That aerial spraying of pesticides in Tasmania is continuing in spite of all the arguments against it, states the strength of business in being able to persuade the Tas Gvt to take care of business interests above that of human and environmental health. Where is the protection of the unborn child and other very susceptible groups? And what was the actual insecticide used? Please tell.

Oh they were spraying them with organic chemicals…..oh that’s ok then.

Let’s get Gunns choppers down to Hobart and spray over our pollies and see how quick there is some action.

What an appaling assault on people by an unkind and not so clever corporation.

What will be the straw to break the camels back?

Gunns are also at it again out our way. They have told residents of Western Creek and Mole Creek that they will spray soon.
They would not give a date to people who rang them about the spraying. These people draw water from a creek that rises near the plantations and are very concerned about their drinking water. They would not tell them what chemicals they were planning to use.
Not what one would expect from a company that touts a Good Neighbour Charter is it.
The area they are planning to spray over has sinkholes and Karst formations and is part of the National Heritage Registered Karst area of Mole Creek.
Who cares about issues like that
Not Gunns obviously.
They need to kill insects and kill they will!

I am sure it is law to notify an intention to spray a pesticide within 24 hours, as well as posting the chemical that is to be used.

Failure to do so constitutes an illegal act, therefore the police ... oh forget it, this is Tasmania.

have a look at this weblink
http://www.apvma.gov.au/users/spraydrift/insecticide_level_highcanopy.xls
APVMA on the anticipated drift from aerial spraying at a 15m release height in ideal conditions; look at where the drift is anticipated to be at 800m from the release.
Make sure your water sources are intakes are secured and protected- for you and your animals.
This is what our regulators -APVMA and DPIW- expect to happen.
That aerial spraying of pesticides continues is unacceptable.
And what was the insecticide?

SeattlePi.com
Pesticide buffer zones expanded
Decision by federal officials designed to protect salmon
P-I STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

Three salmon-killing pesticides banned for household use but still used widely in agriculture and elsewhere are dangerous enough to salmon that anyone using them will have to stay far away from the water, federal officials ruled Tuesday.

The National Marine Fisheries Service said the pesticides—part of a class of insecticides that grew out of World War II research on nerve gas—are too toxic to risk exposing them to the 28 Northwest salmon species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Although malathion, diazinon and chlorpyrifos are used most widely on farms and orchards, they also are employed in cities and suburbs to control pests on golf courses, for termite control and outdoors at a property’s boundary, said Joshua Osborne-Klein, a Seattle lawyer with the public-interest law firm Earthjustice.

“This is going to keep these pesticides out of the water, which is good for salmon,” he said. “It’s also good for other types of wildlife and it’s also good for people, because it will keep them out of the water and reduce the amount of pesticides on food.”

He said Washington State University’s agricultural extension service and others can recommend less toxic or nontoxic alternatives to the pesticides—the first three of 37 that will be the subject of rulings by the National Marine Fisheries Service in response to a lawsuit by environmentalists.

The chemicals, found by the U.S. Geological Survey to contaminate rivers throughout the West, interfere with a salmon’s sense of smell, making it harder to avoid predators, find food and even find native spawning streams and reproduce. At higher concentrations, they kill fish.

“It’s really a good step in the right direction toward science-based protection for salmon,” said Glen Spain of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a plaintiff in the case. “It makes no sense to allow uses of pesticides that poison salmon while we are trying so hard to save them.”

Banned from many household uses, tens of millions of pounds of the chemicals are still used throughout the range of Pacific salmon on a wide range of fruits, vegetables, forage crops, cotton, fence posts and livestock to control mosquitoes, flies, termites, boll weevils and other pests, the Fisheries Service says.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a year to implement the findings.

The new rules greatly expand buffer zones imposed by a federal judge in the case to 1,000 feet from streams for aerial spraying, 500 feet for ground spraying, plus a 20-foot strip of grass or brush. The chemicals cannot be sprayed when the wind is blowing, or when a major storm might wash them into the water.

The old buffers were 300 feet for aerial spraying and 60 feet for ground spraying, with no vegetation strip required.

“This is a step forward, I think an important step forward, but there is lots more to do,” said Jim Lecky, director of protected species for the Fisheries Service. “It’s one of a gazillion things we need to work on. I think it’s important to clean up waterways to optimize their reproductive capacity.”

Plaintiffs in the case hope the expanded buffers will persuade farmers and growers to drop use of the chemicals entirely and turn to alternatives or organic farming, Osborne-Klein said.

That would be a hardship for growers, particularly apple and cherry growers, said Heather Hansen of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests. Without them, apple growers that get coddling moths and cherry growers that get cherry fruit fly could be quarantined and unable to sell their fruit.

She added that organophosphate use has been declining in recent years; samples taken by the state show cleaner water.

“The way they are using these products today, nobody has shown evidence of harm to fish,” she said. “This is really about paperwork—government agencies not doing paperwork and not communicating well with each other.”

The Fisheries Service and EPA must evaluate the 37 chemicals by 2012 under terms of a settlement reached in a lawsuit brought by Northwest Coalition Against Pesticides, Washington Toxics Coalition and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, which represents California commercial salmon fishermen.

P-I reporter Robert McClure and Jeff Barnes of The Associated Press contributed to this report.