

Garry Stannus

Please have a look at the 3 attached photos which I took last Monday morning (Feb 11). They show that …

1 Gunns are already significant polluters of the Tamar Valley.
2 Airborne pollution can move up the river and over Launceston.

If the photos can be of any use to you, please use them in whatever way you can. I took them to the Examiner, but I have I feeling that they didn’t set their journalistic world on fire.



PS: By the way, the photos show the present-day pollution in the heart of Launceston from Gunns Timber in Lindsay St – the Pulp Mill (yet unbuilt) would be the icing on the cake. Please, do what you can to stop it. -Thanks, Garry

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. belinda mcintosh

    March 20, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    you should see the crap coming out of the unmonitored noxious industry, with insufficient buffer zones, no pollution control in a residential area in new town. and the dust and the 24/7 kiln noise. they make bricks. should be in an industrial zone. shame on the 73 government for letting them expand, instead of move. belinda

  2. Nelly

    February 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    “As Australia only practices sustainable forest management…”

    Yeah right…….if they say it often enough it MUST be true!

  3. Pete Godfrey

    February 22, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    I hope that Jeremy Ball has also shown the photos of what is happening to Launceston’s water supply to the council.People may be alarmed to know what is happening in their drinking water.
    On another issue you are all getting too scientific on the issue of the Clean Green Pulp Mill what the statement refers to is the New Paint Job and Colour of the buildings.
    Sorry to blow the science stuff away but Gunns don’t go in for science anyway. If you want proof just read the Toxicos report.

  4. Tony Saddington

    February 22, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Of course I meant to say “Google; Botnia Pulp Mill – Uruguay”-(comment #13).

    I do stand corrected Lister, on my erronius entry earlier relating to the Burnie mill. It was careless on my behalf. I was aware however, that there was a vast difference between that one and the one proposed by Gunns Ltd.
    I know now that the gaps in my knowledge are now filled by Dr Raverty’s posts and I am, (as do I hope you are), more enlightened.

    As I expressed earlier, I am no expert in Pulp Mills, but I am doing my damned level best to stay informed. Both you and Dr. Raverty have helped me to do this.

    Having said that, do you perhaps have a Doctorate, training, or work experience in pulp mills such as proposed by Gunns. Perhaps you know of a Pulp mill scientist that has worked in odour control in pulp mills or been selected by the State Government to serve on a panel such as the RPDC that can repudiate the claims made by Dr Raverty?

    How much experience must one man have before he becomes an expert Lister? We do have many here who post as Doctors, what of their qualifications?

    Finally, I have doubts that the mill will be completed. Recent events such as the Garnaut report, investment jitters and sloppy science by Gunns make it unlikely. Never have I seen a company create so many enemies and generate such bad press. Gunns can be assured that it will have strong opposition for years to come.

  5. (Dr) Warwick Raverty

    February 22, 2008 at 4:11 am

    Continued from above…..
    With the single exception of the individual that I mentioned earlier, everyone of the hundreds of friends and associates that I have in the Australian and New Zealand pulp and paper industry has congratulated me on the stand that I have taken, not trying to stop the mill, but having it relocated to Hampshire where odour will not create the same problems. Readers will search in vain for any statement in the press by any of the 6 major pulp and paper companies in Australia supporting Gunns’ present proposal. There is silence from PaperlinX, silence from Amcor, silence from Visy, silence from Norske Skog, silence from Kimberly Clark and silence from SCA. Many of these companies would benefit from a new local source of bleached kraft pulp to replace their present imports. Ask yourselves why these companies are not publicly supporting Gunns. The only conclusion that I can come to is that they see the same risks associated with sulfur odour in the Tamar that I do and they are well aware that controversy and mismanagement by one member of an industry casts a dark shadow over the rest of it – an industry that has spent the last thirty years (to my certain knowledge) spending billions of dollars making its environmental footprint as small as humanly possible. The risk of this well-deserved reputation being spoiled by a pack of arrogant unprofessional cowboys is simply unacceptable to me and to the vast majority of my friends and peers.

    To return to the expertise in chemical pulping that once existed at Burnie Mill, some of it is there still, but it is unlikely to be available to Gunns. The one fact that Lister did get right in his otherwise ill-researched diatribe was that Burnie Pulp Mill was a chemical pulp mill, but not a kraft mill. It was in fact a bleached soda pulp mill from 1936 – 1979, and then a bleached soda-AQ mill with a capacity of 80,000 tonnes per annum (one fourteenth the size of Gunns’ proposal) until 1996 when PaperlinX closed the Pulp Mill and reverted to operating the Paper Mill only. As a soda-AQ pulp mill, Burnie had no odour abatement system (as many older Burnie residents will attest!) and I know of no-one with significant operational, or design experience in chemical pulp mills from Burnie who is now a Gunns staff member. They are, to a man and woman, either still with PaperlinX, Kimberly Clark, retired, or have sadly passed on.

    4. A sustainable solution: I remain convinced that Long Reach is a site that has an unacceptably high risk associated with it for siting a million-tonne kraft pulp mill. Fugitive odour and clouds of steam from the pulp dryer (131 tonnes of it every hour) causing ‘white-out’ conditions and road deaths on the East Tamar Highway on cold winter mornings are the two major risks that I can identify. It is evident to me from the many conversations that I have had with ordinary Tasmanians on this issue and the polls conducted by TAP and others, that about 70% of Tasmanians would be happy to have a kraft pulp mill at Hampshire as long as it was fed with 100% plantation wood chips and met all of the State/Commonwealth environmental regulations. Even Gunns’ own estimates show that there will not be 4.5 million tonnes of woodchips available from Tasmanian plantations for many years. The logical solution seems to be to import the shortfall from either Portland, or Geelong to Burnie and rail them up to Hampshire for pulping. If woodchips from Portland, Geelong, Albany, Eden and Triabunna can be exported all the way to Japan and the Japanese can pulp them and turn them into high quality printing and writing papers profitably, why can’t they be imported into Burnie and be turned into pulp (and high quality printing and writing papers) even more profitably? It was to ask this question that I took leave and spent my own time and money travelling to the Federal Parliament in Canberra in September along with a number of prominent concerned Tasmanians. While I received a very sympathetic hearing from John Howard’s advisers (and a very unsympathetic hearing from Peter Garrett!), ultimately one of the ‘gopher version of Sir Robert Menzies’ last legacies to Australia before being voted out of office was apparently to force Malcolm Turnbull and the rest of his cabinet to reject any consideration of subsidising shipment of woodchips from the Mainland into Tasmania. Sadly it seems that the dark shadow of the CFMEU looms in too threatening a manner over Mr Rudd to enable some sensible and socially acceptable, job-creating solution to emerge from this mess. I fear that massive, but peaceful community protest is the only remaining option.

    5. All of the views presented above are my own personal views and they do not represent the views of my employer, or any other organisation.

  6. (Dr) Warwick Raverty

    February 22, 2008 at 4:10 am

    Continued from above owing to word limit….

    3. Experience of Gunns staff and transfer of pulp mill expertise from APPM to Gunns. When I commenced my former role with the RPDC in early 2005, I had little experience of Gunns, or their staff. The impression that I quickly gained of the Gunns people responsible for preparing the draft IIS during the course of the next 20 months was one of people who were completely out of their depth with the technology, in deep denial about the complexity of the project that they were engaged in, poorly organised, prepared to accept the advice of their major consultants without question and without seeking second opinions, giving very little attention to important details and prepared to attempt to bluster and intimidate into submission anybody who questioned what they proposed. Given that it is worldwide experience that professionally and well-run kraft pulp mills involve frequent and constructive dialog between the people running the mill and people living around the mill (readers can contact almost anyone living in Tumut, or Traralgon to confirm this assertion) my impressions of Gunns’ staff and their arrogant neglect of this vital aspect of their project had given me grave concerns for the future well-being of the Tamar community by the time that I was advised to resign from the RPDC Assessment Panel by Julian Green in December 2006. These concerns were heightened even further in September 2007 when I was accosted by the Gunns General Manager for the pulp mill project, Mr Les Baker who screamed abuse at me and used the foulest language imaginable while I was passing through Canberra Airport. Mr Baker generally conducted himself like a four year old child having a tantrum and only backed off when I threatened to call the Federal Police. His last words to me were along the lines of, ‘…you’ve lost all your friends, they’re all laughing at you! You are going to LOSE this fight and you are going to be a LOSER for the rest of your life.’

    Quite apart from the fact that this is not the sort of behaviour that I have ever witnessed in any senior executive of any well-run company, readers may note the similarity between what Mr Baker yelled at me in September and the comments of the nameless correspondent ‘Lister’ who asserts that, ‘I can assure you that not many of Raverty’s peers consider him an “expert” in modern craft (sic) pulp mills.’ (Comment 15).

    Well Lister, at least I can spell kraft correctly and I am forced to the conclusion that you are also probably a member of the Gay family, where dyslexia is apparently genetically endemic, as evidenced by father John’s frequent and public confusion of the word ‘affluent’ with ‘effluent’, as in, ‘The affluent isn’t going to harm anybody.’ I can well understand why members of the Gunns family now regret allowing their family name to be associated with this company.

    Apart from one former pulp and paper colleague, who I no longer count as a friend, I am not aware of anybody in the Australian pulp and paper industry who does not consider me have considerable expertise in modern kraft pulp mills, and particularly in the analysis and control of odours at such facilities. I spent 3 of my career years with Amcor fine tuning and training people to use the odour abatement equipment at Maryvale Mill (equipment that is very similar to what Gunns propose), a year as Amcor’s corporate environmental manager and 9 months in 2002-3 supervising a team of CSIRO scientists at Tumut helping Visy identify the main source of the fugitive odour at their kraft mill. Readers, including Lister, may be interested to learn that I met the Swedish engineer who designed the odour control system for Visy at Tumut some years later in 2005 when I was on the RPDC assessment panel. Guess what! He had been hired by Gunns to design their odour abatement system for the Tamar and when I asked him what Gunns proposed to do about fugitive odour at Long Reach, he proudly told me that, ‘There was no odour at Tumut when I left in 2001!’ When I replied that there were several hundred people in Tumut who were willing to call him a liar, he arrogantly stated, ‘Well the smell was negligible compared to Swedish mills!’

    That statement by the arrogant Swede underscores precisely what I have been saying on these pages for the last year – fugitive odour cannot be eliminated completely, even by the most experienced companies using the best available technology. In my view, ham-fisted arrogant goons like Gunns pose an unacceptable risk of destroying quality of life in the lower Tamar Estuary simply because they refuse to even accept that controlling point-source odour (the sulfur fumes that will come from the main stack) is only 2% of the battle in odour control (based on my personal experience at Tumut).

  7. (Dr) Warwick Raverty

    February 22, 2008 at 4:06 am

    Tony Saddington has asked me to comment on some of the assertions made in this thread and to correct some of the confusion and misinformation that inevitably creeps into complex topics like this. To take the points in order of importance:

    1. Air quality in Launceston and the potential impact of the proposed kraft mill at Long Reach: Garry Stannus’ photos show smoke and other particulate matter above Launceston on 11th Feb and there is no doubt that the levels of particulate matter in this airshed, contributed mainly by domestic wood heaters and automobile exhaust, need to be reduced. Independent and reliable modelling by CSIRO of the projected future emissions of particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) from the pulp mill stack show that (quoting CSIRO’s published Report of 9th May 2007) ‘…the background PM10 concentrations at Rowella are less than 40 μg m-3 and the data in Figure 2 suggest that this is probably representative for the region, except possibly at George Town. The modelled maximum impact of the mill (listed in the above dot points) is 2 μg m-3, so that it appears unlikely that the PM10 criterion would be exceeded.’ In other words, if the contribution to PM10 at Rowella is only 2 ug/m3, then the contribution above greater Launceston is unlikely to be measurable. Similar conclusions are drawn in the Report for the finer particulate matter (PM2.5). On this basis, it seems highly unlikely that the air-borne particulate matter from mill, if operated strictly according to the regulatory limits, would add significantly to the load in the Tamar Valley close to the mill, let alone 35 km up stream over greater Launceston. I have had strong counter views expressed to me by several expert respiratory physicians who say that even adding 2 ug/m3 to a level of 40 poses unacceptable risks to people with respiratory ailments, such as chronic asthma and, personally, I find the arguments of the medical experts compelling.

    2. If indeed the smoke plume shown in Garry Stannus’ photos does come from a Gunns-owned facility in Lindsay Street and if that facility, as suggested in the thread, contains a ‘fluidised bed burner’ of 2001-2002 vintage fuelled with sawdust, then that fact alone is of considerable concern because it indicates that Gunns staff cannot even operate a simple fluidised bed burner in a small sawmill ‘strictly according to the regulatory limits’, let alone a huge complex chemical facility like a kraft pulp mill. A fluidised bed burner is a device for burning, sawdust (or coal and other organic materials) that comprises a bed of sand heated to 900-1000oC sitting on top of a permeable plate with a high intensity fan underneath it. The fan forces hot air at high velocity through the permeable plate and into the sand causing it to act rather like a boiling liquid (readers can simulate the effect next time they are at the beach by poking a drinking straw into some dry sand a blowing gently). In essence, in a normal fluidised bed burner, when sawdust is fed into the mixture of hot sand and hot air, it burns smoothly and uniformly and the hot combustion gases can be used to heat steam tubes as in a conventional coal-fired boiler. The main challenge with fluidised bed burners is that all the wood ash becomes entrained in the high velocity combustion gases and must be filtered out using electrostatic precipitators (like the ones proposed for the pulp mill), or bag filters, or a combination of these devices. The fact that such a dense plume of particulates was visible on the morning of 11th February 2008 is indicative that whichever gas filtering device the Lindsay Street facility uses was not adequately maintained on that occasion.

  8. Rocky

    February 22, 2008 at 1:43 am

    It is a pity we can’t photograph what Gunn’s are doing to Launceston’s drinking water!

  9. Steve

    February 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    5; As far as I know it’s a solid fuel boiler burning sawdust. It’s a fairly new installation (2001 – 2002?)so I’d imagine the sawdust is automatically fed in, not dissimilar to a gas burner but with sawdust in an air stream. I’m not familiar with a fluidised bed burner, isn’t that a type of dryer?
    I would imagine there would be filters as it would have had to meet the relevant standards at commissioning. Whether it still meets them, as with any other similar piece of equipment, is another question and one which I would think the action in “12” will address

  10. lister

    February 21, 2008 at 10:13 am

    TS: You aren’t an expert and your efforts to inform yourself have fallen short. The APPM pulp mill in Burnie used a chemical pulping process – it was not a mechanical mill. It used chlorine for bleaching. A mechanical mill could not have produced Reflex paper.

    “Chlorine bleaching” (or even chlorine dioxide bleaching) does not define a kraft mill. It’s a very confusing argument that you make about “operators”.

    Pilko, wishful thinking. The Tamar mill will be built.

    I can assure you that not many of Raverty’s peers consider him an “expert” in modern craft pulp mills. Just saying he is an expert doesn’t make him one.

  11. pilko

    February 20, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    I would bet all of my money and Listers that many of W.Raverty musings on that awfully talented and t cutting edge woodchip mob – GUNNs – turn out to be prophetic. Some of his predictions….well we will never know about because the tamar valley pulp mill will not be built. After all what kind of company would want to own a project that is, and will continue to be the site of protest and obstruction on a scale that this country has never known before. Cheerio.

  12. Tony Saddington

    February 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm

    Yes Lister, Dr. Raverty did actually state this. It became apparent during the RPDC hearings that Gunns did not have a firm grip on the science involved in the pulping and bleaching process and the differences between processing pine and eucalypt.
    The most obvious example is that the mill will produce no smell. The Swedes who designed the mill say otherwise, – “all mills smell , it is the smell of money”.

    I am not an expert on pulp mills and I dont believe there is anybody on TT who is, but I have done my best to be informed.To my knowledge the APPM(Amcor) mills are of the mechanical pulp type, whereas the Gunns model is Chlorine bleaching (KRAFT), in which mill operators are unfamiliar. (It would be akin to comparing a car to a tractor- some similarities but very different).

    I do know that Dr Raverty is an expert. The State Govt and his peers obviously thought so. He was involved in formatting the environmental emmission guidelines, (meant for Hampshire), for Kraft mills in Tas, back in 2004.
    He was then selected as the pulp mill expert on the RPDC panel until resigning, following the bungling of the “Pulp mill task force” ,(they tried to align themselves with him) and calls from the Greens that he may have compromised his independence,(unfounded).
    Except for a couple of bum tip offs,(from inside Gunns), he has been on the money. (Google “Botavia Pulp mill)- This is “State of the art” $2 Billion mill in Uraguay. It is interesting reading.
    See who the mill designers are!

  13. Jeremy Ball

    February 20, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    In response to Nelly, thank you for the vote of confidence and I did indeed take immediate action, forwarding Garry’s email and images to both the general manager, of Launceston City Council, Frank Dixon and the Director of Infrastructure, Ian Abernethy with a ‘Please explain’.
    I have had a response from Mr Abernethy that as Gunns Lindsay St boiler is a ‘Level 2 activity’ (which I assume means it is governed by an Environmental Protection Notice (EPN) issued by the state government) he is getting a response from a Mr Trimbole of the Environment department. I will forward this response to Garry and hopefully he will post it on Tassie Times.
    In short, I’m onto it.
    Jeremy (Ald Ball, LCC)
    ps Thanks to Tony S for alerting me to this thread.

  14. lister

    February 19, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    Mr Saddington, are you absolutely certain that Raverty said: “(Gunns) have absolutely no experience in the science involved or in operating Behemoth pulp mills, or any mill.”

    Could he have been plain wrong (again)?

    My recall is that Gunns purchased North Forests in 2001. I also recall that part of North Forests was a business that had been known as APPM (i.e. Associated Pulp and Paper Mills) Forests. I also recall APPM Forests became detached from the related pulp and paper mills when they were sold to Amcor (to be further separated out by Amcor into the PaperlinX company) and the forestry operation stayed with North Ltd and were renamed. I understood that at the time North Forests and the pulp and paper mills went their separate ways, a number of pulp technologists ended up in North Forests (i.e. now Gunns).

    Do you or Raverty know for certain that none of those ex pulp and paper technologists are still working for Gunns?

  15. Nelly

    February 19, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Garry I hope you send these pictures to the Launceston City Council. Surely our bylaws don’t allow this sort of thing. Now that Jeremy Ball is an alderman, perhaps some action might occur. He is not likely to let this just slip by.
    Its disgusting that Gunns is allowed to get away with this, but not all that surprising, given their status with the PTB.

  16. Tony Saddington

    February 19, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Valleywatcher, I have corresponded on occaisions with Dr Raverty and found him surprisingly approachable.

    He has stated that Gunns are very experienced in growing trees, but have absolutely no experience in the science involved or in operating Behemoth pulp mills, or any mill.

    As a specialist in his field on pulp mills, (which he is passionate about), he is generally supportive of pulp mills…. but not this one.

    If Gunns has trouble with environmental morals,(I presume that on paper everything is above board), in Lindsay Street, what hope is there in the future? Will the new EPA be much of the same, or will it be a 24 hour operation with teeth?

  17. Justa Bloke

    February 19, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    As I commented on another thread, at the last State Election we (the huge majority) voted for Gunns (aka Liberal or ALP), so they now govern Tasmania and not only should they therefore do what they were elected to do (ie pollute) but also we should be getting right behind them and supporting their right, as the democratically elected rulers of this State, to poison our air and water for our ultimate good.

    Anybody who objects to this is un-Tasmanian, anti-democratic and a traitor to the memory of the thousands who died so that we might enjoy our free society.

  18. Valleywatcher

    February 19, 2008 at 10:56 am

    Shaun, to get answers to your questions, you probably need to approach the company, and I wish you luck in your quest to get some honest answers. What people who live in Trevallyn (who look direcly over the river to this operation) and people who drive around late at night know from experience is that this stuff is let go much more at night than during the day, when it is more visible. They also know that despite Gunns assurances to the contrary, the emissions are not just ‘steam’. What these residents also know is that the problem is much worse in the winter, and the company seems to be able to do it with impunity.

    The LCC is failing in its duty to Launceston residents if it does not do something about this problem, but as we all know, there seems to be one set of rules for this one company, and another for everyone else.

    How can this company be trusted with an operation like one of the world’s biggest chemical pulp mills? Ask Warwick Raverty for his opinion on that!

  19. Garry Stannus

    February 19, 2008 at 12:39 am

    Yes Tony (#3), the pics are dated, I took a number of them just after 8am monday last week. I saw the smoke coming from where it usually does when I look out my back window in town. I knew on the way to work that there was a place where you could get a decent view, and took my new Fuji digital with me. All the other times I’ve seen the stuff coming out of their chimney and I never had a camera!
    I’m so fed up that they can just basically laugh in our faces and spin weasel words about the pulp mill. Anyone who knows what goes on in Launceston, knows that most of the stuff comes out of the chimneys after dark … I’ve got a feeling that the new Fuji can shoot in the dark, so I’ll have a go some night soon.

    Gerry Mander (#4): my understanding of the way Gunns rationalise the claim that it will be a clean green pulp mill, is that:

    1. by producing electricity from furnaces powered by burning our bush, no greenhouse gases (GHGs) will be created … because … carbon or whatever it is that gets released by burning wood is not counted in reckoning up GHGs because (I’m getting a bit wobbly here) it’s part of the carbon cycle, and (wobblier) gets released anyway as wood etc rots on the forest floor.

    2. If Gunns were to buy their power from (e.g.) the Latrobe Valley, it would be coal from the ground, and emissions from this fuel do get counted as GHG emissions.

    3. Therefore Gunns are entitled to claim that they are saving the environment by not burning coal.

    4. So when they did their sums in the Draft IIS, they added up all the GHG emissions from the boiler, the furnace, the truck going up and the truck going down, then they subtracted from it the figure of hypothetical GHGs that WOULD HAVE BEEN BURNED IF THEY BOUGHT VICTORIAN COAL …and guess what?

    5. The hypothetical figure, being larger than the other emissions meant that in total, the net figure for GHG emissions was a negative value!

    6. In other words, so the casuistry goes, by operating the mill, no matter how much smoke goes up the chimney, Gunns will be actually REDUCING the production of GHGs by building & operating this mill!

    Conclusion: It’s like perpetual motion, the best of all possible worlds. I’m not making it up – my memory is a bit rusty, but I read a fair bit of their stuff, and understood their argument about being a ‘green’ operation. It’s just an accountant’s trick. Instead of balancing dollars, depreciation and lurks and perks, they add up tonnes of smoke p/a: naughty this-and-that smoke, versus good wood smoke.

    Only trouble is, all this GHG accounting, is premised on total emissions around the world. So if the result of the mill is that the Tamar Valley is polluted, it doesn’t matter! – because it’s all accounted on a world scale. Those fires in Indonesia a few years ago?

    -Carbon Neutral!
    Quod erat demonstrandum!
    Orwell’s NewSpeak is a reality!

  20. Shaun Caris

    February 19, 2008 at 12:30 am

    1. What exactly is it that is emitting the smoke? A boiler?

    2. What is being burnt? Wood?

    3. Assuming it is a solid fuel boiler, is it a manually fed system, a moving grate, pulverised fuel or a fluidised bed?

    4. Does it have filter bags, ESP or neither?

    5. Is the photo typical of resulting emissions or was it taken on startup or immediately after a blowdown?

    Agreed it’s a mess but I’d like some more info on the plant itself before commenting. It may or may not be a fair comparison with the pulp mill – I don’t know at present.

  21. Tony Saddington

    February 18, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    I was told years back by an LGH shift worker of the Midnight purge of the Lindsay Street site.
    If the smoke can be this bad over Summer, one can only imagine what it must be like with the Winter inversion layer.
    I am extremely pleased with what people are achieving with the digital cameras. First the spraying photos and now this.
    Are they date stamped?

  22. Dave Groves

    February 17, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Ah the naysayers are at it again.
    Always with the doom and gloom….what about the jobs for all Tasmanians?
    It’s a big wide world out there with lots of room for industry to choof out smoke like there is no tomorrow.
    Gunns is a trusted company, even Ivan Dean has said this, so it must be true.
    They would never hurt a fly!
    Besides, they have guidelines they help create which means the pulp mill will have a giant chimney which will punch right through the inversion layer keeping the steam that comes out the end away from little kiddies.
    And just think, you unwashed tree huggers, about a log truck movement every 2 minutes 24/7. How many jobs is that?
    Think of all the new culture we can experience with all the foreign workers coming to town for this project.
    Why even on ABC radio today they were talking about Gunns searching the world for people for the pulp mill.
    So as Paul says, “we can have it all”.
    Culture galore and new workers for Tassie.
    Big chimneys and warm water in Bass Strait.
    Perhaps when the job is done we can swim all year round?
    Who needs to travel all the way to Windmill Hill?
    Those blocks of land that are so hard to sell right now will go like hotcakes once this baby is fired up.

  23. Valleywatcher

    February 17, 2008 at 11:23 am

    Thanks for this, Gary. The problem your photos highlight is much, much worse in the autumn and winter when the air is still, the inversion is at its worst and there is fog as well.

    Launceston residents have been given small financial incentives to replace woodheaters with electric heating, while this polluter is allowed to emit far more particulate matter than hundreds of woodheaters without being accountable. Perhaps it is time the LCC bit the bullet and fined this polluter bigtime or shut it down until it installs low-emission equipment to replace the 19th century technology it is currently using. No doubt this gung-ho attitude will carry across to any other enterprises this company hopes to get up and running.

    While all this pollution from one source is going into the Launceston airshed, people with woodheaters deemed to be ‘too smoky’ are landed with hefty fines by the Smoke Police.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top