Tasmania is about to elect a new Govt on Saturday.

The subject of the GM plantation Gum Tree's and their effect on the environment doesn't appear to have been mentioned by even the Greens Candidate and has been ignored by the media.

Since I was informed in an ABC Australian Story program of scientific evidence that seems to prove a connection between GM plantation trees and increased toxin levels in the water supply possibly affecting cancer rates in the town of St George and oyster leases at the ocean outfall, I have been extremely concerned about this situation.

Could this also be the cause of facial tumours in Tasmanian Devils. And could this be the worlds first proven categorical environmental disaster caused by genetic modification.

Tasmania should probably start by electing a Green Govt and lobbying that Govt to remove the GM plantation trees regardless of the political or economic considerations if the above mentioned science proves correct.

Sadly the ABC ran a press release(774 Drive 15/03/2010) from some genetic science dept about the preposterous notion that the tumours were spread by devils biting each other.

What this infers, is the first case of contagious cancer in the world. Has that just gotta be wrong or is it just me!.

A cancer producing toxin introduced to catchment in Tasmania's east, through the (albeit inadvertent) affect of a GM experiment, is a far more likely scenario as the cause of facial cancer tumours in Tassie Devils, than a contagious cancer to my mind.

This article also promoted notions that GM science held solutions for Devils when GM science may well be the problem.

Regardless of the forthcoming election outcome the next Tasmanian Premier may be dealing with a poison chalice.

Thinker,

A few salient points from the story that either you missed or ignored:

The toxin comes from the "froth" produced by all gum trees not just the GM ones.

The toxin level was only just measureable,

The toxin is apparently broken down by digestion, and so unless you shoot the toxin directly into your veins you have nothing to worry about.

As for the Tasmanian devils, that is about as ridiculous a conclusion as possible.

It would appear that either the GM campaigners are scientifically illiterate or deliberately dishonest.

Thank you for your view Shadow, and I agree as you point out all gum tree's are known to be toxic.

Even less reason to be playing with the genetic structure of a known toxic organism for commercial advantage and then blanket planting your creations over huge area's of catchment without due consideration for the possible side effects.

And without ignoring the froth, the case put by the participants in the program I saw, proposed that the froth was increased and possibly a different mix to froth produced in a natural environment. As for your "dangerous only if injected grab" I think that remains to be seen.

And why Shadow, is it ridiculous to suggest that its possible, that a toxin already proven to be carcinogenic and found to be present in the environment in excessive amounts, may be responsible for facial cancer in devils, as in the oysters and residents effected etc.

A world first contagious cancer spreading from devil to devil?. I dont think so.

I really would like to know your opinion and bonafides on this Shadow Minister, and stand to be proven wrong .

I was just a little surprised to see this topic get approved, as the erroneous assertions it contains in the opening post have been dealt with in detail in the article by Mark Poynter, 'Something's in the water at the ABC', published on OLO on 5 March 2010. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10135&page=0 , which has so far attracted 52 comments. Comments can still be posted to that article's thread.

This article is by-lined on the Articles Index page with the question 'Is the ABC’s 'Australian Story' in the business of public interest storytelling or political advocacy?'. It seems a similar question could equally well be asked of the opening poster to this topic.

Mark Poynter made the following observation toward the end of his article:

"Although [ABC Australian Story] 'Something in the Water'
used the term 'genetically improved' in relation to plantation
trees, many viewers appear to have interpreted this as being
akin to 'genetically modified'. Tasmania’s plantation trees
have been genetically improved over several generations by
selective tree breeding for desirable traits by using seed
from individuals which possess these traits. This is vastly
different from genetic modification (or GM) in which genetic
profiles are altered by grafting in genes from other organisms."

He also set the record straight with respect to the spread of Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease being unrelated to Tasmanian plantation management. He was able to conclude with the justifiably scathing observation that:

"Arguably, if all these matters had been properly addressed,
there would be far less of a story to be told and certainly
far less hysteria surrounding the issue. A cynical view is
that Australian Story elected not to fully address these matters
so as not to invalidate an otherwise 'good' story."

It would appear that the opening poster may have been taken in by the sort of environmental activism that seemingly lay behind the ABC program 'Something in the Water'. It might be a better use of editorially uncensored OLO if thinker 2 became a wider reader, too.

Happy election.

Forrest,

To your comment,

>>I was just a little surprised to see this topic get approved, as the erroneous assertions it contains in the opening post have been dealt with in detail in the article by Mark Poynter, 'Something's in the water at the ABC', published on OLO on 5 March 2010. See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10135&page=0 , which has so far attracted 52 comments. Comments can still be posted to that article's thread.<<

Mark Poynter's article also says this:

>>While the past history of this issue provides some insight into its proponents, it does not necessarily invalidate their now updated hypothesis that toxins released from the leaves of the plantation species, Eucalyptus nitens - rather than aerial spraying of pesticides - is the root cause of oyster deaths in Georges Bay and associated human health problems in and around St Helens.<<

In comparison with Poynter, I think you can make the valid assertion that thinker 2 is a little imprecise about the facts of the case - so am I BTW - but the overall thrust of his(?) post is clear, is it not? That something would appear to not be right and deserves follow-up investigation. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, you don't get answers to complex scientific phenomena in one sweep. At the very least, Bleaney et al. have laid out markers that identify a problem. What this post should do is imbue the relevant authorities and interested researchers to do and find out more.

Thinker 2 may well be right linking the St. Helens issue with the Tasmanian Government's fortunes. It's handling of the issue could well be symbolic of a certain laziness, shall we say, in the way it runs the State.

Thinker,

The issue is most probably about growing gum trees near water. There has never been a study of this issue before.

The old growth gum trees' leave produce slightly less foam. Is this because the trees are older or because the trees are a new variety?

As for the toxicity tests, I heard a CSIRO scientist describing the test as testing extracts from the foam directly on individual cells. This test is not applicable for clumps of cells or an entire organism.

For example cobra venom (like many other organic toxins) is extremely toxic if you are bitten, but you can drink it without harm.

As of yet the study is at best a pointer as where further studies need to be done.If gum trees produce toxins, do we need to cut down the old growth trees too?

The attempt to link the cancer in Tasmanian devils when there is no cancer link at all yet is drawing such a long bow that it can only be to generate alarm and concern in those without sufficient analytical skills to realise that it is complete BS.

As for myself, I am an engineer with post graduate qualifications. My mother was a agricultural research scientist, (pre GM) and while I am not qualified to debate detailed biotech, I at least have the background to spot pseudo science when I see it.