Graham, I am not criticising Jennifer's paper for not being good enough. I have read it, it's fine, although it's quite specific to Norm Duke's work.

What I am wondering about is that the submissions pertaining to this review have been open for years, she could have made one at any time after 2005 until this year, but only now after the submissions were closed, she is now blogging on about how it's all crap.

Of course she has had plenty of time to make a submission peer reviewed or not. Did it look like the submission went the wrong way? Is that why this peer reviewed paper is only now coming out months after the environmental report has been published?

Why did Jennifer even bother, who paid for her time? I notice she is an adjunct research fellow at CQU, I know what adjunct means. It means unpaid by the university. What is her other (actual) job description? Who pays the bills?

Oh, and it's not a 'government inquiry' its a review of registration. All chemicals regulated by the APVMA undergo periodic review where they gather the science and evaluate it. How long should a submission period be open? I would have thought several years quite enough time.

The APVMA report on Diuron can be found at:

http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/current/diuron.php

There is a discussion of mangroves at page 43. It states:

"In conclusion while there is some evidence (based on a weak statistical correlation) from an earlier study indicating that diuron can be correlated with the dieback in Avicennia in the Pioneer River estuary, this was not supported by laboratory studies or subsequent observations."

"It was concluded that there are uncertainties and the science is incomplete. At this stage there are insufficient data to categorically state that diuron has affected mangroves at Mackay."

More details of the mangrove studies are later on at page 209.

I also Googled "mangroves and Diuron" and found newspaper reports in 2009 from Rockhampon where the UQ rearchers were saying they were sure this chemical had killed off the mangroves.

Trying to put all the relevant information together to reach a conclusion one way or the other is not at all straightforward. The APVMA report gives a lot of data but its not easy to put it all together to make conclusions. I really liked Jennifer's published paper because it shows an approach to analysis of information in a logical framework - she used something called "Hill's criteria of causation" It might be a good idea to use this for seagrass and corals too. I looked up "Hill's criteria" and discovered the method was devised by a famous epidemiologist in the UK - he used it in the 1960s to link smoking with lung cancer in the 1960s.

I think having a standard method like Hill' criteria is a lot better than people getting so emotional and personal with these issues.

Bugsy

I did help with a submission to the APVMA when I worked for Canegrowers… that was many years ago, perhaps in 2002, when the first call went out. The submission would have been made under the organisation’s name… not my own.

But sadly the APVMA couldn’t come to a straight forward conclusion with its first review because of the politics. And if Diuron is banned, which WWF seem confident is about to happen, it will be because of politics… not because Diuron has had a detrimental impact on the Great Barrier Reef.

As Munro Mortimer from the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology recently explained on ABC radio, “Some of the chemicals that have been banned in overseas countries particularly in Europe… some of these bans probably relate more to politics and popular perceptions rather than science. Because that is the way that these things tend to happen. Quite often governments respond to political pressure regardless of whether they are supported by science or not.”

My concern is with the corruption of science. I recognize, as Peter Ridd points out in an earlier comment, that this case study is but the tip of the iceberg.

And it was not easy getting this study published. The paper did not make it into the journals where Duke and Brodie publish because their peers made sure it was excluded. But we were persistent and the paper is perhaps now in a better journal as it turns out.

As regards how I pay the bills… well, last time I couldn’t pay a bill I sold my car. Life doesn’t have to be complicated. What is most important to me is that I have time to read and think and maybe next year someone will pay me to do just that

Thanks Jennifer, you must have a lot of cars.

I trust that you will be calling for a panel of experts to review the science on the GBR?

How can we ensure that it is non-political?

Diuron may be getting a bad rap, but if it does get deregistered it would be because it has no clear champion, and it looks like you are a bit late...

What would the consequences of deregistration Diuron be Jennifer? This is not clear to me.

That's a good idea Bugsy, to review the science of the GBR.
It is outrageous the GBR is not included in the Coral Triangle Initiative, the GBR is not scientifically managed, nor is the Coral Sea ecosystem on which indigenous people and wildlife depend.
JM's work may be just in time in many respects.
Never mind Diuron, this is also about a review of true science before scientists and science are disgraced any further.

The culture of the CSIRO has changed.It is no longer an independant scientific body.Anyone who wants to progress of get a job there these days must follow their agendas' and philosophies.It is corruption of science.

When we challenge the science I often hear,"Putting all this sh?t into the environment must be causing harm." These are subjective judgements and there are lots of chemicals like CO2 that we don't have enough evidence of their effects.Then we have the hypocracy of fracking where real damage is being done to farmland and the underground water supply.So the Govt allows this because they are cashed strapped and brings in CO2 tax on flimsy evidence.

Since 1970 the GBR was going to be destroyed by man.There are no indications that this is about to happen.Being alarmist is the best way to get funding.