To suggest that the program "Something in the water" was held over till an election is somewhat of a furphy; both the Liberal and Labor parties are in accord in relation to forestry issues.

The oyster farmers at St Helens were aware something untoward was happening to their stock and paid for scientific study to ascertain what was occuring.

There is a widespread perception in Tasmania that the government cannot be trusted; rightly or wrongly?
It is for that reason I believe that Dr Bleaney and Dr Scammell have been caggy about where their information goes.
The personal attacks on their credibility suggests they were wise in such a strategy. What is being ignored is that their research has been peer reviewed giving what has been done so far credibility.

In a previous official study there was acknowledgement of toxins being present in the water; however, the effect of those toxins was discounted.

The matter is now to be be officially investigated, and a carbon filter has been put in place.

Ngarmada
I don't disagree with you that there are negative public perceptions about Tasmania, particularly on the mainland, but as you yourself have conceded that doesn't mean they are always right.

I can only speak about forestry matters because that is my area of expertise, but invariably when you know something about the issue in question you can easily see the holes in the way it is reported.

A very good example is the proposed Tasmanian pulp mill. From the start, its proponents and the Tasmanian government said it would not use wood from "old growth" forests, although it would use some native regrowth timber for 5 years when it would then be totally reliant on plantation wood. It would also be built in an industrial precinct near the mouth of the Tamar River close to existing industrial infrastructure including export woodchip facilities which have operated for 35 years.

Yet, mainland audiences were initially informed by the media that the pulpmill would destroy Tasmania's "old growth" forests and trash the pristine Tamar Valley! This perception still persists in the mainland community even though over time the media has reported the issue far more accurately. The damage is largely done by the initial coverage.

I would contend that this skewed initial reporting occurred because the media simply parroted without question the views of those opposed to the pulp mill. This is exactly what has happened with this Australian Story episode which was embellished with a range of things which either aren't true or are only partially true, as I have detailed in the article. Documenting the failure of the ABC to fully investigate and objectively present this issue is an attempt to ensure it doesn't happen again.

hugagogo
You are being disingenuous methinks. I did not raise the subject of GMO out of thin air, it was raised on Australian Story. It is the GM eucalypts that are causing the water to become toxic - toxicity can originate from 'natural'causes as well as not.

ant and RobP's comments echo my feelings about the matter.

There is distrust towards the Tas State Government for whatever reason, mainly due to the shenanigans and perceived political wrongdoings over Gunn's.

Regardless, the fact is if the environmentalists had not raised their concerns and findings the carbon solution would not have been offerred. Why is it always so difficult for environmentists to be heard over the interersts of forestry groups?

Each case should stand on its own merit with proper scrutiny rather than the usual anti-green reactionary knee jerk response from government and pro-forestry groups.

examinator
Are you really Graham Y in disguise? :)

To Pelican and ant
Your mention of the new carbon filter highlights another shortcoming of the Australian Story in failing to say that the water was already being treated and therefore implying that what was being sampled from the river was the same as the water being drunk in St Helens. The fact that the river water has always been treated was highlighted by the Director of Public Health after the program.

Whether this new filter significantly improves the existing treatment process I don't know, but it could well be just an action designed to appease the unnecessary hysteria created by the program.

Pelican, your ongoing conviction that the trees are GM when they are not only further highlights the damage to the truth done by this program.

Examinator

Love your work, mate.

A quick question:

Who has the greater political and financial clout?

The forestry industry such as Gunns?

Or

Oyster farmers and a G.P.?

There's something in the water and not just the chemicals.

Further, those critical of the ABC for its temerity in questioning the forestry industry gods, where else would such important topics be disseminated? On Nine, Seven or Ten?

MCPoynter, I would refer to my initial post on this article, that; “[1] the author of the article has failed to declare his own vested interest in the issue …. People in glass houses etc.”

Although I am a professional in the field of management, my family are land owners and several have maintained long term careers in logging. The brother of my father was killed while logging, in the type of terrain helicopters are now used to extract the timber.

His death was not as a result of negligence, but owing to one of the many unforeseen variables attributed to the practice. He undertook the problem himself owing to his decision not to allow one of his crew exposure to that risk. He was a professional. I retain the personal ability to fell a tree and extract it.

Therefore I am aware of both the rigour and discipline required in that field, and the extensive demands the industry places upon the land and environment. Trees are by nature very hungry, especially big ones.

I am not anti logging, I am pro sustainable industry. That you are aware of the rigour, discipline, and demand required in the industry of logging, I suggest it reasonable to expect your application of the same to your argument.

For how may others have confidence in your argument, if you consider bending the rules of debate to suit your own vested interest, while coincidently whinging about others applying the same lack of integrity? It is indeed disingenuous.

Because others are not aware of the practice of the forest industry, does not mean they are stupid.