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.