The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Gunns: getting the facts straight ... > Comments

Gunns: getting the facts straight ... : Comments

By Alan Ashbarry, published 14/9/2007

'Click and send' campaigns encourage ill-informed comment when it comes to the proposed Gunn's pulp mill in Tasmania.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Having grown up about 16km from a pulp and paper mill and now living in Tasmania in the area where it is proposed to build a state of the art mill, I am at a loss as to what the problems are.. I knew of the intention to build this plant prior to electing to live where I am and I am looking to buy the property I am in and fully support the construction of the pulp mill.. Tasmania needs the employment and the wilderness society need to get ovet their arrogance and realise that this will not have any major effect on the surrounding area as they are trying to claim. Watching the ABC presentation, I was impressed with the professionalism shown by the supporters of the project and absolutely speachless at the arrogance shown by the wilderness group representative. As for the Victorian lady who is "building a house in hillwood" you must have known about the possibility of the pulp mill being built when you purchased the land and I would recommend that if you are planning to relocate to Tasmania and do not want to live near this type of industry, then look somewhere else. As for the proposal to relocate to the location south of Bernie, the infrastructure to build this project is already available in the Bell Bay industrial strip and the finished product and raw materials can be brought in and dispatched without any significant increase in inconvenience to the area. Please people, we are in the 21st centuary and the technology is a lot better now than it was when the pulp mill near my home town was built (well over 50 years ago) and the conditions that will be imposed for the operation of this plant will be in accordance with 21st centuary thinking so I cannot see why a project like this that can inject so much into the state should not go ahead.
Posted by skubeedoo, Friday, 14 September 2007 3:36:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skubeedoo, your post is futile. You are just casting pearls before swine. Their complete ignorance of things scientific prevents anything from entering their tiny intellects.

I have yet to discern what their actual opposition is based upon. It is certainly not based on anything scientific.

For instance,
"In contrast the Commonwealth Department of Environment states that dioxins are in fact present in our every day environment and do not pose a health risk at background levels. The Australian health standard “Tolerable Monthly Intake” is 70pg TEQ/kg body weight."

Dioxin is a naturally occurring product of the decay of leaf matter. It is a bit hard to find any of the environment in which it is not present. The problem is that modern analytical methods have reduced the limits of detectability of such toxic substances below the limit of absurdity, so that these cretins have a panic whenever anyone finds any at all.

It is a pity that science is such a difficult subject for those with limited brain function, illogical emotional arguments are all they have left.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 14 September 2007 3:54:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The analysis of the effluent does not address the issues of dioxin concentrations in the sediment. While I realise that some people don't consider the greens a reliable source of accurate information they do provide a good summary of the issue. http://tas.greens.org.au/News/view_MR.php?ActionID=2324

To back that up though I'll quote a report from the Federal Government's National Dioxin Program.
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/chemicals/dioxins/report-12/pubs/report-12.pdf
(see page 118+)

"This study
measured dioxin concentrations in aquatic sediment, but no water samples were
collected for measurement of dioxins in water. Dioxins have very low water solubility
and therefore dioxin concentrations in Australian water are expected to be very low and
are unlikely to contribute significantly to the overall intake of dioxins."

and

"...since aquatic biota may be exposed to contaminated sediment, there is
potential for human dietary exposure to aquatic organisms such as fish and shellfish,
which may bioaccumulate dioxins..."

Given that the mill will be dumping dioxin's in a consistent location, the low solubility of dioxins could mean poor dilution or even a build up in the sediment where the effluent is dispersed. The fact that you don't address the sediment issue means that your analysis fails to show the mill won't cause environmental harm. If (as the greens allege) the Gunns Mill assessment does not consider this, then it too misses a critical point in the analysis.

A further two points I think need to be made:

1) "Best Practice" doesn't imply good enough. Best Practice genocide isn't exactly acceptable.

2) The term "guidelines" implies that they aren't enforced. To actually matter in the context of a profit making corporation, they have to be "regulations" backed by the force of law with active government enforcement. Guidelines can all to readily be ignored in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Posted by Desipis, Friday, 14 September 2007 5:10:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the effluent from the proposed pulp mill is as clean as you would have us believe, why don't we have a proposal for a 'closed loop' system, where the where the effluent outfall from the mill is fed back in as the mill's water supply? This would massively reduce the mill's water use, and remove two of the major objections to the mill - ie effluent and water use.
Posted by Kalophon, Friday, 14 September 2007 6:00:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalophon hits the jackpot with an excellent technical question for -

Mr Ashbarry: Why is this marvellous pulp mill not recycling 99.9 % of the process water
Posted by Taz, Friday, 14 September 2007 6:52:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Dioxin is a naturally occurring product of the decay of leaf matter."

VK3AAU, May we have a reference please?

Errr...I say, VK, why did you omit to advise that dioxins/furans are also formed in industrial processes, manufacturing, waste burning etc, chlorinated public water schemes etc?

These processes are responsible for the greater proportion of ambient levels of PCDD/Furans.

I do hope you check first before you buy your fish. One wouldn't want to be eating fish from the Sydney Harbour or the Botany Bay area (and beyond) which is highly contaminated with dioxins. This disgrace is again, a result of regulators' sycophantic alliance with industry!

After all scientists knew of the dangers of dioxins some fifty years prior to industry dumping dioxin contaminated effluent into Sydney's waterways!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 14 September 2007 10:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy