cinders,

If the science is unclear as you quote the Tasmanian Health Department as stating, what are they doing to make the science more clear? Or is it a case of them wanting the issue to stay as murky for as long as possible so that the Tassie politicians etc can make good their getaway and/or get re-elected?

If it's good enough for you that the ABC eliminates its bias, it should also be demanded that the relevant government agencies, through a Ministerial missive, drop the obfuscation and get to the bottom of the issue. Then prove who, if anyone, was pulling swifties and the reasons why. First lift the rock and then let the cards fall where they may.

RobP

I was right there with you until:

"First lift the rock and then let the cards fall where they may."

That deserves a place in the book of mixed metaphors - well done.

Another point or two.

An article trying to vilify the ABC rather than get to the issue - contamination due to forestry practices. Suspicious? Yes.

Then an attack on science; round and round we go. An attack on the science of those who have brought the existence of contamination to public attention. But no such examination of the practices of both government and industry. Suspicious? Duh?!?

Then the usual cat-calls: << You must be anti jobs, forest plantations, capitalism, life, the universe and everything.

When what we could be doing is moving towards alternatives to wood-chipping, like hemp, papyrus, bamboo. Focus on plantation timber and leave old forest alone.

Of course this means change, it might mean that companies like Gunns don't make so much money (for failure to diversify) and the Tassie government of the present and future will lose a nice little cash cow.

Why is this all sounding like debates we have had over tobacco, still having over climate change.

Far easier to target GP's, farmers and dear old auntie.

A well written article when you consider the views are bought and paid for by the forestry industry with no basis in fact. Why is it that the forestry industry hates debate? Gunns has led the way with its injunctions against critics, and now the messenger (the ABC) is once again the target.

I am surprised that anyone finds that the ABC branch of the ALP is
biased in any way!
Seriously, I am an avid ABC watcher, but I am aware of the bias so it
does not affect me.

My son who worked at the ABC for some considerable time told me when
he started there he was told not to tell anyone if he was a Liberal
voter. It affects career opportunities.
His comment was that the gays are all out in the open, but the closet
is full of Liberal voters !

So my advice is note and relax, you can't do anything about it and
just take it into account and enjoy the good programs.

>>That deserves a place in the book of mixed metaphors - well done.<<

Severin,

OK, I missed a bit that it seems I should have spelled out.

First, lift the rock and let the sunshine in. Then let the light do its disinfectant work and separate out the truth from the fiction and the good guys from the bad guys. Once the rock is lifted, it's natural that the cards will fall where they may. Given Gunn's and the Government's stake in Tasmanian forstery, it's not all that surprising that the rock's not being lifted.

Bazz,

>>Seriously, I am an avid ABC watcher, but I am aware of the bias so it does not affect me<<
and
>>So my advice is note and relax, you can't do anything about it and
just take it into account and enjoy the good programs.<<

I agree exactly. Sometimes when I watch these programs I see things from another, interesting perspective. I find that ABC programs fill in society's blind spots.

Pelican

Everyone wants to haggle about trees, rather than the main fact that Bleaney and/or her acolytes have distorted the public sphere, and whether or not the ABC is complicit. At least Jon Laws took the risk for cash; the ABC folk probably took the risk for a Logie.

And now I'm disingenuous? I'm hurt! But you'd say I'm being insincere about that too.

Have you satisfied yourself what comprises a GMO, and why the E. nitens (native and planted) in Australia are not that?

Bleaney point 1 vanishes.

Have you satisfied yourself why rudimentary selection for a bit of unpalatability to possums could not possibly cause a fundamental change in chemical composition, or an order of magnitude change in the toxicity of leaf drip? Then did you apply that infinitesimal change (if any) to the planted areas versus the rest of the catchment, then and pondered the modification of these organic molecules as they flow through the leaf litter and soil and countless biological processes as they make their way to the St Mary's water supply?

Bleaney point 2 vanishes amidst mile wide error bars.

Case closed. But they've got everyone excited. So the govt puts a Carbon filter on St Helen’s water. Erm, how good are carbon filters? It could just be a big fat empty fitting cut into the pipe with a big "St Helen's Council Cares" graven on the side. Just like a fat exhaust on a Campbell town hoon's Hyundai. Same stuff in, same out. More noise. Whether it's functional or not, it is a PLACEBO to keep the tourists coming.

But to conclusively test GP Bleaney's assertion (either way) would have a massive cost, and before we start this, the burden of proof is definitely Bleaney et al. and they haven't provided it.

Despite this, however if you and society now wants to insist on routine catchment wide (gotta be fair) water sampling, chemical analysis and interpretation, you should be aware of the colossal price, and be able to muster the political will (e.g. a majority) to make it happen.