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.