This article highlights the bias of the ABC. The Australian story featured as on screen text the paraphrasing of findings on government water testing conducted in 2005 by DPIWE.

The full text of this finding was available to the ABC and includes the statement: “Toxicity testing carried out by the Analytical Services Tasmania laboratory at the University of Tasmania revealed only natural compounds you would expect to find in any untouched, remote Tasmanian river. “

On this basis the Director of Public Health wrote to the local council on the safety of drinking water and the issue of toxicity in the surface scum, in March 2005 and stated: “I am advised that the same properties were observed in a sample of scum taken from a tributary well upstream of any agricultural or forestry activity ...
The community should be made aware that the issue has no relevance to the drinking water supply. The off-take of the town supply is at least 1 metre below the surface of the river ... the town drinking water supply has been demonstrated to be safe and there is no evidence to suggest any public health threat.”

Yet the ABC poytrayed Dr Bleaney as being ignored, however as a result of Dr Bleaney's January 2005 letter, Water samples were collected on the 14, 15 and 23 February 2005 by DPIWE staff and submitted to Analytical Services Tasmania (AST) for chemical and toxicological examination.

A full report of these tests was made on 7 March 2005 and is still available at the DPIPWE web site http://www.environment.tas.gov.au/?base=233

The ABC Australian story, paraphrased these findings as on screen text, during its second episode.
"The scum was analysed and found to contain organic compounds from 'naturally produced vegetation such as ti-tree and eucalypts'. These organic compounds are common and natural."

The ABC chose not to fully explain these findings if had done so there would have been no need for the alarm caused by the program.

I am starting to wonder what the ABC has in the pipeline for broadcast just before the coming elections, both federal and in the major states.

Maybe we need a ban on such controversial programmes six months out from an election except where the programme manager is satisfied that criminal activities are involved.

I know I for one will discount any future ABC claims or views on forest and other environmental matters particularly when an election is looming. And I seldom listen to or watch any commercial stations.

Foyle, "Maybe we need a ban on such controversial programmes six months out from an election.."

Censorship always finds an excuse.

Freedom of speech is the very best protection and that freedom is under constant threat.

Being a great fan of the ABC its a great mystery to me as to how come the ABC has not put Australian Story to the sword.

Sorry, but the decision was actually made without taking all the evidence into account. This blocking of scientific data is typical of the state government - shovel everything under the carpet to let it ferment until the stink becomes impossible to ignore.

I'm no great fan of forestry, but 'Something in the water' was an absolute disgrace. Given the level of distress and anxiety this tendentious and biased program has caused in some Tasmanian communities, it is incumbent upon the ABC to at least make a public apology to the people of Tasmania.

The problem here in Tassie is that some (not all, but some) environmentalists claim "corruption" in government, in society or wherever, as the starting point of their case rather than actually present the evidence for their claims. The lack of evidence is usually touted as proof of the corruption because governments/business etc "withhold" it in some kind of unspecified conspiracy. Then their friends at the ABC see the chance for an easy story. No research, no hard work, just interview someone claiming corruption. It's very poor journalism.

Most conspiracy theorists are not turned into "heroes" by the media, for the obvious reason that most are crazy. The able investigative journalists have these cranks ringing them up all hours. The better news providers do make the occasional error, but they do have some kind of quality control in place. The tabloid papers and low rent current affairs shows do not. With shows like "Australian Story", the ABC does seem to have difficulty at times deciding whether it's a serious news source or a tabloid/low rent rag.

Sounds like there should be a follow up story retracting all claims found to be false. Of course this should be done for similar stories on commercial channels too, including the "A Current Affair" smear pieces found to be wanting.
The timing is suspect...but would have been appropriately "in the public interest" if it were true...Pretty important to get the facts right!
Alas, journalism is going the way of the US where "angle" is primary and the balance of facts is fitted to the "angle" rather than the story itself. Balanced reporting is seen as "wishy washy" and derided by all sides. Sadly also, the more biassed the general media is, the more bias is seen when genuine balanced facts are presented. The lead-up to war is a classic case: anything but jingoism was derided, when in fact dispassionate analysis was most required.
I reckon that some Green activists feel that the gloves are off now, so will resort to exaggeration and dubious timing. This approach must be discouraged for the damage it does to the real green causes, which are real and serious. Of course the anti-green side must be held to account too. The wild claims about "Climate-Gate" have been addressed, yet the hype on that non-event continues..."But there *were* WMDs...".
I reckon there is a concerted campaign to discredit science and professionalism generally. More Chaos and uncertainty suits some people quite nicely: manipulative power does not like impartial knowledge having sway over it's subjects!

Clownfish,

This is a big request.

Please define the 'forestry' of which you 'are no great fan'.

This claim on Australian Story directly hurt a friend of mine in St Helens. He was close to finalising a deal which fell through due to this rubbish, which has caused him and his wife a lot of stress and cost them a lot of money. It's scandalous that this can be allowed to go on, without even an apology.

Cornflower
I did not advocate censorship. The ABC can broadcast whatever they wish provided they do not do so with an electoral result in mind.

The aim of my six month 'gap' was to give time for an adequate response. Do you think it was fair and sensible for a serving MP to lose his seat because of deliberate distortion? That was reported to have happened in this instance.

If we want sensible and decent people to have a role in public life then we have to provide them from adequate protection from deliberately misleading assaults on their integrity and contribution.
Note my exemption where criminal activity is suspected.

That should have been capital-F 'Forestry'; meaning Forestry Tasmania.

Clownfish

So just the two leaps required to gauge your meaning.

A case in point that illustrates how loosely folks use and interpret the word 'forestry'.

Which I'll define as the management of natural or planted forests for values that include (sooner or later) commercial timber production.

And you want an apology from the ABC? I demand more - maybe a head on a stake.

Well, hugo, I called it 'Forestry', 'cos that's what everyone here calls it. Just like 'the Hydro'.

vindicated? proven?
I don't think so.
"denied" maybe.
This story has a long way to run yet

Perhaps a link to the report by the expert and independent panel might show that the report is not a denial but a unbiased report that properly investigated the claims raised by the protaganists in the programs. This link is http://www.georgeriverwater.org.au/index.aspx?base=4486

The panel included Graeme Batley, a Chief Research Scientist in CSIRO’s Environmental Biogeochemistry research program, Dr John McNeil, head of the Monash University School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Christine Crawford,is the Program Leader Natural Resource Management at TAFI (Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute), University of Tasmania, Professor Jim Reid
University of Tasmania’s School of Plant Science, Professor Michael Moore,former Director of the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology and Dr Loius Koehnken

The panel has been convened by the independent Chair of the Board of Tasmania’s Environment Protection Authority, John Ramsay.

Is michael2 suggesting these eminent experts have deliberately denied that there is a health risk to the Public due to the eucalyptus nitens.

The toxicity was confined to the 'scum' collected in the skimmer box both upstream and down stream of plantations. Even the photo, available on the ABC website, of the collection of the foam shows how it was concentrated by the oyster farmer collecting it, this should have been enough for the ABC to at least question the claims being made and to detail in full the findings of the 2005 investigation that showed no public health risk.

Scientific "truth' comes from this sort of 'argy bargy'.
The fact that the toxin kills, that it only travels via saponins, that these are concentrated in plantations and during rain should give us pause. The world is a far more complex than we would like it to be. This sort of contamination is complex and has not been seen before.
Is the author suggesting that the oysters that died committed suicide?
The ABC has done a good job of bring this to our attention. We have a lot more to investigate about this.

clown, no, you wrote 'forestry' - lower case 'f'. It has a definition; which is at least two leaps from your meaning as subsequently stated.

Precision is required if you're not to be misunderstood. I could guess your meaning; many might not.

Typical rant by the hyperbolic Mark Lawson - yet again brandishing his bat and ball and dirtying things up.

Advice and Recommendations of the George's River Panel included:

"The issues raised by Australian Story and the subsequent high level of concern in the community is symptomatic of a catchment in which there is a lack of transparency and available information about catchment activities and how these activities may impact water quality.

"These activities include agriculture, forestry, land (including domestic) and marine based activities and activities by local government. The problem is multi-faceted, and includes:

• The lack of one clear responsible entity for coordinated catchment management activities that could conduct independent audits of catchments;

• A lack of easily accessible records outlining chemical usage from all sources in the catchment;

• A lack of demonstrable evidence that chemicals in the catchment are being used in an environmentally responsible manner;

• Degraded areas of the catchment and riparian zone where runoff and contaminants could enter the river and potentially pose a risk to
the drinking water supply.

"The Panel recommends that improved and co-ordinated catchment management and administration be considered as a matter of priority and that information on the use of chemicals in the catchment be recorded by all users and records made available as required to assist with catchment monitoring and the security of water supply."

Accolades to Dr Bleaney et al and the ABC. Had it not been for Dr Bleaney's persistence, the grossly incompetent management of river systems in Tasmania would have been covered up by Mark Lawson and the cheerleaders for Forestry in the Tasmanian government. And in fact, many questions remain unanswered, despite the Georges River Report.

Tasmania also has the country's highest cancer rate, excluding skin cancers, after taking into account its older population, according to Senior Hobart oncologist, Ray Lowenthal's report in 2008. Why so many cancers in such a 'pristine' environment?

Correction to previous post. Mark Lawson should read Mark Poynter.

Protagoras
Sadly, it seems to be all too common for someone like you who disagrees with an article but is bereft of factual arguements, to personally attack the author (in this case me, Mark Lawson aka Poynter).

So,.... you accuse me of being 'hyperbolic' and being a party to covering-up the 'grossly incompetant management of Tasmania's river system' when all I have done is point out facts and the findings of an expert panel which have shot-down the determined efforts of a citizen and a media network to demonise one particular land use for an imaginery problem.

I don't disagree with the panel that there is a lot of room for improved catchment management - that is undoubtedly an Australia-wide and world-wide problem - and their recommendations in this regard are hardly surprising. However, this is a broader issue to that specifically raised by Dr Bleaney and the ABC.

Re improved catchment management: Plantation forestry is the only land use which as a matter of course maintains protective riparian zones and records and monitors its use of chemicals in accordance with its Code of Practice requirements which conform to a range of environmental legislation.

The greatest room for improvement lies with the agricultural sector simply because there are so many different players of different sizes who exhibit highly variable standards of management from good to bad. This is the same all over Tasmania and Australia. Unfortunately, it is far more difficult to develop and enforce Codes of Practice on the farming sector compared to the forestry sector which is in the main dominated by governments and a few large companies

Oh lookie lookie, all the paid 'anonymous' pro-forestry apologist spin-doctor gang's here except for crf, mjf, paulie, woodworker, Tomas and newcomers Michael and Roger. I'm sure they'll be along shortly. Or you can find them all together in a neat little complimentary bunch on anything and everything forestry at tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?

It is good to see the two key bodies in this debate have disregarded the panels findings.
THE TASSIE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH is waiting for results from Flinders University.
CRC FORESTRY is currently researching water quality in forestry operations.
The panel has commissioned no further studies and refers to no ongoing research.
Clearly there is more to learn about this problem.
Mark I assume you include "online forums" in your definition of media.

CamV8
Research into the implications of forestry operations on water quality has been happening for decades, generally in relation to sedimentation and erosion and the effectiveness of buffers and filters, and track rehabilitation methods used to prevent it.

The fact that such research is ongoing bears no relation to whether or not the findings of the George River Water Quality Panel have been disregarded as you are suggesting.

"the determined efforts of a citizen and a media network to demonise one particular land use for an imaginery problem." (sic)
I doubt if that was the intention. This was just the way the research turned out. The good Doc and co. seemed as surprised as any by the strange and unusual nature of the poison and its unique way of getting about.
Do I detect a little Tassie woodchipper paranoia?