The announced investigation by the chairman of the Environmental Protection Authority, John Ramsay into the crisis that emerged from the ABC1, Australian Story regarding toxins in the George River is a totally inadequate response.
The Premier’s investigation by this partial authority treats the details of this crisis with contempt while disregarding the opinions and concerns of Dr Bleaney and Dr Scammell.
The EPA is a partial authority because it is deeply implicated in this crisis. The Director of the EPA, Warren Jones is also the General Manager of the Environment Division. Under Warren Jones’ authority a parallel study into water quality in the George River was carried out in 2005. This investigation discovered toxins. Yet what did this authority do?
It decided not to investigate any further. It did not carry out further studies to find out which organisms are killed by the toxin. Rather, the Environment Division simply concluded on the basis of no evidence that the toxins “are produced by native forests” and therefore OK.
It is this organisation that the Premier has appointed to find the right answers. Is this a strategy to keep the facts of the case hidden until after the election?
It is essential that a proper, impartial investigation is held into all the implications of this crisis. The EPA is unable to do that and neither is the Director of Public Health, Dr Roscoe Taylor who has his reputation on the line over this whole affair.
Roscoe Taylor is reported in the Mercury Newspaper (24/02/10) to have said that the water in the George River ‘is safe to drink’. How would he know? He has not yet bothered to inform himself of the details of the investigation paid for by Dr Bleaney and Dr Scammell.
Rather, he bases his confidence on one detail: that the toxic scum floats on the top of the river and drinking water is taken from below the surface. In his press statement of 23/02/10 he says that this surface scum, ‘has no relevance to public health.’ Yet what consumer in Tasmania will be content to drink water that has poison floating on the top?
‘Safe to drink’ is a surprising thing to say at a time when not all the relevant facts have been brought to light.
The other troubling feature of this crisis is the question of whether these plantation nitens are genetically modified. If they are then someone has breached the GM Free status of Tasmania. Terry Edwards from the Forest Industries Association categorically denies any suggestion that these trees have been genetically modified (Examiner Newspaper 24/02/10).
His statement stands in stark contrast to Forestry Tasmania’s own web site which refers to ‘the continuing advancement of the E.nitens genetic improvement’. Edwards’ statement also contrasts with answers given in the Senate on the 9th November 2000 to a question from Senator Bob Brown. Revealed on Tasmanian Times: HERE
On that day Senator Herron, Minister for Health and Aged Care confirmed the Forestry Tasmania’s web site statement by telling the world that research by the University of Tasmania was genetically transforming E. nitens and E.globulus (Shining and blue gums).
What is the truth about gm plantation nitens? The public has a right to know the truth about these toxic trees.
John Ramsay’s behind-doors look at his own Department’s inadequate study will not provide the public with any confidence that this matter is been dealt with appropriately.
The Premier should immediately announce his support for an Integrity Commission Inquiry into this whole crisis.
