This article highlights the bias of the ABC. The Australian story featured as on screen text the paraphrasing of findings on government water testing conducted in 2005 by DPIWE.

The full text of this finding was available to the ABC and includes the statement: “Toxicity testing carried out by the Analytical Services Tasmania laboratory at the University of Tasmania revealed only natural compounds you would expect to find in any untouched, remote Tasmanian river. “

On this basis the Director of Public Health wrote to the local council on the safety of drinking water and the issue of toxicity in the surface scum, in March 2005 and stated: “I am advised that the same properties were observed in a sample of scum taken from a tributary well upstream of any agricultural or forestry activity ...
The community should be made aware that the issue has no relevance to the drinking water supply. The off-take of the town supply is at least 1 metre below the surface of the river ... the town drinking water supply has been demonstrated to be safe and there is no evidence to suggest any public health threat.”

Yet the ABC poytrayed Dr Bleaney as being ignored, however as a result of Dr Bleaney's January 2005 letter, Water samples were collected on the 14, 15 and 23 February 2005 by DPIWE staff and submitted to Analytical Services Tasmania (AST) for chemical and toxicological examination.

A full report of these tests was made on 7 March 2005 and is still available at the DPIPWE web site http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/?base=233

The ABC Australian story, paraphrased these findings as on screen text, during its second episode.
"The scum was analysed and found to contain organic compounds from 'naturally produced vegetation such as ti-tree and eucalypts'. These organic compounds are common and natural."

The ABC chose not to fully explain these findings if had done so there would have been no need for the alarm caused by the program.

I am starting to wonder what the ABC has in the pipeline for broadcast just before the coming elections, both federal and in the major states.

Maybe we need a ban on such controversial programmes six months out from an election except where the programme manager is satisfied that criminal activities are involved.

I know I for one will discount any future ABC claims or views on forest and other environmental matters particularly when an election is looming. And I seldom listen to or watch any commercial stations.

Foyle, "Maybe we need a ban on such controversial programmes six months out from an election.."

Censorship always finds an excuse.

Freedom of speech is the very best protection and that freedom is under constant threat.

Being a great fan of the ABC its a great mystery to me as to how come the ABC has not put Australian Story to the sword.

Sorry, but the decision was actually made without taking all the evidence into account. This blocking of scientific data is typical of the state government - shovel everything under the carpet to let it ferment until the stink becomes impossible to ignore.

I'm no great fan of forestry, but 'Something in the water' was an absolute disgrace. Given the level of distress and anxiety this tendentious and biased program has caused in some Tasmanian communities, it is incumbent upon the ABC to at least make a public apology to the people of Tasmania.