Some of the points raised by the author can also be used to discredit forestry corporations - the idea of government funding as an immediate sign of ill-doing vis a vis the community group. So what if this community group is funded - so are corporations in many ways via corporate welfare and a strong lobby influence on goverment. This does not make the assertions about the effect of genetically modified eucalypts necessarily wrong or right.

This program was mainly about getting the government to acknowledge there is a problem that needs further 'impartial' investigation.

cinder's link reveals that the government is now using activated carbon powder to further treat the water so there was a positive outcome and a short term solution until further study can be undertaken.

It would be irresponsible for a doctor to ignore an increase in unusual illnesses in a small area like St Helen's and for the oyster farmers (not usually environmentalists) to join the cause to seek answers.

There are many vested interests in GMO as well but that is not mentioned by the author of this article.

the biggest load of old boll@cks i have read in years...the article..and most of the comments..LOL

Yes, I thought there was something odd about the program too and I'm pro old growth although I'm not tree hugging feral.

They backgrounded the doctor from the Falklands which gave her 'hero status' and then edited to her good work in Tassie. The narrative was of a caring doc (which I'm sure she is) fighting against the Tassie Government, the bureaucracy, etc. That reinforces the hero stuff.

But like Ulysseus, she stuck to her gunns (sorry) and with a little help found that there were toxins in the water. That leaves the reader with a sense of completeness, that goodness will triumph over evil and that all is right in the world.

Absolute bollocks. The program needed much more equanimity and distance. The reporter advocated for - short of consorting with the doctor - for an opinion, which she, herself created and which was the only opinion that people could 'deduce' from being presented with an narrative like that. That is bias.

Pelican, lobbing the GMO card indicates either (i) you are not across the issues or (ii) that you wish to further inflame the passions of the eco-gullible.

E.Sykes, scorn is fine but is more effectively served garnished your doubtless devastating counterpoint. You must have accidently hit POST half way through. Or it that it?

I have noted, in recent years that, whenever the ABC is mentioned in meetings of my forestry and global warming friends there is a cynical laugh. How can we take this organisation with its very obvious political left and conservation green philosophies seriously?
My complaints have been rejected with protestatioons that their Code of Conduct prevents them from crossing the bias line.
Bovine excrement.

hugoagogo

My comments were expressing the opinion that some of the arguments laid at the door of the doctor, oyster farmers and the ABC could easily be used against the forestry industry's relationship with the Tasmania Government.

The eucalypt plantations in the St Georges area were a particular variety that had been genetically modified. Tests revealed the amount of 'natural' toxin from the eucalypts was more potent and at higher levels in the water catchment than usual for that species.

My argument was the GMO and forestry industry has much to lose if those claims are verified by further investigation.

How is that inflammatory?

Could you please explain the issues that I am not across.