The DPIW Pesticide Monitoring Programme (minimalistic and manifestly inadequate to allow public confidence in water quality) clearly demonstrates the pesticide pollution in many of Tasmania’s ‘clean and green’ rivers.
Exposure to pregnant mothers and children from pesticides is increasingly been shown to cause serious harmful effects.
In the light of up-to-date toxicological information, the present approach to pesticide use and application taken by DPIW and Tasmanian Government is simply unacceptable.
Below is one more example of current information…
Female mice disabled by parents’ pesticide intake. Research reveals that female mice whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy to the insecticide chlorpyrifos are slow learners. The same exposure—comparable to what people encounter in the environment—leaves males unaffected. Milwaukee Bay View Compass, Wisconsin.
http://bit.ly/icUM6G                                                                                                                        Porter advises parents or parents-to-be to do the same things he has done with his own children to reduce their risks from pesticides. “It’s very simple,” he said. “Don’t buy pesticides. Don’t buy non-organic foods. Pack organic lunches, and get a really good water filter.”

Dr Alison Bleaney - BOD Catchment Risk Group /Tas Public and Environmental Health Network

When Llewellyn gave authority for the broad-scale use of biocides over plantations across Tasmania, did he also send in his EPA and Biodiversity staff to check for co-lateral damage to bird and animal life? The killed and disorientated fauna; the bees and beneficial insects and native plants that just happened to be there at the time that aerial “Chemical ali’ mist-sprayed Tasmania. [Perhaps if DPIPWE find five Queensland fruit flies in their traps, an insecticidal solution might be offered.]

And FT is scratching its several heads; they don’t seem to know how these synthetic chemicals could be getting into waterways!

Back to Rachel Carson’s 1962 book ‘Silent Spring’ - only this time it’s not just blanket bombing with organochlorines like DDT, its a whole range of biocidal chemicals in mixtures.

Re #1 & 2: The raw numbers here add up to ‘96 detections’. Of that number, 57 are MCPA and 7 are 2.4-D, chemicals which are not used in forestry in Tasmania. All of the ‘Additiona’l list of 12 are also not used in forestry.

That is 76 out of 96. The remaining chemicals could be used in forestry or in agriculture, for example, terbacil is used in orchards and metsulfuron methyl is used in cereals and in brush control (Ally, BrushOff). Simazine can be used in spuds as can atrazine in a range of crops. Hexazinone is most likely only used in forestry in Tasmania and the southern States, but is used in eg sugar cane up north.

Yet once again the emphasis on this thread is to point the finger at forestry.

A bit of balance, please, Alison and David!

On the other thread, Lindsay, to do with aerial application and which shows a photograph of a fixed wing aircraft spraying, that is false for forestry which uses helicopters. The photo is clearly agricultural spraying.

Dr Barry Tomkins

No chemicals whatsoever should be allowed to be sprayed, by any means, in drinking water catchments areas.
They are not essential in either forestry or agriculture. They never were neccessary.

Unfortunately, Dr Barry Tomkins, some people will still only see what the wish to see. An apt statement for #1 & #2.

Well, I’ve invested in a really good water filter anyway.  A huge chemical spill did occur in our municipality and it was a helicopter….but…..I don’t care if its Foresty or Agriculture….we shouldn’t be putting chemicals in catchments…end of story!

have i missed something Barry? where does Alison point the finger at forestry? and you as well michael

Re #6, Kym Matthews: What was spilled, when, and how much? - you say it was ‘huge’. Facts, please?

All land is catchment - how do you get around that obvious point?

Dr Barry Tomkins

Re #1 & 2 again: Perhaps, Alison and David, you should go back to the data sets on the DPIWE site, which I have just done.

In the flood monitoring program, the only possible forestry detection was of terbacil in the Little Swanport River 3 km upstream of the Tasman Highway. Sounds like that is close to the coast. The detection was in June 2005, and could be due to orchard application. Are there orchards in that area? 

In the Duck River, upstream of the Scotchtown Rd bridge, there has been continuous detection of MCPA from June 2006 to January this year. 2,4-D was detected also in July 2009. Note yet again that these are not used in forestry.

At the George River at St Helens, 2,4-D and MCPA were detected in February 2007.

At the St Helens water intake, metsulfuron methyl was detected in May/June 2007. MCPA was detected in June/July 2008, june/July 2009 and June 2010. 2,4-D was also found in June last year.  As I noted earlier, metsulfuron methyl main use is other than in forestry.

In the Baseline monitoring program, the dates of the last detections of possible forestry herbicides are as follows:

Simazine, Brid River, July 2006 and October 2008. Macquarie River upstream of Elizabeth River, July and October 2007. Downstream October 2007 and at Trefusis July and October 2007. Meander River at Strathbridge July 2008. Montague at Stuarts Rd April 2006. Prosser April 2005. Rubicon at tidal limit July 2006. South Esk upstream of Macquarie River, October 2005.

Atrazine. Duck upstream of Scortchtown Rd bridge, January 2007. Jordan at Mauricetown, July 2006. Rubicon at tidal limit, July 2005.

Hexazinone. Coal at Baden September 2009. Inglis at Emerald Vale Rd, January 2007. White Kangaroo, September 2009.

Terbacil. South Esk upstream of Macquarie, October 2005.

By comparison, there have been continuous detections of MCPA in some of these streams right up until the present eg Carlton River, February this year.

So the most recent possible detection of a possible forestry herbicide other than hexazinone was October 2008 (simazine).

Hexazinone September 2009 (White Kangaroo), almost certainly forestry (Radiata pine).

So what is the point of the article, when the table does not contain such pertinent information? It can only be further scare mongering.

There are ethics in science, a critical one being that data must not be used selectively. Selective use of data is intellectually dishonest. Both of you, Alison and David, have had scientific training in medicine and veterinary science.

Dr Barry Tomkins

#9
The real problem is that all your theories are only that; no-one can state exactly where these pesticdes were applied, by whom or when.
No-one knows the toxic impact of the chemicals -including fertilisers and organic material- contained in the waters of these and other rivers- and we and our children are all drinking this water. We are not the healthiest State in Australia; action needs to be taken to protect our environment, our water, our food and all innocent by-standers from exposure to toxic chemicals. It is a simple matter and relatively easy to act upon.

Another Bleaney insult (#10).  For goodness sake re-read Dr Tomkins comment (#9).  They aren’t bloody theories.  Tomkins knows better than anyone in Australia what chemicals are used by forestry and what’s registered for forestry use and what’s registered for other uses, although Tomkins would is in the public domain.

Unless, of course, you are saying forestry uses unregistered chemicals and that Tomkins lies.  You better tell us if either of those is the case.  It could save a lot of people a lot of wasted time and effort.

By inference you claim pesticide spraying causes Tasmania to “not (be) the healthiest State in Australia”.  That is an appalling beat up.  The reasons for Tasmania’s poor record have been well documented (rates of smoking etc).

Please also note that “not (being) the healthiest State in Australia” leaves one of the options as being the second healthiest!