Without Drs Scammell and Bleaney having put a lot of energy and resource into testing the water quality of the George River the carbon filter would not have been put in place.

The oyster farmers I understand have had to change their mode of farming to be more labour intensive ( costly) to ensure quality of stock.

The ABC program did show scathing comments against Drs Bleaney and Scammell from the former Minister Steve Cons and the Mayor of the Municipality. So it is unfair to suggest that the program was completely one sided.

Drs Bleaney and Scammell realized after their first report that they needed to be more rigorous in their follow up study and did indicate it had to be within the means of them and their supporters.
They did show in their subsequent research that an official follow up study should be done, and it would be negligent if it was not.

this is the latest advice from the Director of Public Health on the issue more details at the web site www.dhhs.tas.gov.au, lets see how the ABC report it!

St Helens water supply update

Director of Public Health Dr Roscoe Taylor has again written to St Helens residents in conjunction with the Mayor of Break O’Day Council and Ben Lomond Water providing the community with an update on their drinking water supply. (letter on web site).

The letter includes the results of recent water testing in the George River for common compounds from eucalyptus trees.

“I’m pleased to be able to inform residents that testing done on treated and untreated water samples taken from the George River last weekend has come back negative to common compounds from eucalypts.

“This is helpful information and should provide residents with an extra level of assurance about their drinking water supply.

“Previous testing in 2005 looked at concentrated surface foam and scum. As might be expected, this did show eucalyptus leaf compounds in the foam. These latest samples were from the body of the water itself where the drinking water is drawn.

“Interestingly, another sample taken from a different river (not used for drinking water) within a native forest did show the presence of a very small amount of a eucalyptus substance.

“I am still waiting to hear more about the work that is reportedly underway to identify the chemical makeup of the alleged tree toxin which was highlighted by the recent Australian Story program.

“The letter also highlights that the Tasmanian Cancer Registry has now examined preliminary data for 2007 and advised that there is no indication of rising cancer rates in the area,” Dr Taylor said.

The letters were sent yesterday and should start arriving in letter boxes today.

More information about St Helens water quality and the Department of Health and Human Service’s original investigation can be found at www.dhhs.tas.gov.a

Pelican,
You'll go to a Liberal/Anglican hell for that besmirching GY, He's well connected with both groups you know.:-)
_____________________________________________

Mr Poynter Please excuse me not using exclusive caps but We do know your name, shouting doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Re your defensive comment about Forestry, yes I do know what is involved for similar reasons to Ngarmada albeit not so tragic.

I would draw your attention, to the fact that given the amount of science information out there, it is virtually impossible for you in a working environment to be across all the issues that maybe involved.

There is no such a thing today as a polymath that know everything about a composite of disciplines that are covered by forestry.

This the era of specializations and thereby collaboration is the only sensible way to being across most of potentially relevant issues.

You clearly, exude a defensive contempt for *any* opinion that might impact your *business/industry*. Frankly, it's attitudes like that which engenders the 'us against them', misunderstood perception, of which you complain.

As a suggestion, hire a competent PR company, if you want to change opinions, You're not very good at it. You need to prove your assertions it with facts/science. The question that came to me was where is your professionalism as a business person/industry professional?

If any of my senior staff ever put out something like that, they would have lost their crayon writing rights, toot sweet!

Let's be clear, The ABC is a media organization and conflict/drama get viewers. It's the political influence for a measurable standard, that demands viewers.
Sure it has *that* over all interest, but to make the claims you do without hard facts it's self defeating.

Your implication that the ABC is more interested about swaying the election is ludicrous. As discussed they're more interested in entertaining the bulk of viewers i.e. the mainland and Tassie viewers.
It come across as yet, (Yawn), another mildly paranoid minority person stamping their foot. Hence my original satired response.

MWPOYNTER
If the show misrepresented the plantation as being GM when it is not then that, agreed,is irresponsible. The jury is still out on that one. The point is that the water was found to be toxic - whether the crops were GM or hybrids does not change the fact water toxicity was high.

The water in the catchment area was treated but the addition of carbon was a later one after the environmental findings were presented. It should be acknowledged the Tas Government did not ignore the findings but surely it is important to discover the source of toxicity.

The media can also be a useful way of ensuring all sides are kept honest (or as honest as possible). Do you believe the carbon would have been added if this was not bought to the attention of first local media and later the national media.

However, the forestry industry has not always been honest, neither has the Tasmanian Government on forestry matters.

I am not anti-plantation, in fact plantation timber helps to ensure the survival of old growth forests (when governments and logging companies follow the rules).

The Dr and the oyster farmers (hardly extremists)should be applauded for bringing this to the public and government attention, not derided and maligned by the forestry corporates.

The ABC news has finally posted its report advising Tasmanians the of the Director of Public health’s letter to residents at St Helens.

“The Tasmanian Health Department has written to St Helens residents reassuring them they face no danger from the town's water supply.
The drinking water supply has been the subject of toxicity claims first aired by the ABC's Australian Story program.
The Director of Public Health Roscoe Taylor says the letter updates residents on the latest testing of water for known chemicals from eucalyptus trees.
He says the results were negative.
"We're reaffirming to residents that the science so far is very unclear and that the scientists involved in the Australian Story program also say that their work is very preliminary on their toxicity testing and it has nor relevance yet on human health," Dr Taylor said.”

Will we see that this advice is broadcast on Monday night to inform Australian Story watchers throughout the nation, or will the audience be left with the biased and unbalanced impression that the drinking water is so toxic it is causing cancer.

If the ABC had included such findings, these are consistent with all previous drinking water tests, I wonder if the opinion poll, taken in the week immediately after the broadcast of the first part of Australian Story whould so strongly favoured the greens after a massive swing against the ALP.

The tone Mr. Poytner tries to set is one of an objective scientific observer; yet, he makes many comments which cannot be claimed to be scientific. His comments about the ABC can only be construed as being personal opinion. He also tries to denigrate the motives of Dr Bleaney in the research she carried out through indicating her involvement with the National Toxics Network, Doctors for the Environment, and Poisons Tasmania etc one would hope that GPs do have an interest in toxins and poisons and their effect on humans and other organisms.

The Act that allows the establishment of the new Pulp Mill makes it difficult to allow for Vineyard owners or others to make claims should they have evidence to suggest that the proposed mill pollutes their property, or has some other adverse financial impact on an already developed industry. It does not promote confidence in government (Liberal and Labor Parties ) in protecting the interests of small business and individuals in general.
The original RPDC process set up to investigate the new mill was scuttled as it asked too many difficult questions about the new mills processes; and so, the RPDC was scuttled and political processes were utilized.

Despite assurances about no old growth forest being utilized by the new mill, if for any reason stocks of plantation timber run low; then, as a matter of course there will be a cry that jobs will be lost unless old growth forests are used. Both Mr. Barlett and Hodgman have stated that old growth forests will be made available for another twenty years.