Sorry to say it Mr Tasman and Billie boy but your research is still very much wanting in the facts department. A quick look at the web sites of Timber Communities and NAFI clearly show they have different postal address and phone numbers, not the same as you suggest.

As to the street address for each, cant see what the problem is there, are you saying office buildings can only have one tenant, I haven’t been to Napier in Canberra but again following a few calls and a white pages search its pretty clear that this street is home to a major office complex with multi tenants, just a couple I’m told include the Australian Rural Leadership Program and the Australian Life Savers Association.

Regarding the Timber Communities CEO, Executive Director thing my research comes up with that there has only ever been three national leaders (CEO or Executive Director) and those being present Mrs. Jill Lewis before her Mr. Chris Althaus and their founding leader Mrs. Robyn Loydell.

There is a big positive in all this to, now I have spent a bit of time finding out about Timber Communities, and I like very much what I’ve found, Productive conservation to me is a very worth while goal, with which I now attend to seek becoming a member of Timber Communities. I would encourage any one with an interest in productive conservation to do the same.

So a big thanks to you both.

Dear Rod up the road
sorry to have troubled you. You are right about the different postal addresses - I confused Box 239 with Box 289. But I'm still confused about executive director versus CEO and Chris Althaus looks like he was in both the TCA and NAFI. I would appreciate it if you could clear this up for me. Thanks ...

Rod: “productive conservation” is a wooly concept. Mate; you have quite a bit of work to do yet.

At Blockheads Inc I also find “we cannot afford to loose a single job” – and there is a picture of granddad with grand kids and some solid HOME MADE furniture.

http://www.tca.org.au/abouttca/TCA%202007-2008%20National%20Program.pdf

Lets say the solid log truck and front end loader won’t count for much while the majority of solid furniture offered in the super furniture shops round town is “MADE IN” can you guess where? CHINA

Check out www.superfurn.com and a few other big distributors near you for the more traditional “ASH” styles as anything sold in a box at say the marts is unlikely to be solid in the long run.

My advice is all members of both the TCA and NAFI is get cracking with a few hand tools on the rough stuff like “pulpwood” before it hits the chipper chute then peddle across to Harvey Norman where “stressed” timber furniture is now a feature.

Over at Myers a decent looking solid chair goes for a good $250 plus. A chunky dining setting starts at $1500, not bad for a hobby over a weekend if you aren’t bothered with campaigning for a pulp mill.

My hobby was restoring old hand tools but I can’t buy a decent wooden handle. Hickory from the US is too expensive so I guess it’s all about finding that little bit of stressed wood in the first place as we go down the chute.

My granddad was a whittler. “Possum” chairs in his day were as common as the WW1 veterans who hobbled home via Launceston.

http://www.woodreview.com.au/competitions/remade/winners/remade24.html

Somebody tell Jill at HQ, jobs are only what you make them.

Tasman

No problems and I acknowledge your wiliness to admit an error when made.

Following a chat I’ve just had I’m now full bottle on the info you are looking for about CEO’s and exective director’

My information is TCA has never had a exective director titled position but did have a National Director titled position which was changed a couple of years ago to the title of CEO.

What I can now confirm is TCA was previously called FPS, Forest Protection Society and upon its formation, in 1986 Robyn Loydell (a founding member and wife of a tree faller) headed the group as its full time National Director till her retirement around 1997, The position was advertised with the FPS board appointing Chris Althaus (forester) as the new National Director. I understand Chris did work for NAFI as a forestry adviser before becoming the new full time FPS head.

I’m also told that during Chris Althaus’s term the organisation changed its title to Timber Communities Australia. Upon Chris’s retirement the TCA board appointed Jill Lewis as National Director, Jill was another founding member and from a small sawmilling family.

Then two years ago the TCA board changed the orgainisations top position title to CEO with Jill Lewis now CEO TCA.

Also looks like the TCA orgainisation has continued to grow at a pretty good rate since 1986 with now a large branch structure through out the nation and it does appear that their voice is respected by both sides of politics. I also learned today that both federal leaders addressed their national conference earlier this year in WA.

The more I look into their goal of productive conservation the more I like about it so thanks again for heading me towards TCA..

There has been a claim the article ignored a report from Miotti Consulting that was a peer review report of the Sweco report for the independent members of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, with particular evidence of non compliance. Lead author Roberto Miotti had formerly worked for Beca AMEC and was part of the team that advised the RPDC and Tasmanian Government on the 2004 emission guidelines.

The report was presented to the Legislative council, who also received a detailed briefing, within 48 hours of its tabling the Tasmanian Government provided detailed advice on the issues raised, many of which had already been covered by Sweco and the permit conditions. (see Hansard 30 August Mr Parkinson MLC).

A major concern of the report was the integrated chemical plant that is no longer part of the project, as it is not yet AMT for pulp.

The report was considered and debated, after which the Parliament voted to approve the project.

There are some relevant sections of the report applicable to this article including another way to represent the concentration level in the treated effluent. The report (p56) describes ppq or pg/l as parts per quadrillion (10-15) as the time scale equivalent of 1 second vs 31,707,790 years.

Miotti also concludes that the limits for dioxin are likely to be met. He refers to the Wesley Vale and the fact that “it missed by only one year the development of ECF technology which resolved the dioxin issue”

Miotti did disagree on odour limits being met and based this assumption on his appendix F - Odour complains from Visy Pulp and Paper. But would the use of these statistics be described as a ‘cowardly attack’ on Dr Raverty; as Ensis claimed (http://www.ffp.csiro.au/downloads/onwood/ensisLINK1.pdf ) that a team led by Dr Raverty had addressed the issue of odour resulting from the Visy process.

The report is yet another demonstration of the thorough assessment undertaken. Yet it does not detract from the fact that a modern ECF kraft pulp mill can meet stringent standards that safeguard human health, the environment and other industries within the area

Bushbasher more than happy to gather some more CSIRO facts for you, this lot is about TCF and ECF and guess you will know that these are the facts that the Greens didn’t want made public, they claimed Dr Raverty was bias because these facts was on his employers web site.

A2: The last research that CSIRO undertook on bleaching of eucalypt kraft pulps using ozone in a totally chlorine free (TCF) process was very detailed and it was conducted in the early to mid 1990’s as part of the research aimed at preparing the “Environmental Guidelines for New Bleached Eucalypt Kraft Pulp Mills, published by the Commonwealth Government in 1995.

Since that time CSIRO has been actively monitoring developments in TCF processes worldwide. A very large amount of research has been undertaken in laboratories internationally, comparing TCF bleaching using ozone with elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching using chlorine dioxide. These studies have shown that ECF bleaching produces much lower levels of organochlorine by-products than older bleaching methods that use elemental chlorine.

When ecotoxicological studies are done on effluents from ECF and TCF bleaching following proper biological treatment (including microanalysis for the “dioxins”, PCDF and PCDD), both types of effluent show very low levels of toxicity that is removed by adequate dilution in the sea. These findings have been reviewed by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) who, in 2003, published the statement:
“The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) considers the ECF and TCF bleaching methods to be equivalent with respect to their potential formation of PCDD and PCDF.”

Both ECF bleaching and TCF bleaching of kraft pulps are considered to be Accepted Modern Technology in the European Union and in North America