To rexw (Comment no.2):

I can accept the tag of writing from a viewpoint of self-interest as, after all, the profession of forestry which I represent is intimately involved with this matter. However, why should foresters be invalidated from speaking up about things they know about as you appear to be suggesting by labelling me as biased? Who else is qualified to correct the misconceptions contained in the Australian Story if not people who are associated with the issue? Is it in the public interest to let things 'through to the keeper' which are obviously wrong?

I agree that Tasmanians should be very interested in this story, but they deserve a fair portrayal of the issue as a whole, not a skewed portrayal which ignores the views of people/agencies who are involved in it. It is surely in the Tasmanian public's interest to hear the views of groups such as the CRC for Forestry which is based in Hobart, and the plantation industry itself which could have easily clarified issues such as the 'genetic improvement' of E.nitens, the non-effect of pesticides on the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour, and the research that has already been done into water quality in relation to forestry.

If the ABC refuses or neglects to give these bodies a chance to participate in the program, it can only be regarded as either bias or poor journalism. By all means the ABC should cover stories such as this, but they should cover it objectively by canvassing all views during its documentation, not wait until a few days before it is to be screened to ask for alternate views which it knows cannot be included in the program. Add that behavior to the timing of the program's screening during an election campaign, and what is one to think?

Pelican,

The eucalypts in question are not Genetically Modified in the sense that GM or GMO implies; and Bleaney’s evidence is unconvincing.

I struggle with your intent with the phrase “assertions about the effect of genetically modified eucalypts necessarily wrong or right”. Whatever it means, why bring ‘Genetically Modified’ into it? It’s not done in E. nitens breeding. And the difference is pertinent; the ABC program darkly hinted at the illegal deployment of time-bomb Frankenstein trees with Andromeda strain DNA inserted that may somehow kill some innocent punters, when in fact it is only simple selection, mainly for growth rate and straightness, among a bunch of saplings raised from seeds collected from a few hundred mother trees in Victoria. I know the guys who raise the seeds. I managed some of the mother tree collections in Victoria in 1992. It’s straight down the line stuff. So as in the Parrot sketch, GMO don’t enter into it. You have to be precise with this. If you were you were being mischievous. If not, sloppy. OK, maybe there's a third option- if so you were being inscrutable!

Part 2 coming

Pelican part 2.

I do recognise that the program was mainly about getting the government to acknowledge there is a problem that needs further 'impartial' investigation. That’s what Australian Story does - provides a last ditch blaze of glory for folks who feel that nobody has listened to them.

But the précis of evidence Bleaney placed for public perusal on the Tasmanian Times website indicates why no-one has listened. It may be ‘classic toxicology’ according to a breathless PhD laboratory chick oft quoted, but the sampling strategy (number and location of collection sites, replications, flow conditions un-stated) and the sample size likely to be very small, but again un-stated. The results were not statistically tested, suggesting an ‘n’ of not much above one. It’s probably just noise.

I genuinely don’t think there is enough there to warrant a proper study. I don’t think the Tasmanian Chief health officer does either. I don't even think Bleaney does! BTW, The activated carbon powder filter they’re placing in the St Helens Water plant is definitely a placebo.

Of course it would be irresponsible for a doctor to ignore an increase in unusual illnesses, but the trouble is again that claim hasn’t been coherently expressed, merely hinted; the data is under wraps, maybe that’s GP privilege; but it hardly helps me assess the veracity of the story. Surely if it was compelling it could stand open scrutiny.

Beer O'clock

See ya.

The ABC may well be biased, but if its reports challenge the entrenched biases already out there in society, what's the matter with that?

So, to those criticising the ABC, is Gunns and the Tasmanian government biased towards development in the easiest and most cost-minimal way possible? Does the public service suffer from inertia, such that it downs tools unless and until it has a red-hot poker inserted somewhere? Do governments go into cover-up mode when there's the chance they will have to pay compensation to those it has financially penalised or otherwise disadvantaged via its decisions?

AT the very least, the questioning and challenging is welcome. If it helps to get to the full truth, even better.

Pelican, pelican pelican ;-)

Clearly you don't understand! Opinion, particularly a self interested short term one, out weights science every time.

To some misguided individuals on OLO, like you and I, don't seem to realize that the way to refute something you feel is outrageous and based on alleged science is to make even more outrageous statements without any science to back it up (refer para 1).

Apart from which business is without any shadow of doubt, altruistic to a fault (that it isn't in the least) and would never consider it's interests above that of humans.

And clearly the bigger the industry the more altruistic it is That's why they're called "life science corporations" to distinguish them from the "robber barons", the majority of the people . Hell, they should all be revered.

The good honest (well self serving anyway) perspective, needed to run a business cutting down incredibly cheap non renewed resources (it takes too long),and their supporters must be intellectually, morally more advanced.

Perish the thought that anti them spin is more evil than their self-serving exploitist Ludditism.

Clearly interstellar concepts like objectivity, is for (spit), urban conservationists (aka a working democracy) and the scourge of the world, science, must be all be an insidious Cominusts, comyoonalists, commoonists, damn greenie plot. :-)

RobP, what a great idea. Lets have the ABC challenge all these things.

Now when we hear them challenge the global warming rubbish we cop every day, I'll agree with you.

While the only thing they do is support the crackpot theories of activists, they are just a waste of space, & our money.