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.

Shadow Minister;

Your scepticism as a non-aligned person is refreshing in this extended discussion.

The conspiracy theorists are determined to believe that wrongs are being performed on society by business; while tree-changers wish to perpetuate their bucolic Tasmanian backwater, hoping their lifestyle choice will be perpetually funded by 747s of big-spending European passengers wishing to see a few rocks and crumbling prisons.

I think Bleaney is one of the latter; whose Cotswoldian aesthetic is wounded by the prospect of a kraft bio-refinery; and who has managed to convince herself that she has identified a cancer cluster in St Helens (absent from any official reading of both bits of her data) and that it must be somethin’ in them thar trees that occupy 5% of the catchment with functionally the same forest types that occupied it before it was cleared for farmland and subsequently abandoned and replanted.

Nothing to do with the concerted campaign by said tree-changers, including the career eco-activist Bleaney, against anything that might facilitate the commissioning of a kraft bio-refinery on Tasmanian soil; one component of course being the E. nitens estate being planted on uneconomic farmland all over Tasmania that might be processed in the refinery.

Conspiracy theorists will discount my opinion on the basis that as a forester, hydrologist, chemist and geneticist, I couldn’t possibly provide any independent commentary as I surely must be in the pay of godless baby-eating captains of industry; but in that professional capacity the poisoned water hypothesis is clearly a concocted factoid forming the wobbly basis of a fear campaign brilliantly executed by an enviro-cell for political ends; to whit the likely installation of a minority government in Tasmania.

Amusingly, an election promise of the putative Liberal leader of such an unholy spawn promised to crack down on eco-terrorists (those who spread baseless fear for eco-political ends) and would need his new green bedfellows to pass the legislation that would result in the prosecution of she et al who delivered the Greens the balance of power; in the event that from here on she sticks to her guns.

Thank you again Shadow Minister for your view. I must admit to being a lay person but I have always been sceptical of the view that the spread of cancers in Devils results from their lack of genetic diversity. I always felt some factor present may be a more likely the cause of the high occurrence of tumours in Devils.

As a lay person I was offended by the company response that the toxic phenomena in general was "entirely natural" and this reverse truth, motivated my original post.

Plus as RobP suggests, more examination is warranted and I'm glad we're discussing the subject here, because no one in the media(except AS) seems to want to discuss it. And RobP, i,m tipping the new Tas minority Govt will sweep this matter under the carpet if they can.

It is drawing long bow Shadow, to suggest that we should rid ourselves of natural bush(old growth etc) as well, where there is no toxin problem now, and/or compare it's effect on the environment/water etc with improved tree plantations where there is a problem. It's probably unnecessary. We already know where the problem exists, and probably what the cause is. I agree SM there should be a study about growing gum tree's near water.

I stand corrected Forrest if, as you say, the trees are only improved by selective breeding and did possibly misinterpret the program but I seem to recall that the term "improved" was the company term for the tree's status . It makes wish I knew exactly what these trees were and how were they created precisely?.

And Hugo, all your scientific savvy makes for colourful oratory, but business has been known to act impulsively out of self interest in the past and I don't see anything changing despite your need to lampoon conspiracy theorists.

SM

I agree with what you in principal however, I am somewhat less sanguine with the practical aspect particularly the superficial of topic in general.

I will admit up front, I have in the view of some,'green' leanings.

Firstly is that the ABC is primarily a broadly based entertainment media, not a scientific forum of impeccable repute, nor can it be. I argue that people who rely on any public media or criticise ABC for not being impeccable are unrealistic/unreasonable. The problem is theirs not the ABCs.

I would strongly advise not to drink venom, your example pre supposes a lot. oral heath etc. :-)
Seriously, environmental science/chemistry has many examples of singular chemicals being benign but in complex cocktails/combinations not so.

the devil is in the detail, what were the testing instructions, parameters, methodology, assumptions etc.(these apply to both sides).
Given self interest corporations do tend to be a little ....enthusiastic ...to get the results that suit their interests. Complete with undue pressure.

Like it or not, stress on some wild animals has been shown to be a contributive factor in their health. To draw the line that these enhanced trees caused the Devils cancer is a long bow indeed. Is the disturbance of their environment a contributive factor is unknown.

To then jump to extreme of either persuasion, Crumbling poverty etc. or one big chipping farm are equally *inane*. Business practice dictates never allow one source of income to dominate lest you be vulnerable to it.

To me, transparency is the key, involve the people, by proxy if necessary, in the independent testing.
Old sales principal if I say it it can be doubted, *you* say it it *must* be true.