Thank you for your response Timberjack

You state: "Therefore I would say it is a very desperate act to try and claim plagiarism when in fact the document was not even created at the time of the said offence occurring."

That is a wild guess on your part Timberjack. That the document was placed on the National Toxic website, for public viewing on the 14 March, is no indication that the brief had not been released to interested parties, prior to that date.

Or what could be regarded as astonishing, is your suggestion that the Examiner’s psychic powers were such that they were able to quote Lloyd-Smith’s subsequent published brief, verbatim (with the exception of the “ECF” term thrown in for good measure.) Truly amazing!

Therefore what are you suggesting?:

1. That Lloyd-Smith read from her prepared but yet unpublished brief at the Hobart meeting?

2. The Examiner had requested a prepared brief (yet unpublished) from Lloyd-Smith, prior to or after the Hobart meeting?

3. That this very impressive woman has been sufficiently imprudent to deliberately distort the National Dioxin’s findings (already released to the public) which advised: “Lake Coleman, which received effluents from a treated pulp and paper mill concentration in the 4 carp samples between 0.48 – 4 pg I-TE g-1 wwt.v”?

I would say Timberjack that your claim is indeed a “desperate act” rather than mine.

Why don’t you contact the Examiner and ask whether they were quoting Lloyd-Smith’s verbal statements at the meeting, or if they misquoted her printed version of a quotation, obtained from a document already released for public viewing, by the authors of the government's National Dioxins website?

What is more intriguing is, that despite the many and varied media reports quoting Lloyd-Smith, only the Examiner has claimed that she alluded to the ECF technology with the Lake Coleman issue. How would you explain that Timberjack?

In addition, I advise that Mariann Lloyd-Smith stands by the information she has published on the National Toxics’ website. She is sufficiently good-natured to consider the misinformation, peddled by the pro-Gunns' would-be lobbyists, as most amusing.

ESD - Perhaps Extremely Stubborn Dickie?

You refuse to accept that you have been caught out, when your document that you rely upon did not exist at the time of the Examiner article. You choose to deny and excuse. Yet you offer no evidence to support your claims.

Dr Lloyd Smith addressed a Wilderness Society anti Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) Pulp Mill rally.

If she was fully aware of the fact that the Lake Coleman incident was not related to ECF why mention it? Was she trying to scare the Tasmanian people?

Why did she not oppose the Victorian mill when it sought EPBC approval to upgrade to ECF in 2005? Why has the NTN ignored the fact the Commonwealth consider that the Victorian ECF mill will have no impact on Bass Strait? Could it be that the Commonwealth experts are 100% correct and that ECF mills do not produce dioxin and furans at detectable levels in the treated effluent?

If the Examiner was deliberately plagiarising the yet to be created briefing note why did it invite a real expert the next day to explain the dioxin, furans and ECF.

“A CSIRO scientist has rejected suggestions that two types of deadly toxins would be detected in by products from Gunns' proposed Long Reach pulp mill. Ensis Forest Research and Development joint venture director Rick Ede rejected comments made by a senior adviser for a non-government organisation at a Wilderness Society rally...”

Dr Rick Ede, graduated with an MSc(Hons) and a PhD in Chemistry (1987) from Waikato University. After a period in Finland working on a joint industry-university pulping research project, he returned to New Zealand as a senior lecturer. In 1995 he joined Forest Research (now SCION), running a wood products research team …working with forest sector companies both locally and internationally. Rick joined CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products in 2000, to start up a new research team….

What was your qualification again, Dickie?

Perhaps ESD – Extremely Stupid Dickie!

Dickie me boy sorry but I just can’t see any reason why the Examiner would want to misquote the NTN, it was clearly reporting the claims made at the Hobart anti Bell Bay ECF pulp mill meeting.

From the link I found the other night http://www.aet.org/epp/index.html history shows that before 1990 kraft pulp mills used elemental chlorine to bleach the pulp. This was virtually discontinued due to concerns on dioxins and furans. Bleaching became free of elemental chlorine and the world standard became ECF or TCF and dioxins and furans are no longer detected in the treated effluent. My research shows that ECF uses Chlorine Dioxide (as different to Chlorine as water is to Hydrogen) and TCF uses oxygen.

We all know that the Tasmanian Guidelines are based upon the best international standards and demanded TCF or ECF as both are equal in meeting environment standards.

However as highlighted in previous posts by Cinders, the confusion in the acronyms was evident a year later (5 October 2007) with your acquaintance Lee Bell stating that the 47 mills in Scandinavia would produce only 20 per cent more dioxins than the one mill proposed by Gunns. "What we have here is a massive dioxin polluter," Dickie me boy as you would know this is a rubbish claim.

But the rubbish claims didn’t just rest there, last night come across the outfall of a ABC 7.30 report aired in June 2007 titled “Pulp mill could taint catch” it stated “
The Public Report on Audience Comments and Complaints said of this program

“The ABC found that the report failed to meet editorial requirements for impartiality on the grounds that the report unduly favoured the view that the pulp mill would damage both the environment and the Bass Strait scallop fishing industry. …The video of the story was removed from the program’s website …because it contained visual elements that were potentially misleading". (full finding at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/public_report_oct-dec_2007.pdf

Once again well done to Mark Poynter for getting this debate going, sure has exposed more than a few short comings of the anti brigades claims.

My dear Timberjack

You claim: “Dickie me boy sorry but I just can’t see any reason why the Examiner would want to misquote the NTN, it was clearly reporting the claims made at the Hobart anti Bell Bay ECF pulp mill meeting.”

I note your endeavours to obfuscate the fact that the pro-Gunns Examiner has failed the impartiality test with its reporting on the mill.

I note that you failed to allude to the Media Watch programme which exposed the Examiner’s curious 40 page “advertisement” on the inglorious benefits of the mill.

And of course, brown paper bags can be despatched in all sorts of fashion these days:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2227/3393/1600/EXAMINERmediawatch.gif

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/broadband/20050328_2115/STORY3hi.ram

And more obfuscations by the Examiner:

http://tamarpulpmilltalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-examiner-publisher-that-publishes.html

Your criticisms of Lee Bell do little for your credibility. It appears that you are unaware of the basic logic in his assessment of this proposed mill – deemed as one of the largest on the planet with a massive 1.1 million tonne production.

The common logic attributed to this plant by Bell is the larger the operations, the greater the pollution. That's elementary my dear Timberjack!

You have also failed to allude to all the other air and ocean pollutants which will be emitted if this massive operation ever becomes a reality.

Ah yes, the reality. It appears that Gunns are so hazardous that even the banks have installed scrubbers eh…… I mean shutters, to lock this mob out.

So while the hormonal fishwife on this thread is unable to answer my questions and you refuse to admit that your argument in the Lloyd-Smith brief was simply ludicrous, the revelations emerging show that you are on the losers’ side – the “empire builders,” who believe they can plunder Tasmania’s eco-systems with impunity. An arrogant cabal who ignores the democratic process and who sees only wood – not trees - only profits – not people and that contaminating our fragile oceans is a mere peccadillo.

That's tough for you losers, Timberjack – enter the 21st century mate. Ciao!

When your opponent in a debate has to resort to name calling in order to attack you, it is right then and there that you realize you have won.

Dickie’s bigoted attack "hormonal fishwife" (ESD perhaps Extremely Sexist Dickie), and his failure to admit that not one of his outrageous claims about fellow bloggers, media or Tasmania’s approved pulp mill has stood the test of reasoned scrutiny shows just how extreme he is.

If he is an ambassador for the National Toxic Network and his obnoxious claims on this thread is an example of how they operate, then the Network deserves to be exposed as alarmists with no respect for evidence.

This evidence includes the Commonwealth limit for the Tasmanian pulp mill for dioxin and furans is 3.4 pg TEQ/L

Dioxin & Furans are types of organochlorine compound which occurs naturally and are produced in a number of industrial processes
Organochlorines is the group name for organic compounds containing chlorine, – ones of concern are 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDF
TEQ toxicity equivalent
pg/L pica gram per litre, Parts per quadrillion (10 to the -15th)

The volume of wastewater effluent approved from the pulp mill to the marine environment must not be more than 64 megalitres per day on an average monthly basis. One Megalitre is 1 million litres.

Thus a simple calculator can work out that even over a year the maximum level of these dioxins is less than a grain of rice. Based on experience in Sweden and North America it is unlikely that this level will even be reached.

The Beca Amec’s finding was that “The legal detection limit (minimum level) for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDF in the USA is 10 pg/L …Virtually all the analyses report values less than this level, however, there is insufficient data available to calculate the margin by which bleach plant discharges are below the legal detection limit. It is estimated that treated effluents discharged from American mills may contain less than about 2-3 pg/L of 2,3,7,8 TCDD”

I’d like to take this opinion board away from the Dickie bashing, for the moment, and move to a matter that I feel needs to be mentioned.

Let me introduce myself. I am one of the few remaining forestry students at the ANU and it is a growing concern of my class peers that the reputation of the ANU and the Fenner School is in disrepute.

Due to the pseudo-scientific environmental advocacy published by groups such as The Wilderness Society, interest in and opinions of forestry by the greater public have declined exponentially over recent years. It seems that the students that were once destined for a career in forestry have been brainwashed to move into the more 'saving the world' career path offered by environmental science degrees.

Although the Forestry department has been amalgamated into the Fenner School, not all of its students hold opinions that comply with the politically motivated papers published by some of the schools 'academics'. Academic associations and personal connections to environmental societies can cloud the truth, however the forestry department is still strong to the core and although our curriculum is somewhat infected by courses that promote airy fairy science and human impact, it is the human impact provided by foresters, in forests, that will in turn save this ailing world of ours.