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.