Ive looked at the report by the APVMA Noosagirl told us about. They have studies in there where birds were given food marinated in diuron.
The mangrove experiments demontrate that if you pour enough weedkiller over plants, they eventually keel over and die. If you breath in air with a high enough concentration of oxygen you too will die. Maybe we need an oxygen tax to make us all safe.

Well there is a good idea. An oxygen tax.
I am looking forward to what the WWF has got to say.

Information on some research from 2008 re water qaulity to the GBR: The work was called the Tully Water Quality Improvement plan. It was done by FJ Kroon of CSIRO on behalf of the commonwealth government, the Queensland government, and Terrain NRM. I trust that CSIRO is acceptable to all as a source of scientific work. The Tully/Hull/Murray rivers were listed By Great Barrier Marine Park Authority as being rivers that were potentially or actually a threat to the GBR.
The approach used was that GBRMPA set'Water Quality Objectives' that could be 'considered trigger values that would indicate a potential problem if exceeded'.
CSIRO then spent a vast amount of time and money measuring the quality of water that wasactually leaving the rivers.
The result was 'A comparison of inshore marine waters against available data on current water quality.....shows that the draft WQO's are met, except for chlorophyl-a'.
The listed concentrations of poisons against WQO showed that the worst was Diuron which reached just 11% of the WQO.
I find it hard to understand how people are able to totally ignore data such as that. But they do. All readers must NOT believe me. They must Google for the Tully WQIP and read for themselves.

I checked out the CSIRO report on the Tully region as suggested. Thanks for the link - very useful material.

I looked at the Executive Summary and saw that the observed value for diuron concentration was 0.011 micrograms per litre. The limit value is set as 1.0 mirograms per litre for inshore water quality. I think that makes the value just 1.1% (rather than 11%). The other pesticides are even lower.

A part of the relevant CSIRO report indicates to me that the report is grossly incomplete and misleading.
Samples were taken at mouth of estuary to marine waters 15 km offshore, which I suggest is akin to measuring rain cloud at 70,000 feet altitude. Rain cloud and rain is found near to ground, fresher water with bonded dissolved nutrients is found in alongshore current near to and against the coast.
Alongshore current concentrates fresher water in a narrow stream driven by prevailing wind against the coast, not 15 km offshore.
CSIRO has not identified and measured the whole catchment that in my opinion includes waters of the northerly flowing alongshore current that transports nutrients and likely some chemicals from upstream cities and towns to the south, including Sydney.
Due to tidal inflow associated nearby ocean is also catchment
Weed killer is used along the entire land catchment and often runs direct from road verging into table drains and creeks and rivers flowing into alongshore current waters.
Some toxic chemicals may bond to fresh water.
CSIRO claims the eastern Australia alongshore current is too insignificant to be named.
In my opinion fresher water and bonded nutrients in alongshore current is often drawn into estuaries by tide. Convection driven current in rivers can take an alongshore-sourced nutrient load far upriver.
The total nutrient load has to be measured and all sources of nutrients in the whole catchment have to be sourced and identified, but have not been.

Congratulations Jennifer on another courageous piece of work to return integrity to the 'science' on the GBR and in particular the effect our farmers are, or are not having.
I note that Prof. Peter Ridd has offered some suggestions for much needed work to be done and I agree wholeheartedly with him.
Sadly the canefarmers have little control over the research that is being done with their research dollars. Control is held by govt and a number of industry participants and research organisations.
It appears that research is only done to support policy of govt (alias WWF and Bob Brown/Green), using 'creative modelling' rather than scientific data.
Having attended an open lecture in Townsville by another JCU lecturer who used 'modelling' as the basis for his alarmist claims, I asked for the source data used in his modelling. Apparently such questions are not encouraged or welcome as the lecturer promptly shut down any further questions and adjourned for free drinks and eats...any wonder the students were unwilling to engage in the debate.
The only other question was asked by Peter Ridd who suggested a debate on the GBR which he was happy to participate in...the suggestion should have been welcomed, if the lecturer felt his 'modelling' was based on sound data...of course the suggestion and my subsequent support for it, was rejected.
While JCU has lecturers of the calibre and integrity of Peter Ridd and others like Jennifer Marohasy have the scientific data and the courage to use it truthfully, hope remains that the truth will out and govt policy may eventually follow.
Pity is that poor modelling is likely to create real havoc on the GBR through poor policy outcomes, while the WWF and their cronies ignore the plunder of valuable corals, etc. that is legally allowed by govt for international collectors and souvenir hunters...I wonder how much coral is damaged in the quest for the 'best' pieces?