Re #8; Very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black! – in terms of giving it a rest, Sabina01.
It was Dr Bonham (#4 above) who noted ‘I can’t see any discussion of the exact location or nature of sampling sites beyond that they were all downstream of plantations’. That justifies my comment, period.
Perhaps it is appropriate to state the basics of what is known and what is not known.
The knowns include: There is a toxin in either the water or certainly in the foam that develops in the George river that is toxic to Daphnia (water fleas).
This toxin kills cell lines in laboratory tests. However, these cell lines are grown under sterile conditions and it would be useful if more information was provided about the susceptibility of these cells to a range of external factors (I don’t know enough about this but perhaps Sabina01, who writes at least as much or more than me, could enlighten us on this point).
Drs Scammel and Bleaney allege that this may be responsible for a range of human health problems around St Helens. Dr Roscoe Taylor, the Chief Health Officer for Tasmania, disputes that statistically, these particular problems are different to other locations.
Drs Scammel and Bleaney draw a line also to oyster health problems in St Georges Bay (and also to DFTD which point has been rebutted repeatedly by Dr Bonham).
Drs Scammell and Bleaney allege that this toxin originates from E. nitens plantations up in the George River catchment.
They, and Dr Hickey, carried out their foam/sampling apparently only below the E. nitens plantations.
Dr Taylor has announced that the matter will be investigated.
Dr Scammell has stated that he will not provide his data to the State authorities. This sits at odds with Dr Bleaney’s human health concerns.
The unknowns include:
The key factor of the identity of the toxin alleged to come from the plantations.
Whether this toxin has a causal relationship to either human health, or oyster disease.
Whether there are other observable problems such as fish health in the streams in the catchment.
Was it only foamy samples tested or was water tested away from foam. That to me still is not clear, but perhaps I’ve missed something.
All valid, but the matter cannot go forward until the toxin is identified.
