The science of testing drinking water is very much settled and the tests done on St Helens drinking water since the problems with the oysters in 2004 have all shown the drinking water to be safe. What is unclear is the science related to toxins in the surface scum of the river. This is ‘raw’ water, yet to be treated and any organic matter floating on the surface is unlikely to be included in the sub surface extraction of the water to be filtered and treated to become drinking water.

The uncertainty of the science of the relationship between finding toxicity in testing in the laboratory and to relate that to human health in the real world is explained in the extended interview with Dr Fiona Young, most of which did not make it the broadcast version of Australian story but can be found on the ABC’s program Web site. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/somethingwatertwo/default.htm
The Tasmanian Health authorities have already announced that they have contacted Dr Young and have announced that “DHHS is working with the scientists involved and other experts to see what the test results mean for human health”.

For those looking to verify the author’s concerns of an orchestrated campaign to raise this issue for the Tasmanian election, perhaps that ‘independent’ web site Source Watch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pollution_Information_Tasmania lists three of the main protagonists of the TV show, Dr Bleaney, Dr Obendorf and Environment Tasmania.

Even the ABC’s own Peter Cundall gets a mention as patron of fund raising for this organisation, set up by political lobby groups Environment Tasmania and the National Toxic Network. Perhaps the ABC did not check with Source Watch before promoting their story.

Hi Mark
Thanks for this article.

I watched "something in the water" completely aghast at the lack of rigour applied to the 'information' presented... was this supposed to be journalism?

How could the ABC think that it is OK to run a public health scare campaign of this nature? This was particularly disturbing knowing that the shows producers were aware of the depth of information that questioned Dr Blaineys hypothesis, but they chose to hide this information on the web site, leaving the general viewing public unduly concerned about water quality.

I hope the ABC's media watch have a look at this.
I hope the programs producers & the ABC management are made to explain their motives in releasing such public mis-information.
This is really disappointing stuff from the public broadcaster.

thanks again
Dean

The ABC produces some excellent ploitical commentary in appropiate programs. However, "Australian Story" is not such a program, and the appaling bad program that resulted is a disgrace to the ABC!

Mark, A very interesing critique.

The timing and key messages were certainly brought into question for me, when I read the following part of the transcript:

"DR CHRIS HICKEY, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WATER AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH,NZ: Since our original experiments we designed a second series of experiments whereby we would chemically analyse both leaf material from eucalyptus nitens and foam material, and then follow that up with bioassays with both our fresh water cladocerans and our blue mussels. So this is some sort of forensic toxicology work that we’re doing. What we’ve been able to do is come very close to showing that there’s a common chemical fraction in both the eucalyptus nitens leaves and in the toxicity in the foams. So from that we really feel we’re very close to being able to confirm that the eucalyptus nitens is the primary source of toxicity in the foams. We just haven’t been able to actually get down to the final fingerprinting and molecular weight determinations which will give us our final linkage to the eucalyptus nitens."

Despite the above admission, the story went ahead. A more professional scientific approach would have dealt with the issue long ago. Very poor investigative journalism.

Johno.

Calling Public sphere worshippers

I sent Media Watch a tip-off last week, they don't invariably reject tipoffs about other ABC programs but they do tend to go a little soft. Maybe a few more tipoffs will help, so send your nomination as well.

Send it straight to the producer, and include a ditty in 25 words or less why the ABC Australian Story failed in its duty to present an undistorted public sphere in this case. All for a Logie!

mediawatch@your.abc.net.au
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tipoffs.htm

If anyone knows Groucho, could you go by and see if he's OK?

I'm just worried because he normally posts a novel's worth of invective after any of Mark's items, and this time there's nothing.