“Calculations for dioxin levels (PDF 147KB) appear to ignore international experience and have been quoted in the hope of giving this criticism legitimacy.”

This was toxicos’ attempted rebuttal to the errors identified by Prof Andrew Wadsley. However it contained a factual error of assumption; Swedish and Canadian pulp mills actually operate below 1 pg/l due to improved technology and continuous improvement, not the nominal 10 pg/l historical limit. When the actual operating performance of these mills is incorporated then the analysis of Prof Wadsley is borne out, that is there are high dioxins levels identified in some fish, but at a significantly lower level than that which occurred in the 1980s prior to the introduction of the continuous improvement regime. Prof Wadsley’s analysis utilises the EPA screening model (incorrectly applied by Toxicos) and Monte Carlo simulation.

The impacts in Sweden and Canada are based on mills where there has already been a very high pollution level in the past. This will have caused irreparable damage to the ecosystem, it is therefore inappropriate to simply assume that their effluent levels can be transposed to the low-flushing pristine five-mile-bluff environment without a proper environment impact assessment and hydrodynamic modelling.

Toxicos’ initial fundamental errors with respect to dioxin modelling, from which Gunns has been unable to extricate itself, have resulted in a flawed proposal. Without these errors it is likely that initial planning would have incorporated improved dioxin abatement technology, such as tertiary treatment to remove particulates, and a location selection which enabled the effluent outfall to be directed to a high-flushing environment.

Mr Ashbarry’s assumption is based on a prejudice that dioxins should not be a problem if the design and planning of the pulp mill is conducted professionally. While the prejudice continues, the assumptions that underpin them have been unmade by Toxicos’ mistakes and the flawed assessment process.

nice to have ashbarry contributing, given goebbels wasn't available.

Looks like more myth busting is needed. The claim that 26 GL of drinking water, or irrigation water, is to be used by the mill is at odds to the announcements of the Hydro and the developer.

The water will be drawn from the Hydro’s Trevallyn power station and represents about 1% of the water that flows through the turbines. This is sold at a commercial rate and an infrastructure fee. The power station receives its water from the Trevallyn dam that is fed from three rivers, the South Esk, Macquarie and Meander and the Poatina power station. . This is after use by irrigators, after allocation for drinking water and after it has been diverted to maintain environmental flows. This water is ‘raw’ eg not treated to drinking water standard. The loss of power (less than 1 MWatt) will be more than compensated by excess power from the mill. For more information http://www.tca.org.au/Tasmanian%20Water%20Issues.pdf

There is also the claim that the mill will be heavily subsidised and will not be profitable. The subsidies listed by the LEC include the funds from the 1997 RFA, taxation treatment of MIS, funds allocated to saw millers and tourist operators under the Tasmanian community forest agreement, and the loss of value to fishing, tourism, vineyards and food production. Official government figures that show Agricultural and Fisheries production has consistently increased at about 5% a year over the past 10 years. The likely minimal impact on these important industries is examined at www.tca.org.au

The LEC profitability model, if you look at just one variable, the sale price of pulp, you can judge for your self. (Other aspects of the model may be flawed e.g. costs of the pulp wood etc, these have been ignored).
Despite obtaining information from the Macquarie Bank that pulp sold at either US$650 or US$500, the model used $500.

This is in stark contrast to Gunns A$800 (US$644) or ABARE showing import replacement cost of US$630.
Based on the mills cost of A$1,700 million, the results are:
NPV (before tax) A$m
Wells 32
Gunns 2,480
ABARE 1,972

alex from Tasmania appears to only want to defend Andrew Wadsley, wonder why?

After a bit of good old file searching come across a very interesting Green submission being The Greens Volume 2a: Bell Bay Pulp Mill Risk Audit Report titled
A Joint Submission to the Resource Planning and Development
Commission on Gunns’ Pulp Mill Proposal Draft Integrated Impact
Statement
Prepared by
AUSTRALIAN RISK AUDIT
1360 Huon Road
NEIKA, Tasmania 7054
Presented By
Tasmanian Greens Opposition Leader Peg Putt MHA
Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne
Monday, 25 September 2006

Even more interesting when we have a look at just who are the two co authors listed in this Greens report

Professor Andrew Wadsley PhD, MSc, Bsc(Hons). Professor Wadsley
received a BSc (Hons) and University Medal in Mathematics from the
Australian National University in 1970, an MSc from the University of
Warwick (UK) in 1972, and a PhD (Mathematics) from the University of
Warwick (UK) in 1974.

Alex Wadsley MBA, B.Ec(Hons). Mr Wadsley has a 10 year academic and
professional history in analysing risk. Academic experience includes
examining forestry and fire risk, and he has an MBA (Advanced) from the Graduate School of Management at the University of Western Australia. He is a member of the Economic Society of Australia and the Tasmanian Greens. He is currently undertaking an Economics PhD looking at exchange rates, commodity prices and purchasing price parity.

So wouldn't mind having a few bob now on just who Alex from Tasmania really is.

So what bas (barry chipman)? I dont care who Alex is. The fact is you will find it very difficult to dispute Alex's arguments on dioxins which are backed by the EPBC submission (http://www.cleantamar.com.au/pdf/EPBC_submission_31_08_2007_corrected_V2.pdf)
of Dr Stuart Godfrey, Dr Andrew Wadsley and Dr Warwick Raverty who was once the darling of Gunns and the tasmanian government before he blew the whistle on Gunns 2nd rate pulp mill submission and the antics of the Tasmanian government. Once again Barry Chipman attempts some sort of character assassination when his pulp mill propoganda is challenged. As for Cinders who is probably either Barry Chipman or some other hack from the TCA, if you expect people to even remotely begin to take your pro-mill arguments seriously, you will have to do better than submitting links to propoganda from rabidly pro-pulp mill logging front groups like the TCA. The fact is that Gunns and the Tasmanian woodchip industries cannot even come close to breaking even without subsidies. Just have a look at the comparative graphs between Forestry Tasmania (government arm of industry) and Gunns whom FT have transferred massive amounts of Tasmanias public forests to. Tasmania has sold its forests very cheaply and Forestry Tasmania's bottom line reflects this. It s contribution (or lack of) is nothing short of criminal miserable. It is beyond belief. Forestry Tasmania has received almost a billion dollars in handouts since the late 80s and it still can't deliver a decent return for our precious public resource. Its actually difficult to even know for sure the true state of logging operations in Tasmania and the actual relationship between government and industry - ie. how much Gunns actually pay for crown forest owned by the Australian people because of the logging industry's incredible exemption from the FOI Act. Total woodchip production figures since 2000 are officially secret in Tasmania. What we do know is that Gunns' shares were at a miserable $1.40 when the Bacon/Lennon government came to power in August 1998. Its subsequent growth has been staggering.

(continued)
If Gunns were an elite athlete you would look at their performance trajectory and be compelled to suspect performance enhancing drugs! Within four years, Gunns had recorded an increase of 199% in profits, with another 39% increase in 2002-03. With the acquisition of two rival companies, Gunns took control of more than 85% of logging in Tasmania. Five years after Bacon won government, Gunns was worth more than $1bn, with shares regularly trading in excess of $12. It had become both the largest logging company in Australia and the largest hardwood woodchip exporter in the world, its product flooding in from the state's fallen forests.
Nothing short of a royal commission is needed to expose the corruption and cronyism past and present in the tasmanian forest industry aided and abetted by the lennon labor govt. The results i believe would be explosive.