I attended the three talks in Hobart on 20 December, oganised by TAP and concerning the proposed Gunns pulpmill. I can only say that I was most disappointed by the level of discussion which passed for “science”. In particular the first speaker showed model simulations of transport of materials within Bass Strait - the level of comment was on the lines of “look, hardly any of the particles escape from Bass Strait - anything we put in there will just build up” and “look the graphic shows lots of ‘red’ - that must be bad”. There was ABSOLUTELY NO QUANTITATIVE DISCUSSION of what these results actually mean. As far as I understand, these model simulations were shown without the author’s knowledge and also without TAP contacting him for guidance on their interpretation. The final comments by the MC, concerning transport of materials into the Tamar estuary continued this saga of pseudo-science.

As an oceanographer with significant experience of these kind of problems, I can only say that unless TAP lifts its game, scientists will be unwilling to be associated with TAP activities. TAP continually claims that Gunns spreads misinformation - when TAP acts in a similar way, this can only further polarise the debate and push it even further from reality.

I want some more comment about the Chilean speaker on the 20th. I am away from Tassie for work reasons but want to keep up ith what’s goin on!!!

John - you will quickly find that TAP and other shadowy front organisations in Tasmania are unconcerned with the science, unless it can be warped to protect Gaia, Mother Earth whatever. Opposition to the mill is a trojan horse for their main game - closing down industrial forestry in Tasmania. They have a limited ability to understand any other point of view, be it economic, social or scientific.

Which part of “an update of the current Tasmanian situation” did you not understand, John?

If you go to something with a title like that, presented over about 25 minutes covering multiple issues, and expecting a quantitative discussion about an animation that depicts flush times, is expecting a bit too much?

I was cool with it.

Britta: the comment I made at the presentation was that the main “take home message” from Professor Jaramillo’s presentation was that what “bites you in the bum” with these kind of developments are the “surprises” which are generally not discovered by a conventional consultant’s environmental impact statement. It seems quite clear to me (from a long experience of doing this kind of work) that the way to win a contract to do an EIS is NOT to promise to start off with a brainstorming session to think of all the things which might go wrong in a development such as this! Instead, consultants normally just roll out their standard environmental investigation - in this case the one with the “pulp mill” label on it.

So, if you want to find something wrong with the Gunns proposal, look for the possible surprises - but do it in a sound scientific way!

Tomas: I don’t think your comments are very helpful. The casualty in environmental debates such as this is so often the science - FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE. I wasn’t taking sides.

You know one of the things I hate about blogs is that so many of the participants haven’t the courage to give their real names - why is that?

However, you ask “Which part of “an update of the current Tasmanian situation” did you not understand, John?”.

It is really rather simple to understand. And I expect, if the results of scientific work are going to be presented in a public forum, that they are going to be presented honestly, fairly and accurately. I expect exactly the same of Gunns.

To answer Britta: In early 2004, an ECF Kraft pulp mill with a capacity of 550,000 tonnes was started up near Valdivia. By the end of 2004 the resident Black-necked swans started dying or flying off, the plants in the river died and the river turned brown. 
Professor Jaramillo was asked to head an investigation into the causes. A comprehensive scientific study was conducted and the conclusions were:
(1) The swans died either of starvation because their plant food died or from heavy metal poisoning
(2) The plants died because of high concentrations of heavy metals - Iron, Magnesium and Aluminium
(3) The source of the heavy metals was the Kraft pulp mill (the same type as proposed at Longreach, but only two thirds as big)
(4) All other possible causes were investigated and rejected
  In Chile, by law, the company building the mill had to conduct comprehensive baseline studies of the local environment. This enabled Professor Jaramillo to be able to pinpoint the cause of the problems. The company will now have to pay to restore the environment. Professor Jaramillo has recommended that comprehensive baseline studies are carried out before the Longreach mill is built or else it will be difficult to remedy problems that occur after.
  So it is now apparent that the mill effluent has potential environmental consequences (and is not harmless inorganic salts as Gunns IIS has claimed- the inorganic salts can contain heavy metals). The effluent will be discharged 3kms offshore. In 1995, a ship hit Hebe Reef which is 3kms offshore. The resulting oil spill was washed onto the beaches, up the Tamar and all over the Fairy Penguins at Low Head. It was not washed away by currents and tides. What will happen to Gunns’effluent containing 120 tonnes a day of dissolved solids, 31 tonnes of colouring and 1.3 tonnes of suspended solids? Low Head is
a World class diving spot but for how long?
  To Dr Hunter I would say we would welcome his help. Sandery’s survey of Bass Strait indicates that the proposed site is the worst possible for the effluent discharge with flushing times up to 200 days. If it flushes 1% a day that means there will be 100 days worth of effluent permanently sitting just offshore. The IIS says that there is a current off Bell Buoy Beach that reverses with the tides. Isn’t it likely that this current is generated by the 53km long Tamar estuary? Doesn’t that mean that the effluent will be sucked up the Tamar? Doesn’t that break the RPDC guidelines which says effluent should not be discharged into an estuary? The IIS also says that iron concentrations are already substantial in the water. The only possible source is the Tamar. Is it wise to add more as the main problem at Valdivia was iron? We need far more work done here to investigate potential problems. Once it is built it will be too late.

Oh Tomas, you fool, you idiot!
TAP is no “shadowy front organization” for anything.
We are simply a group of very concerned community members from all walks of life, and of many different political persuasions, who have come together, united against what we percieve as something which will have serious detrimental effects on, not only we who live in this valley, but all Tasmanians. We had to take up the fight ourselves because our elected representatives have abandoned us. Its time you woke up and had a bit of a look around - there are industries and businesses other than industrial forestry which employ thousands of people - surely these people deserve a bit of consideration? All we ask is that proper science be done in the form of rigorous base-line studies BEFORE any pulp mill is even considered. That is why we went to the trouble of bringing Professor Jaramillo to Tasmania from Chile where proper science HAS been done,(ironic isn’t it - Chile is supposed to be a Third World country, but they do seem to be able to demand proper science) including prior base-line studies, into the disastrous effects of the CELCO mill near Valdivia.
As to your conspiracy theories about “shadowy fronts” - utter bunkum and you know it!
Anne

And another thing - John #1 - you are very quick to denigrate some of the speakers at the TAP lecture, but where have YOU been with YOUR scientific findings, being an oceanographer of considerable experience? Maybe instead of just being critical, you could have put your expertise to good use.
The first speaker was not a scientist, and has never claimed to be. He is a complex systems analyst - he analyses and puts the data into an understandable form for the general punter. We are not all scientists, you know, but we need to understand this stuff as much as possible, because it affects us. I am fairly certain he had permission to use the Sandery data, by the way.
As to the final comments by the MC - he is also not a scientist and makes no claims to be one - he was simply passing on anecdotal information from fishermen, who, when they lose gear in Bass Strait, almost always find it somewhere up the Tamar. No-one is trying to say that is “science” - it is just what happens.
I notice that you find no fault with Dr Jaramillo’s presentation - do I conclude from this that you found it OK? He was, after, all, the main attraction of the night.
Anne

Once again the paranoid views of Tomas attempt to derail rational consideration of forestry issues.

1) ‘Industrial forestry’ requires massive taxpayer subsidies = plantation costs, roads, bridges and trees plus all kinds of other monies to help bridge them into markets. The level of subsidies and forestry’s removal of public resources entitles the public to comment and/or oppose their activities.

2) The forest/water/land resources used by ‘industrial forestry’ are also needed by other industries, many of them more profitable than forestry and exposed to losses if/when forestry despoils/removes the tourist/farming/water environment.

3) Plantations are taking over our farms (around 20% already) and taxpayers are paying for it. Meanwhile rural communities lose cash flow.

4) We may not have enough water to sustain the current level of forestry activity. Who should give up their water for forestry ...farmers?...taxpayers?...who?

Dismissing all different thinking and projecting paranoid beliefs onto everyone else illuminates nothing except the impoverished belief systems of the writer.

Someone has to explain what’s going on in layman’s terms so that ordinary people can understand how the mill proposal might affect them, their businesses and their livelihood.

The government has tried to shuck off their responsibility to protect the public interest onto a corporation that is only allowed by law to pursue profits. They cannot act in the public interest whenever it conflicts with their profit responsibilities.

These are clearly not the right people to be specifying and reporting on matters of public safety and threats to other industries.

So who is looking after the public’s interest?

A quasi-legal body that is not accountable to the public in any way, whose decision cannot be appealed and whose actions cannot be inspected or criticised.

And how does the RPDC make their judgments? Mainly on information specified by the project proponent?

The government wants to risk billions of dollars of existing industry and business by allowing the mill operator to monitor their own performance. Does the government expect the mill operator to expose themselves to fines etc by having an open and honest testing and reporting regimen?

Earth to government…they’re not ALLOWED to act against their own commercial interests!

Where to from here? Independent monitoring, safe standards, rigorous enforcement.

It’s a no-brainer.

Nice Comments Richard
To Tomas you are at it again, eyes on the ball please for a person who claims to be in possession of a PHD you are easily led. How about your own original thoughts, surely we didn’t pay for your education so that you could parrot the party line.
Then again both the main parties tow the same line don’t they. I thought one was supposed to be the opposition and play devils advocate so that we would be au fait with the negative impacts of the governments proposals. So how about some intellectual balance and real input.
Here are a few things to chew over with the proposed pulp mill.
1 Why do Gunns not answer queries over their proposal instead telling concerned people to contact the taxpayer funded pulp mill task force or other industry funded flunkies such as FIAT or TCA.
2 There is a distinct possibility that this pulp mill could bankrupt Tasmania. With the log truck traffic going to the mill causing the equivalent to 680 years worth of road damage every year (compared to the total of all cars on our roads)
So who pays for the road damage, bridge damage and accident victims.
I spoke to an ex log truck owner 3 days ago and he told me he used to cart logs from Bronte Park to Bell Bay, he said the round trip was 7.5 hours and he did 3 trips per day 4 days a week. (yep when did he sleep, maybe on the straight bits of road)
He also told me that he was paid $1.50 per kilometre years ago and that now the price is down to $1.15. Even though prices of trucks have quadrupled since he drove.
3 It is very unlikely that we actually have the resources to feed this mill, and as such we will end up having to overcut our forests to meet our contractual obligations. So we will lose money as a State on this deal.
4. If the worst case scenario happens and there is a large fire at the pulp mill and the chemical plant is burnt, Launceston will be in danger of being poisoned by dioxins, and therefore become unliveable forever (like Seveso in Italy)
So apart from those few minor quabbles I am sure that most of the people in Tasmania will be happy to make a few shareholders rich especially as it means that we will be paying for the priveledge.
Remember we subsidise Forestry Tas to the tune of $54 million per year and they can’t make any money at all so they lost $54 million last year.
Then we get to subsidise the forest companies with their managed investment Tax avoidance schemes.
All in all sounds like a great deal to me, after all there are bound to be plenty of openings on certain logging companies boards in the future and political donations will flow like water.

If what is being done is found to be against the ecology and the interests of the the future generations of the Tasmanian population , its really very simple , start thinking of the problem as a world wide cancer ,then think of Tassie as just another growth that needs to be excised !
  Most importantly accept the umpires decision (assuming it is upheld) and not over ridden by the cooporate vandals.
                d.d.

John - well, I hope you see what I mean from the responses here. The throat is quickly jumped down even though you asked reasonable questions. The unwashed here wouldn’t be aware of your work on how things move in the water and climate change, the latter including that interesting piece on the tide mark at Port Arthur. I found that very interesting, although I was wondering how certain you could be about the modelling relative to the movement of the land?

You’re sounding a bit paranoid there, Tomas.  Come on now; ‘tis the season to be jolly.  Was it hard to type from the middle of your bed, under all your sheets, with the blinds drawn?

I won’t speak for the membership of TAP, although clearly you know absolutely nothing about this organisation or its aims.  I am not against industrial forestry per se—I believe that it can be carried out sustainably and with a view to economic viability.

Unfortunately, Tomas, the current regime in this state very much favours the latter over the former.  The most clear cut example of this is the government’s all-out support for a pulp mill, a project which will certainly prove detrimental to the environment, which will increase heavy traffic on roads already unsuited to it, and which will consume mind-bogglingly vast amounts of water as the state experiences one of its worst droughts in decades. And that’s just for starters.

Explain to me why I should support such a project, please, Tomas. I’d be very interested.

I take great exception to being referred to as “unwashed”, Tomas, simply because I have a view that is different (less blinkered) than your own.

I am a middle-aged grandmother & certainly NOT “unwashed” - stop trying to denigrate anyone who does not agree with your own stupidity.

Growing numbers of ordinary Tasmanians like me can see the utter folly of the direction our supposed leaders are taking this state with strip-mining style forestry operations.

You don’t need a PHD to see the wood for the trees. As I said before, take a real look around.

Anne

Sorry you felt that way about my presentation John.
The flush time movie was only meant to demonstrate that the Bass Strait takes a long time to exchange water, despite it’s relatively shallow profile.

Fishermen have expressed deep concern about the exposure of their fishing grounds to toxic pollutants, particularly as they relate to bottom dwellers like scallops and abalone. The flush time movie is certainly deceptive as it doesn’t show the effects of a continuous ‘point source’ of effluent being pumped into one of the slowest flush time areas of the Strait. 

The people I listen to are concerned about a process that has a developer with an obvious conflict of interest define impacts in areas that are beyond their expertise (e.g. fishing) and expects the developer to report on their own deficiencies and mistakes to a regulator. How likely is such a regime to work?

The government has used our tax money to promote the proposal, and to provide funding to the developer, and to fund the RPDC and its various activities. Despite the many concerns about, and deficiencies in, the IIS, the Department of Economic Development has refused to fund public activities.

It seems wrong to expect the public to engage scientists to ‘prove’ their concerns when it should be up to the developer and our government to prove that the mill will be safe and to regulate to assure that safety.

When, and if, that is done perhaps the communities’ pollution concerns will be set to rest.

John, I was also at the event in Hobart on Tuesday. If you were so righteously annoyed why didn’t you speak at the end when it was thrown to the audience for comments and questions? The first speaker did leave early, but you could still have addressed your point to him before he left.
You might have valid points but its a bit too easy to slag people off after the event when they can’t respond. You undermine yourself there.
Personally I thought there was a bit too much boring on about scientific methods on the night. Sorry, it just doesn’t flick my switch. It missed the point entirely I thought- Gunns seems to be colluding with Labor to saddle Tassie with an economic and environmental white elephant while keeping the public in the dark, practices which would be called corrupt in any other democracy.
Incidently, I don’t use my real name to post here because I don’t trust the entire readership to be balanced upstanding people who won’t hold my opinions against me (or throw petrol bombs in the night). We all know people in this state get abused for holding the ‘wrong’ opinions…

Anne - tut tut - name calling is not very edifying. Touched a nerve with the dark shadowy sinister back-room reference? I was trying to be ironic given these types pf references of the Greens to any organization they are opposed to. But are you sure you aren’t (yet another!) Greens front group? I do apologise as the unwashed reference obviously doesn’t apply to you. I hope you have a lovery Christmas with your children and grandchildren.

Cameron - luckily the decision on the pulp mill will be up to experts, so they wont actually need your support (or not), thanks very much.

Pete - I am up to it again because I just can’t believe how nutty the points are that come up in opposition to the mill. Yours about truck drivers who are on the road 23.5 hours a day (what did they do for the other 30 minutes - loo breaks?) and the mill bankrupting the state are just silly. Mind you, I have said elsewhere that the mill may bankrupt Gunns, so you may all be in luck there.

I should add that Gunns is under no obligation to answer to the public or external organisations, other than those mandated by law or regulation. It is just ludicrous to suggest that a private company have to respond to each and every potential interested party.

Mike, in case you don’t understand, the Govt agencies involved in promoting the mill proposal do so because they believe there will be a major economic boost to the state.

It appears that the usual suspects are coming under considerable fire and rightly so in my belief.
    I for one, have no problem with good natured levity , however these bastards have crossed the line of good taste ! and having said that i find our esteemed editor,s proclivity in constantly giving them “cart blanche” for their “sport”  a tad more than beyond the pale , perhaps a comment Linz ?
                d.d.

Presumably these are the ‘experts’, Tomas, who gave the Mill proponent a deadline for submitting details that they couldn’t supply in a 7500 page document, and then allowed the proponent to exceed the deadline without question.

All sounds fair and reasonable, doesn’t it?

C,mon abdul ! I, and many others don,t use pseudonymns and of course there are legitimate reasons why some do ! but petrol bombs ? no way ! if that was a real threat here in Australia, I,d have been toast way before this, believe me ! so don,t let the bastards get you down, when the day comes i can,t speak my mind and not be able to sign off on it is the day i,d rather not be here. This still is Australia !  not the middle east! yet.
                  d.d.

Oh Tomas - you misunderstood me - I was stating facts, not name-calling!
I know for certain that TAP is certainly NOT a Greens front group - some have tried to adhere that label to the group in order to undermine its credibility and dilute its effectiveness as a pressure group, but it won’t stick because it ain’t true, mate. Yes, some members in the group vote Green, but there are others who vote Liberal or Labor, and even others who (shock, horror!) choose not to vote at all! TAP is an eclectic group and we choose to remain at arms length form ALL politcal parties. Having said that, some of TAP’s views are more in tune with the views of some political groups than others. I had a very nice family Christmas, thank you very much.
Cheers, Anne

Abdul: you ask “If you were so righteously annoyed why didn’t you speak at the end when it was thrown to the audience for comments and questions?

I was thinking it through and decided it was not the best time or place to ask the question.

You also say “You might have valid points but its a bit too easy to slag people off after the event when they can’t respond.”

Well Mike Bolan did respond (posting 18) and I am in the course of preparing a response.

Also: “Personally I thought there was a bit too much boring on about scientific methods on the night ..... It missed the point entirely I thought.”

I tend to agree that the main presentation contained too much detail and it went on too long. However, I don’t agree that “it missed the point entirely”. As I pointed out at the meeting and in a posting (5) above: “the main ‘take home message’ from Professor Jaramillo’s presentation was that what ‘bites you in the bum’ with these kind of developments are the ‘surprises’ which are generally not discovered by a conventional consultant’s environmental impact statement” and “if you want to find something wrong with the Gunns proposal, look for the possible surprises - but do it in a sound scientific way!”.

Rodney Ross (8), Anne Johnston (posting 10) and Mike Bolan (18):

Sorry for the joint posting, but it is easiest to respond to you all in one go.

Firstly, Rodney says he would welcome my help and Anne says “maybe instead of just being critical, you could have put your expertise to good use”. Well I do try and put my expertise to use in environmental issues outside of my “day job”. However, I can’t do everything and I concentrate on things which I think are the most important and in which I think I can be most useful. Up to now the pulp mill has not had much of my attention, although I did of course attend the meeting on 20 December to find out more about it. I have also had a quick look at the consultants’ reports covering modelling of the ocean discharge. However, to do a useful and thorough analysis of these reports would take considerable time. This is also not a field in which I am directly involved now, although I was ten years ago. In short, I would rather spend my spare time being involved in my present main professional interest which is climate change.

Secondly, let me describe what I think is required for a proper assessment of an ocean discharge such as that proposed for the pulp mill. Here are the things that are needed:

1. One thing you have to have is some kind of model. Due to the present level of sophistication of the science, this would be a COMPUTER model. There are presently a number of such models used worldwide and, if applied properly, they are capable of giving reasonably valid results. I emphasise “if applied properly”, because such models often ARE NOT applied properly and one of the tasks of an EIS reviewer is to check that models are used correctly.

2. A detailed knowledge of what is in the effluent and the rate of discharge of each component of the effluent.

3. The levels of concentration of these components of the effluent which may be tolerated in the ocean. This may not simply relate to individual components but may relate to specific combinations of components, in cases where interations are important.

By combining (1) and (2) for a whole range of possible scenarios and times (i.e. covering different tides, seasons, discharge rates) one can derive simulations of the concentrations of effluent components over the region of interest and for a reasonably long time (at least a year to cover the seasons). This should then be compared with (3) to see if there are places and/or times when “safe” levels are exceeded. It should be noted that while, on average, concentrations are often below the “safe” levels, there are generally occasions and places where safe levels are exceeded; it is these latter exceedances that are the ones that are cause for concern and which generally determine the viability and design of an effluent outfall.

So how does a “flushing time” fit into all this? Firstly, it only relates to AVERAGE conditions and not to the relatively rare events when/where safe levels are exceeded. Secondly, on its own (without , for example, information on the effluent discharge as in (2), above), the flushing time is a pretty useless concept. After all, dioxins that have been in a systen for 100 days (let’s just assume that the flushing time is 100 days) are of pretty much the same toxicity as newly-released dioxins - the “age” of an effluent is generally not of prime importance - what IS important is the concentration of the various components of the effuent in the receiving water body. For what it is worth, here is the equation which gives the AVERAGE concentration of a component:

<average concentration of component (e.g. kg/cu m)>

= <discharge rate of component (e.g. kg/sec)>

x <flushing time (e.g. secs)>

/ <volume of water body (e.g cu m)>

- but again NOTE that this only gives the AVERAGE concentration over the whole water body and over a long time - it is only a VERY ROUGH way of assessing the effect of an effluent outfall - a computer model can do the job very much better.

Sorry if I have laboured the point, but hopefully I have shown that just quoting a “flushing time” means very little. For a start, other things (e.g. the discharge rate) must be combined with the flushing time before you get anything very useful (and then it only gives an “average” result). Also, large water bodies normally have large flushing times and small water bodies generally have small ones (seas like Bass Strait: typically around a year; estuaries: typically a week or so) - so does this mean that we should always discharge effluent into small water bodies (because they have short flushing times)? - of course not.

Hopefully this explains a bit better the concerns I expressed in posting (1).

Surely no one can deny that the Kraft mill in Chile has created a serious problem for the people, the wildlife and the environment in that part of Chile.
Surely we must be asking - do we want to replicate that in the Tamar Valley?
Surely Gunns, along with the government, would not want to replicate the Chilian experence?

So we must ask ourselves - is it possible to build a pulp mill in the planned location which will not cause any problems?
IF it is possible, do you think Gunns and the government will do whatever is necessary to achieve this - regardless of cost?

Given that we have a government that releases corporations from any responsibilities enshrined in environmental, planning et al laws that could inhibit their activities - for example the oft exposed farce that is the Forest Practices Code - or the release from environmental and pollution laws granted Toxic Bob Friedland at Savage River - why should we expect that these same non-standards will not apply to the Tamar Pulp Mill?

With both sides of government singing from the same song-book, and with total support from Canberra - and with a substantially complicit media - Gunns can push ahead regardless. The people of Tasmania are nowhere.
Sadly, most of them will swallow the toxic fabrications of the media promoted corporate/government spin machine.

Yes John, very useful.

Unfortunately we are the community at large and we have been refused access to any resources to conduct any kind of study…all of our millions went to either the proponent or the promotion of the project by various government groups. Consequently your advice, while valuable, should be, have been (?) taken up by the proponent. It’s probably entirely beyond the community’s reach given the total lack of help by governments.

You say “the relatively rare events when/where safe levels are exceeded”. There is no evidence that safe levels will be maintained at any time! There could be a constant outpouring of unsafe levels of (say) resin acids for all we know. Given the ‘testing’ schedule proposed and that total lack of publicly available baseline data, the ‘rare events’ that you describe could be entirely missed, or they could be the ‘norm’.

The flushing time information was a LOT more information than was provided by Ecotox via the IIS and it confirmed fishermen’s fears that whatever was pumped into the Strait might hang around a lot longer than was desired. They think that’s important because of the high value scallop and abalone beds in the vicinity. While you may be right in all or most of your comments, the community is not being provided with any guarantees or assurances, nor any resources to help them better understand the issues.

Thanks for the explanation anyway.

Build the mill already and all this hodge podge can be good grist for it.

Don Davey,
(in reply to 23)
No its not the Middle East, but its not all sunshine and cuddles either.
Did you not read about this a few weeks back?

“Police investigate alleged petrol bomb attack on protesters”
Sunday, 3 December 2006.
From ABC Online

“Tasmanian police have confirmed they are investigating allegations rocks and petrol bombs were thrown at campers supporting a treetop protest in the southern Weld Valley.

The campers are opposed to Forestry Tasmania’s program to clearfell for woodchips what they say are world heritage quality forests.

They say rocks were hurled at the campsite on the banks of the Huon River by the occupants of three utes at 3:00am AEDT yesterday.

Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Centre says the protesters were terrified.

“They were yelling obscenities which were anti-green obscenities and then they drove back 20 minutes later,” she said.

This time, protesters say the occupants threw molotov cocktails, some of which landed several metres from the tarpaulins under which they had been sleeping.

Huonville police say they have taken statements from members of the group and their allegations are being investigated. “

I think its very admirable people are happy to sign their name to everything they write. I’m not going to do it though: I’ve been ‘greenbashed’ in the past and I have no pressing desire to repeat the experience. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I suspect the sort of thing that went on at the Weld last month might easily happen again. Its not as if the local heroes behind those attacks get any sort of official discouragement - parts of the establishment here blame Greens for just about everything but the common cold! Thats all the encouragement a certain type of thug needs.

Mike (28): The whole point of my quite long discussion in (26) was to attempt to show that statements like “The flushing time information ...... confirmed fishermen’s fears that whatever was pumped into the Strait might hang around a lot longer than was desired” are meaningless. I guess I failed.

Surely the best way to tackle this problem is by introducing a steady stream of tracing material into the location of end of the effluent pipe (perhaps from a cylinder that pumps it out at a known rate for several weeks) and then recording the concentrations of the tracing material at various times at various locations. In that way we would be able to tell just where the pollution would end up and in what concentration.
The monitoring should continue until a maximum level is reached. Doesn’t seem complicated to me.
The work done in the IIS is just totally inadequate.

Science is a wonderful tool, and is responsible for some of the most amazing discoveries, yet it has proven itself time and again to be fallible.  We can talk about Science providing us with ‘useable baseline data’ as much as we like, but this Pulp Mill (and any variations of its ilk) will still pollute our air and water. 

That, for me at least, is the end of the matter.  We live in an age where we are all too aware of the results of past and present disasters of this kind, along with a myriad of others.  We should not accept any industry, government or scientist, new or otherwise, that persists in believing and promulgating the Myth that it is ‘scientifically sound’ to pollute the environment.

Let me put this as bluntly as it seems to need. If I visited your house today and everyday for the next thirty years, and then offered to get you a glass of water, then defecated in it, then handed it to you, would you drink it? 

Likewise, you would be even less impressed if I parked a motor vehicle in your loungeroom and proceeded to run it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 30 years.

Now I know there will be ‘Scientists’ out there who will treat this example with all sorts of disdain, that it is ‘too simple a model’ to use in ‘this very complex issue’ and my ‘lack of scientific rigour’ is plain for all to see; but that folks is the nuts and bolts of it all.  We continue to ignore what we know to be true, over what we use for expediency, at our own peril.  Science plays no part in a decision that runs counter to logic, a logic that has known for millennia that you cannot use the planet as a dumping ground without it turning back on you.

All the ‘scientific’ statistical data that helped Phillip Morris, and Governments, make squillions of dollars, when all along anybody with half a mind knows that smoking is just not good for you, or anybody around you, or inside you…  All of you who smoked, still smoke and those of us unfortunate enough to be around smokers know that there is no level of ‘minimal harm’.

Why do the supporters of this pulp mill, and some scientists in particular, continue to back an industry, government and science that is going to deliberately and knowingly FUCK US ALL UP!!!

There is no good crying, “No, not in my back yard!!!” either.  It should be evident enough from ALL the other nations around the world that it should not be in anybody’s back yard.  The effects of environmental damage are all about us, and the fact that we still fail to see that the planet we call home is our backyard, is an indictment of us all, and that message needs to be brought home harder than ever before.

Money, money, money, money, money…  Yes, it plays its part, but you know what, I reckon it comes down to ego.  No-one wants to appear to ‘lose face’, despite the fact we’re going to lose the planet.  Big John Gay doesn’t want to back down, nor Big John Lennon, or Little Big John Howard, and Cornelis A van der Kley, Robin Holyman, Robin Gray, David McQuestin, Christopher Newman and Wayne Chapman certainly don’t want to lose out on what is proving to be a most lucrative little money earner, despite the 20% losses from last year.  The bastards simply don’t give a fig for anything other than their own interests, money and reputations.  We, the remainder, and scientists included, are merely a byline to this stirring of the pot of corruption called Tasmania Industry, all under the auspices of the Government that many of you chose.  “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten”

This whole fiasco puts me in mind of Ben Elton’s book, Stark, whereby, the wealthiest ‘men’ in the world, realising that the planet really was well and truly screwed, built for themselves a Star Ark (hence Stark), to which they set off to in order to avoid the chaos they’d left behind. 

This issue isn’t a just a Tasmanian issue, but a global one.  (The first person to publicly call me another Gaiaist, or Catastrophist, or Green Reductionist clearly has their head up their Khyber Pass, and quite frankly isn’t worth the ‘steam of my pish’!)  We are being shafted folks, no two ways about it, for so long as there is one Scientist who is willing to ‘support’ this type of Environmental Vandalism, the powers that be will ensure that this behemoth rolls on its destructive way.

Tigdh (33)
          my sentiments exactly, as i have quoted many times previously ,however not with the same eloquence .  In the past many others have posted seemingly without the ability to condense the problems to the lowest common denominator as your reference to “excrement in the water” and “vehicle in the living room” or my reference to W.O.M.D,s in another thread in answer to J.B.
          I believe that this approach is of extreme relevance in order to bring home the effects of that which is being done or proposed, not just for Tasmania ! but as i have also been trying to get across, that which is a world problem, as for us to concentrate on what is proposed for the Tamar and later the Huon valley,s is simply an addition to an already out of control world catastrophe which may already have past our ability to rectify!  if one is to take on board the mantra of David Susuki who in my estimation stands head and shoulders above his contemporaries.
          If i may say, to many of those who post here, i can say uneqivically that many new potential posters see much of what appears as eletist ,especially in reference to the writing and abuse dished out by kevin bonham, tomas, and herbert. and accordingly have been deterred by same and it has to be evident to all that his and or their absence from this particular thread has been a breath of fresh air.
                    d.d.

Tiqdh - I am not sure it is helpful to be anti-science if the answers (and the questions, in the case of John Hunter’s original query and comments) don’t fit your world paradigm. There are all sorts of shonky ideas that should be open to question by scientific method. Good scientists also usually know when things are uncertain, and how we might get towards possible answers, and how we might estimate risks. At the end, we have a bunch of people who just dont want a mill and are prepared to believe/say anything to stop it. If pollution really was the issue, well why are there no pickets around current polluters? - quite a number of current industries on the Tamar and Derwent that are polluting away without protest. It seems you may be relying on your instincts - and that is fine - but instincts are not very convincing, particularly as far as the RPDC is concerned.

Tigdh has opened up one of my pet subjects. Science and scientists.
What I’m about to say is not unique to science.  At is an insidious disease that afflicts virtually all professions. Science is a broad-brush that can cover most of them - there are a multide of scientific disciplines.
One of the most seriously infected professions is journalism - ever read the holy grail of journalists?  One rule is to always investigate and reveal the truth to the people!  Ever asked yourself how many ‘journalists’ live by that code of conduct?  Not many!  And those that do very often don’t have a hiigh profile job with a major paper.  Bright-eyed and bushy tailed young journo’s quickly come to understand that if you want bylines, the best assignments and promotion - and higher pay - they learn to live by the unwritten rules of the proprietor! The bright eyes go dull and the brushy tail drags on the ground, getting matted with bidgies.

And so it is with the vast majority of scientists. Those foolish enough to practice pure science, considering only the facts, and the results of their analysis and experiments - are very likely to come up with answers the nice folks paying the bill do not want to hear. Scientists who come up with ‘the wrong results’ soon find themselves missing out on research grants and plum jobs. It is therefore inevitable, in this corporatised world, that independent, free thinking, honest scientists who have not sold their souls - are rare indeed.

And hey, guess what! Their work is scorned, they are vilified - and the media, if they report on their findings at all, will distort them - or quote the bought scientists who set out to discredit them. Even worse, they are ignored.

The corporate world of spin - applying the art of turning words on their head - describe high quality, meticulously documented and peer reviewed science as JUNK SCIENCE!  They describe the ‘science’ produced by their own scientists, or those they retain, who have produced the desired outcomes - as SOUND SCIENCE!

Just keep that upper-most in your mind next time you see those terms!

So in the case of the Pulp Mill, Gunns can produce reams of ‘Sound Science’ to back their proposal. They can wheel in phalanxes of high-priced ‘experts’.  A distinguished scientist brought to Tasmania from Chile who has headed a team examining an operational mill on an estuary in Chile that is creating very serious problems. His findings - an inconvenient truth - are dismissed here. His work is treated as junk science.

Our challenge is - surely - to set out to ensure the people of Tasmania understand Professor Eduardo Jaramillo’s message.  Just realise that our media will not do it for you!

Rodney (32): Tracer experiments of the kind you suggest (using, for example, fluorescent dyes or radioactive tracers) have been carried out for the past few decades in support of environmental assessments. However, their usefulness is limited. If you were to inject enough tracer so that the concentration over most of Bass Strait was above the minimum detectable level for a reasonable period (e.g. a year, to cover a range of seasons and weather events) then you would have to add an awful lot of tracer. This would firstly be horrendously expensive and secondly would mean that the region near the outfall would have levels way above any permissible safe concentration (tracers, like most substances, are toxic at sufficiently high levels) - you could well cause more environmental damage during this assessment than during the life of the mill. This is why we generally use computer models to do such “experiments” - in addition, tracer experiments are sometimes used for limited periods to validate or adjust the models.

John, it seems that the Strait only clears quickly during the winter months, elsewhere it takes up to 6 months to flush.

The mill will continuously pump millions of litres per day of effluent into the Bass Strait from a point source in a low flush rate area. The Bass Strait is known (by fishermen) to be slow to flush (they have their methods) therefore effluent will tend to accumulate in the area - after all where else can it go? That area comprises many scallop and abalone beds amongst other assets. These creatures tend to concentrate many chemicals in their bodies when they feed.

It’s true that we can’t get a picture of this without some modelling, it’s also true that the community has little chance of funding such a project.

The best way to resolve community concerns is with authoritative information - information that should be supplied by independent experts acting for the community. The community is not getting information, it is getting vague promises and evasions coupled with marketing hype about the mill itself.

Tigdh Glesain (33): I don’t really see your point - or at least how you can make your point and yet keep on existing. If you really want to prevent “pollution” at any cost then please stop emitting greenhouse gases immediately - i.e. stop breathing.

I think most rational people accept that, to exist, we cannot avoid a certain level of “pollution”. However we can also do our best to minimise that pollution and to act in ways that are generally described by the word “sustainable”.

I have so far seen no valid scientific reason, from the point of view of ocean “pollution”, to oppose the pulp mill. This doesn’t mean that I am confident that there won’t be problems related to the ocean discharge - only that no one has so far indicated any. Statements like “the work done in the IIS is just totally inadequate” (32), with no supporting scientific justification, are pretty unhelpful. There may well be other valid reasons to oppose the mill, such as its effects on the Tasmanian forests and what some may see as a flawed political process—but please don’t bring up objections related to the effect of the outfall unless you have some solid scientific justification.

John,

You make good points and keep avoiding the wider picture. It doesn’t make good business or economic sense to only imagine there will be detrimental impacts if the developer alerts us to the possibilities. What’s needed is an independent review of the possibilities coupled with recommendations for the genuine control of any substantial risks.

A review of the ocean impacts of the mill was carried out by a UTAS professor and is available in the submission to the RPDC from the Tasmanian Fishing Industries Council. If you read it you’ll then have some supporting justification for why there are concerns.

Again, it doesn’t make sense for the community at large to hold raffles or whatever to pay for scientific work when we pay some of the highest taxes in the world to our governments. We don’t have any money left for this…the government has taken it and they’ve been giving it to the proponent. Constantly telling the community that more scientific work is needed is unhelpful.

Your critiques may be technically correct but they are not implementable in the current environment and consequently are of little practical help.

This is a pity I know but we can’t do much about it unless we can get government to assume its full responsibliities.

I get the impression this Tidgh character is basically just a biased wafflebag who doesn’t actually know very much about science and the scientific method.  It is actually not true that all half-intelligent people knew all along that smoking was bad for you; many doubted this until the weight of scientific evidence of harm was very strong.  Other “scares” supported by a similar level of so-called “logic”, however, have often turned out to be without foundation.  There is no substitute for actual investigation of what a given process does.  Analogical platitudes to the contrary from both sides should be ignored.

Paul de Burgh-Day in #36 paints a gloomy picture of a world in which “the vast majority of scientists” are corrupt, but provides no evidence to back his claims, most likely because (i) he is another lazy arguer and (ii) there isn’t any.  I have personally come up with so-called “wrong results” several times (and acted on them) and never experienced any problems as a result.

Also it shouldn’t be assumed that a scientist “speaking out” about green issues is necessarily an honest scientist while the government scientist responding to such claims is the dishonest one.  Scientists speaking out in a pro-green manner can sometimes have undeclared motives affecting their behaviour too.  A hidden motive sometimes present in such cases is the desire for research funding - by exaggerating a risk a scientist may be able to get someone to pay them to do more work on it.

The issue of the political use of the term “junk science” aside, it is alas a fact that some substandard stuff does make it past peer review and become easy fodder for industry debunkings.  Most often the problem is not the data but the conclusions drawn from it, in particular the making of speculative statements about causation that the data are not strong enough to support.

(41) “It,s not true that half intelligent people didn,t know smoking was bad for you”?
    Is this guy for real ?    Even Fred Average’s like me knew in the late fifties and sixties that it was bad ,so, i dunno what planet (!‘s) been living on.
    Scientist’s in general were not being accused of corruption per.se,  merely “self preservation” as has been demonstrated by many retired now blowing the whistle from much of the scientific world, then again our resident snail specialist, as a scientific person of huge knowledge and respect (according to him ), one would have assumed to have known this !
    words fail me! (as he maintains they so often do.)
                  d.d.

My statement that IIS is totally inadequate is based on statements made by various bodies including the scientific peer reviews commissioned by the RPDC. For example:

This is an excerpt from the marine and wildlife section of the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water printed in the Mercury on 24/9/2006:

Toxicos fails to conclude or describe the risk to seals of bioaccumulating dioxins from exposure to pulp mill effluent. Evidence exists that the effect of exposure is significant, “therefore the Toxicos implication is misleading and their conclusion false”. Toxicos states that dioxins are not significantly bioaccumulated by fish. This statement is profoundly inaccurate, misleading and directly contradictory to references cited by Toxicos and Toxicos statements. The method used to determine the risk of bioaccumulation in fish is inappropriate. The assessment using effluent concentration by Toxicos is invalid and misleading and all conclusions based on this information are unsubstantiated. Toxicos demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of biomagnification.

The Australian on 9/8/2006 reports that a Californian study on frogs has found that while one chemical alone may do no harm in low doses, in conjunction with others, even in doses that are individually safe, it can do serious harm. The US Geological Service notes ‘the potential effects of contaminant mixtures on people, aquatic life and fish-eating wildlife are still poorly understood’.

The Beca AMEC peer review is not happy with Gunns’ IIS. It says there are many deficiences including no tests to see if the Chlorates in the effluent have a long term effect on Brown Algae. Chlorates are used by gardeners as weed killers. Brown Algae are at the bottom of the food chain so their demise could affect other animals up the food chain. The review also thinks that fish will be attracted to the outfall and feeding seals as well. Sharks around Tenth Island then eat the seals. Another critisism is that the outfall is situated on a colony of the endangered Gunns Screw Shell.

The Uniquest review also critisises the IIS. And in view of Professor Jaramillo’s findings in Chile, it might be a good idea to survey the water bird population on the Tamar so that we can tell if the numbers start to decline.

A known effect of pulp mill effluent is endocrine disruption where the normal male/female ratio is disturbed.

So it will cause damage. The question is how much and how will it be monitored if no proper surveys have been conducted before start-up?

I prefer to avoid wasting my time engaging with (or even reading) DON DAVEY’s babble all that often but it should be pointed out that in number 42 his opening sentence is a misquote, in several different ways (most significantly the removal of the word “all”), of what I actually wrote. 

DON, your new year’s resolution for 2007 should have been to learn to read.  They are doing amazing things with lifelong learning these days and even for you it is never too late!

Bonham as usual play,s with semantics in order to justify his crap, also my post was not printed in its entirety for reasons known only to our esteemed editor, and i have found not unusual when dealing with this individual “bonham” ,which leads me to ask as to what pressure he seems able to bear on these proceedings ???.
    Yes i omitted the word all, which made no difference to me as to the content of his statement. and if he were to write in the manner of “normal” individuals instead of trying to impress whoever with flowery prose and refrain from terms such as a ” biased wafflebag”  then others may, (including yours truly) take him more seriously.
  Attacks of personal nature are the insincerest form of humour or show of intelligence of which i personally have to plead guilty , however i hope it will be noted by all except of course , the usual sycophants that comments of that nature have been confined purely to he and his little friends.
                 
                      d.d.

I visited Chile in April 2006 to inform myself of the CELCO pulp mill generated ecological catastrophe in the Rio Cruces Wetlands Sanctuary in Valdivia. I consider it my good fortune, and Tasmania’s, that I was able to spend some time in the wetlands with Prof. Eduardo Jaramillo, because it was that experience of rigorous science in action, (which I felt to be significantly absent from the State sponsored pulp mill proposal in Tasmania), that prompted me to invite him to this island.

I am pleased his visit has generated debate in this thread. But in other information and media areas, notably the ABC, the Mercury and Southern Cross, the newsworthiness of Prof Jaramillo’s visit was either ignored, boycotted or given little regard. Only the Examiner and WIN appreciated the significance of his visit. Some might think two out of five ain’t bad given the public expectation of distortion, spin, censorship and self-censorship in our fettered media.

Robert McMahon

DON, I am not playing with anything or justifying anything, simply pointing out that in post 42 you gave a direct quote of me which is actually not what I said, and therefore the view you are attacking is not mine.  The major difference the word “all” makes is that if it is left out, then the statement can be refuted by demonstrating that *some* half-intelligent individuals knew there was an issue all along - something which I certainly do not dispute.

I can advise DON (not that he seems inclined to ever take me at my word) that I have only approached Lindsay over two moderation issues on this site ever.  Firstly the matter of language suggestive of violence threats, and secondly a suggestion that long-inactive threads could be locked (this came before the “Recent Comments” screen was added, which now provides a good reason not to lock old threads). 

I understand that Lindsay voluntarily removes some of the more extreme and doubtless defamatory personal attacks on posters that are sometimes submitted, and am pleased that this occurs, but have brought no pressure to bear in this regard.

Methinks bonham protests to much,(1) he admits that he indeed has approached the editor ! (2) why
then has his brand of bullying been allowed to continue unabated ? (3) his particular choice of prose apart from his bullying nature is designed to allow him to be a fence sitter (so to speak) with the particular purpose of (should he be taken to task on a particular issue and found to be wanting) he falls back on “what i really meant was blah, blah,blah,” also how is it that he seems aware of what has been written of him “before print” judging by the many posts i have contributed in answer to his attacks ,however, never making it to print. ?
    I may be getting older but i ain,t got dementia ,just yet !
              d.d.

Good one Robert.
              i must say that the present Examiner editor has been (of late) more inclined to a more balanced coverage in “letters” regarding the pulp mill debate, however nothing we do can combat the full page spreads that continue on occasions that blatently advertise their vandalism as a wonderful future for this state, it has to be noted that last night was (by the looks of it) the beginnings of concerted televison exposure in furthering those ends,  proving there is no substitute for money when trying to combat this behaviour !
                  D.D

GUNNS’s greedy actions drives some Australians to the limit

————————————————————————————————————————
Concerned by logging company Gunns Ltd’s proposal to build a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, Mr Michaels hopes to raise $100,000 to establish a Tasmanian round table for sustainable industry.
The 35-year-old lawyer is vice president of the Ethical Investment Association and a former adviser to the United Nations Environment Programme.

He now runs two businesses involved in sustainable development.

————————————————————————————————————————

Green kayaker attempts Sydney to Hobart

Paddling Instructor News, Canada - 7 hours ago
http://www.paddlinginstructor.com/paddling_news/green_kayaker_attempts_sydney_to_hobart_20070102.php
Tuesday, 02 January 2007
The crews of Sydney to Hobart casualties ABN Amro and Maximus - who had to pull out of the famous race when both were dismasted - would be shaking their heads in bewilderment.

On a wet Sydney Tuesday morning, environmental activist Simeon (Simeon) Michaels pushed off from Manly Cove, trying to do what the two super maxis could not - reach Hobart.

But Mr Michaels won’t be sailing the treacherous course, he’ll be kayaking the 2,000 kilometres - to raise awareness of the environmental dangers of a proposed pulp mill near Launceston.

Concerned by logging company Gunns Ltd’s proposal to build a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley in northern Tasmania, the avid kayaker and environmental businessman decided he needed to make waves if he was to stop the project going ahead.

His trip will take two months, with stops at coastal spots along the way, and Mr Michaels hopes to raise $100,000 to establish a Tasmanian round table for sustainable industry.

Mr Michaels, from Byron Bay on the NSW north coast, said Gunns should be investing in sustainable alternatives to logging, such as tourism and agriculture.

The 35-year-old lawyer is vice president of the Ethical Investment Association and a former adviser to the United Nations Environment Programme.

He now runs two businesses involved in sustainable development.

“The Gunns mill will consume five million tonnes of forest a year, it will pump 30 billion litres of dioxin-laden effluent into the Bass Strait, and it will pollute the air,” he said.

“There are other people who depend on clean air and clean water for their livelihoods - the fisherman, the farmers and the tourist industry.

“What we’ve got here is the case of a big company making money at everyone else’s expense.

“There are some absolutely crucial environmental issues which I want to raise awareness of.”

Mr Michaels, who has previously kayaked 800km from Byron Bay to the Barrier Reef, was unfazed by what lay before him, including the perils of Bass Strait.

“I think that I’m going to get some great days and I’m going to get some absolutely shocking days, and I’m going to take it as it comes,” he said.

“They [the Sydney to Hobart fleet] copped it. But a kayak goes between the waves rather than through them, so hopefully I won’t get caught in conditions as bad as that.

“Fingers crossed I do a little better than they did.”

Mr Michaels will be joined along the way by a land crew, and the occasional kayaker providing moral support, he said.

Source: smh.com.au
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Green-kayaker-attempts-Sydney-to-Hobart/2007/01/02/1167500115574.html

I shake my head in dismay at just how naive most of those who natter away on this forum are about ‘the media’. To think that the mainstream media will do anything other than serve the interests of its corporate peers is naivety pure and simple.
Anyone who thinks that the media abide by their code of ethics needs to take a reality check.
This is not to say that there are no good journalists - there are.
What gets published, and the tone of that, is dictated by the top. Editors-in Chief know what the proprietor wants.  If he doesn’t, he’d better adjust his thinking - or look for a new career.
Of course editors in chief have been well trained before they ever get to that position.  Every cadet journalist, however highly motivated, will soon start to learn what is wanted. It goes through the entire system.
Some cannot hack it - they get out. Some of them take the financially tortuous path to writing and self publishing. Few make it - and those that do get recognition - usually on the web - soon find that if they are hitting the target, they are taking heavy duty return fire.
Contrary to common belief, the politicians we elect are in reality beholden to corporations. At the head of the pile are the bankers - who control everything. (And maybe the bankers will give this project the thumbs down eh?)
Tasmania is no exception.  Today it is run by the forest industry - and who you vote for, Lib or Lab, makes not a jot of difference. Despite denials, ‘our’ government is controlled primarily by one corporation - Gunns. It will do just about anything Gunns requires of it - at our expense. The brutal reality is that the media - sadly, the ABC included - are complicit. That is why somebody like the good professor from Chile has been substantially ignored.
That is why I said a few days ago that if you want to get his message to the people of Tasmania, you MUST do it yourself. Think hard about how it might be done.
Recognise that it will cost money - but not necessarily a lot.
If you think this is important, you will be able to raise enough funds. We do not have the luxury of a bag of our own taxpayers money,
How about a concise factual brochure titled maybe as;
PULP MILL: Factual evidence for every Tasmanian to consider.

Needless to say, the friendly pro-Gunns folks will attack whatever you say. Gunns will wheel out their nastiest spin doctors. In this game, truth has no meaning - at least not from their side.  So it is vital to be concise, be precise with no speculation.

But, whatever you do, whatever you expose, no matter how much solid proof you have, the mill will be approved.
But that is not the end of the story is it!

A Reply To John Hunter # 39 - Part One:

Are you really the Dr John Hunter, of the University of Tasmania’s ACE CRC?  Do you really expect that anybody with your qualifications can make such a clearly misleading statement as “If you really want to prevent ”pollution” at any cost, then please stop emitting greenhouse gases immediately – i.e., stop breathing”, and not be laughed at with full fare and heartily so?  Are you truly an oceanographer, or are you attempting to edify yourself by making others appear ‘less qualified’ than you, and intimating that those not so qualified are to be ignored?

Prior to the current global situation of excessive CO2 production, and as you rightly know John, this planet’s ability to comprehensively deal with my, yours or Bonnie The Bletherer’s hot air is a well established scientific fact, and for you to suggest that this normal and natural event is outside of the biospheres ability to deal with them, is a grossly misleading sham statement.  Further, as an Oceanographer you would be aware that it is the worlds oceans that play the greater part in the consumption of the planets CO2 through the phytoplanktons and their ilk.  The biosphere had developed, over millions of years, to effectively maintain a balance in this regard, and along with our ever diminishing trees, the effectiveness of the earths ocean as CO2 sinks are a well documented.  To even hint at normal aspiration as being a pollutant, if only in so much as an indirect link to the current excessive ‘man-made’ production of CO2 owing to a massively industrialised world, is a cheap shot at the planet and its inhabitants’ expense.

Since this increase in human industrialised activity, which includes the removal of vast amounts of forests, ‘man-made’ pollution (along with warming) of our waterways and oceans and air, the balance has started to tip, overwhelmingly, toward a level of toxicity unheralded in the planets history.

As an Oceanographer John, you would no doubt be aware that the ‘global conveyer belt’ of our planet is failing due to this combination of warming, pollution, and decreasing phytoplankton numbers.  When the oceans warm up, the nutrients that the phytoplankton rely on do rise from the depths of the ocean, and in turn, the plankton do not reproduce.  How much science does it take to understand that when there are less phytoplankton, there is a corresponding decrease in the photosynthesis that are part and parcel of the wee beasties growth.  No or less phytoplankton = no or less CO2 consumption, which in turn = more CO2 in the atmosphere, and more global warming.  Am I wrong in anything I’ve said so far John, with respect to the science of our waterways and oceans? 

Your aside that ”most rational people accept that, to exist, we cannot avoid a certain level of pollution”, is both dishonest and misleading.  What human beings and all life on this planet produce as a result of their natural biological functioning, i.e., fecal matter, urine, carbon dioxide from normal respiratory function, et.al., are well within the biospehere/ Planet Earth’s developed ability to contend with.  The pollutants produced by industrialisation, in conjunction I might add with a great deal of science, are an entirely different matter altogether.

Reply to John Hunter # 39 - Part Two:

If you want a ’solid scientific justification’ for me raising objections, let me object in three words – The King River.  As a result of the appalling convergence of mining practice, governmental policy and inaction, and blatant environmental abuse, The King River, along with sections of the Queen River and Macquarie Harbour, is virtually dead.  The King River is more akin to a flow of H2So4 (sulphuric acid), having an equivalent pH of 2.  The RPDC conducted a study on the King River and concluded that ”the King River system is still highly toxic to aquatic life”. 

Closer to home John, it is well known that the Tamar River System is itself still attempting to recover from the decades of abuse it suffered (and continues to suffer) from the Eliza Tinsley (and others) Tin production operations that flooded the system with heavy metals (Tin and Zinc), Tanning operations that flooded the system with Mercury, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Zinc and Selenium, etc., and even now, after three decades plus since the cessation of these industries, shellfish are still found to have ”above food consumption levels” of same. (source: TAMAR ESTUARY FISH AND SEDIMENTS STUDY Final Report For THE TASMANIAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES March 2002

Yet you claim that we need ”supporting scientific justification” to tell us what we already know.  Admittedly,the body of evidence is thin on the ground for what will happen to waters in Bass Strait, but if empirical evidence is what you want as a lead, then the current state of the Tamar due to past and current practice, let alone this pulp mill’s intended use should be a good starting point. Might I suggest you begin moving your expertise back from Antarctica, and bring it to bear on Bass Strait. 

Perhaps John, instead of painting yourself as a Mighty Paladin of Science, you pause, take a breath, and tell us what we can really expect our Bass Strait and Tasman Sea to do if they are subjected to 30 years of effluent dumping?  Hypothesise John, as I believe that this is part of the scientific method, and give us a Professional assessment based on the scientific models that do exist.  Then give us your gut feeling Old Son; we won’t hold you to it, but it will at least give us an opportunity to see that you can be more than a ”vicarious frontman” for the likes of Bonnie the Bletherer.

In terms even the layman can understand John, ”put up, or shut up”.

Now Bonnie Dear, whilst it is true I don’t know much about Science and the Scientific method, I do know a dodge when I see one.  Neither you, or Hector the Ice Hunter, actually addressed the main issue I raised, namely, what do you think will be the result of 30 years of toxic, ‘man-made pollutants going into our oceans, river and air if the Longreaching Consequences of the Gunns Limited Pulp Fiction Mill goes ahead. 

The facts based Science already exists Bonnie that tells us all, particularly those of you with those power packed Acronymic credentials after your names that if you continue to dump ‘man-made’ pollutants into the biosphere’s waterways, oceans and air, and do so for extended periods (let’s pick a wild number, say every day for 30 years), there will be a quite significant negative change to the way in which those habitats behave.  They will have a deleterious effect on the biodiversity of those habitats, and those surrounding them.  They are Scientific Fact Bonnie Wee Bletherer, and you know this.

Here’s what I do understand in my, admittedly, limited sense of the Scientific Method luscious Bonnie,

Step 1/  Identify a question or problem you wish to explore, i.e., something you don’t understand, but wish to know the answer to; a problem that is of interest to you, let’s say “Will the introduction of a fecal stool into Bonnie Boys cuppa create a problem for him if he drinks one a day for the next 30 years?”; or a problem that prevents us from moving further into reasoned debate, say “Is there a cure for Bonnie’s lamentable Diatribe as a Didactic Device of obfuscation, and solutions for those so afflicted?”

Step 2/  Look into the question and research it, i.e., source material that may help inform you; ask others for their opinions – both professional and personal; empirical observation, i.e., “Bonnie suffered a severe gastrointestinal reaction after just one mouthful of said cuppa!” or, “Alas, no suitable cure has yet been found to counter the Dribbling Diatribe of Bonnie the Bletherer!”

Step 3/  Work out a way to discuss the possible outcomes, and in particular, the differences in the actual outcomes as opposed to what you thought those outcomes would be, i.e., “Well I thought Bonnie would have seen the fecal matter in the cuppa, but apparently he’s blind to anything other than things without a back bone?”, or “It would appear that this Didactic Device is prevalent amongst the Community of Bletherers, and makes them all susceptible to run off at the Mouth!”

Step 4/  Detail the method by which you plan to do this, your modus operandi, and do so in a way that others can follow in order to repeat, and therefore either verify or question your outcomes.  Sounds fair – Anyone else reading this, please feel free to use the Scientific Method…

Step 5/  Put this methodology into action, and by empirical study, or observation, record everything that happens.  PLEASE NOTE: You must be candid and frank in what you discover, i.e., “Life without Bonnie would be somewhat different, but far less interesting (If only he hadn’t drunk from the ill-fated chalice!”)”

Step 6/ Collate all your information into forms that can be read and studied by others, and detail what it was that you discovered, i.e., “Just one mouthful of shit is enough to kill a man, or a Bonnie.”; perhaps include images or other graphical info.  (I did go looking for an image of you Dear Bonnie, but the Science Shop sold their last one to John Herbert…)

Step 7/  Once you’ve got it all together, tell everyone you think might be interested in your work all about your work, you know, communication, and again, you have to tell us if you got some things wrong, or if the results caused you to have a change of heart, or indeed, stopped it beating altogether.

This is all just a hypotheses by the way; can’t actually imagine anybody to be so stupid as to swallow their own excrement.

“In short, the Scientific Method is a general attempt to comparmentalise and codify an entire worldview in which scientists operate in an ideal forum; in this world it remains a very sharp (Ockham’s) razor with which to separate the wheat from the chaff.”

Not since the goons,and monty python ! have i fell about laughing so much as i have done with post (54) absolute brilliance , most decidedly a single malt experience which will be immediately blown up and framed to take prime position upon my hallowed walls.
            thanks tigdh,
an excellent piece to start the day.
                  d.d.

On Science - Part I

Paul de Burgh-Day raises some interesting points on scientists and journalists which are relevant to this thread. I agree with him wholeheartedly about the media. The print media, by and large, is private enterprise – they are under no obligation whatsoever to be balanced or to present different views on individual topics. They justify their existence by selling newspapers and attracting sponsors. So, they have to juggle whatever personal set of ethics they may have against potentially competing interests.

I am also glad that Paul has an interest in science and scientists. Like any profession, there are good scientists and bad scientists. However, the process of science is very different to that of journalism. Science is about getting to the facts. This is not to say that in particular fields or disciplines that there are not dominant paradigms or theories, and that working outside a fashionable area may not help your career along. But at the end of the day, science is mostly about making data available in a public fashion and opening up any new idea to potential support of falsification from other scientists. It is true that crowds of scientists can be going down the wrong path for a period of time, but the beauty of the disci

Saying this, there are branches of science where the data is largely ‘hidden’ for various commercial reasons. This is what may happen in scientific studies for, for example, pharmaceutical companies and other industries interested in developing intellectual property. If the data isn’t protected for a period of time, then the position for developing a patent is undermined. Ultimately though, if a public company wants to trade off a scientific discovery, it will need to make the data available for external scrutiny.

What the general public, and some poor scientists, sometimes don’t understand is that there are always great uncertainties in many areas of scientific endeavour. With relevance to interests of people who frequent Tas Times, these include areas such as climate change, modelling complex systems (eg environmental impacts), toxicology etc. We had an interesting example recently with the Bureau of Meteorology who published their annual data – despite showing temperature anomaly within 0.5 degrees Celsius, the general error margin for most of this century, the media story was about climate change. Yes, this has been a year for drought in the SE of Australia, but this can be attributed more squarely to the El Nino effect more than particularly at a definite effect of climate change. This is not to say that the evidence generally indicates a warming globally, but that the scale and sustainability of this effect cannot be determined conclusively.

On Science - Part II

Which bring brings me to the final quality of a good scientist – scepticism. A good scientist is aware of the limitations of the current state of knowledge and the degree to which ‘evidence’ is robust. When a non-scientist is confronted by scepticism or lack of ‘belief’, they often, wrongly, assume that this is due to some entrenched antagonistic position. Usually, scientific scepticism is based on a good understanding of the limitations or uncertainties of knowledge. There are some things we know based on repeated observation and/or experimentation, and there are things we don’t know for sure. A good scientist appreciates the difference.

The difficulty Paul might have is with what we might call ‘bought opinion’ – this is the opinion of, for example, consultants and contractors brought in to provide advice. Sometimes this advice is based on actual experimental work or will involve an examination of the extant evidence. Like all scholarly activities, contractual scientific work can be right or wrong, or it can be inconclusive. What Paul may not know is that scientific consultancy is typically of a high level in terms of authenticity – this is less because of the scientific ethics involved, but also because the consultant/contractor is liable for the advice provided. Public, but not private, companies are also responsible under corporate law to divulge any scientific advice as specifically requested. Similarly, if challenged, the scientific pronouncements of a company can be open for litigation. So, usually all players are very, very careful about scientific advice for hire. This is the area I now work in, though in human life sciences, so I am familiar with the ethical and contractual dangers inherent in this kind of scientific activity.

Finally, one of the reasons that we don’t have good scientific evidence on things the public is interested in is that the public funding of basis or applied science is very, very poor. This state government is not interested in science, even though Hobart and surrounds has one of the greatest concentrations of science PhDs per capita than anyone else. Believe it or not, one of the big reasons that Forestry Tasmania doesn’t make a big profit is because they route their income into forestry science. The fed government support of science is also woeful, with only a small minority of applications to the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council getting any funding. It is a very competitive environment and I take my hats off to my colleagues who are still in the public research system.

In reference to your second last paragraph Tidgh, you seem to be doing a good job of doing just that.

Tidgh, my purpose in writing on this thread was simply to dispose of the false scientific intuitionism being espoused by you in #33 and the equally silly view of science as almost universally corrupt that Paul advanced in #36.  Far from asking anyone what they thought would be the impacts of 30 years of whatever, you carried on as if you already knew the answers.  You don’t, and nor do I.  I’d rather leave that question to those who knew what they are talking about on the issue of likely chemical impacts from this mill.

Your ramblings prove that you are just as clueless about scientific method as I expected, since you have the interpretation of outcomes (phase 3) before the planning of the experiment (phase 4) and the experiment itself (phase 5).  A scientist testing a hypothesis would actually provisionally devise an experiment first, and having done so, would then consider whether the possible outcomes of that experiment would actually answer the research question, or whether alternative explanations might be possible.  In the latter case, the experimental design should be revised.  Sometimes this experimental design process leads to the conclusion that the research question is not actually testable, at least for the time being.

Another problem with your experiment is that potentially fatal testing on a unique subject is not necessarily repeatable, so you would need to expand your research question to the impacts of coprophagia on humans more generally.

Furthermore you seem trapped in the crude hypothesis-driven model that has been roundly debunked in the philosophy of science over the last several decades.  While some science is done like that, much excellent science consists simply of the recording of data without a particular hypothesis in mind.  Such observational science often forms the basis for new hypotheses, or discredits potential hypotheses before they are even conceived.  Environmental impact assessment depends strongly on such observations plus a heavy dose of inference from them - one can hardly test the ecological impacts of a pulp mill by building one.

Quoting from user-edited encyclopedias (in this case the EvoWiki, laudable as its aims may be) is hardly an effective way to advance your case, but if you must do so, give them appropriate credit to avoid charges of plagiarism.

You also need to learn the difference between “method” and “methodology” - a common trap for beginners.

Finally, you write “can’t actually imagine anybody to be so stupid as to swallow their own excrement.”  Actually Tidgh, if you really believe the lame insults you’re spouting (in particular that, I rather than you, am the dribbler!) then imagination simply doesn’t come into it. ;)

This is an editing post:

My omission of the word “not” from the following statement should be included so as the post reads,

“When the oceans warm up, the nutrients that the phytoplankton rely on do not rise from the depths of the ocean, and in turn, the plankton do not reproduce.  How much science does it take to understand that when there are less phytoplankton, there is a corresponding decrease in the photosynthesis that are part and parcel of the wee beasties growth.”

From the ABC News web site: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1821677.htm

“Concerns resignations may slow pulp mill assessment process
There are concerns the pulp mill assessment process in Tasmania will be delayed even further because of the resignation of two members of the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) panel.

Chair of the RPDC, Julian Green, has announced his retirement altogether, while Dr Warwick Raverty has retired from the Pulp Mill Assessment Panel.

Planning Minister Steve Kons says he appreciates Mr Green’s decision to retire ahead of the expiration of his current contract, rather than resign in October, midway through the pulp mill assessment process.

He says Mr Green will be missed.

“Oh, most definitely, whenever someone with Mr Green’s experience leaves, certainly it is a blow,” he said.

“But there are other suitably equipped professionals, I’m advised by my department, that should make a choice of a future leader of the RPDC a choice for me to make.”

Dr Raverty resigned because of legal advice there was a perception of bias with his role.

He had has previously given advice to Gunns Limited, the proponent of the pulp mill.

Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon expects an interim chair of the RPDC to be appointed as soon as possible, but says the commission itself will replace the panel members.

He says he respects the timing of Mr Green’s decision and believes the pulp mill process will not suffer.

But the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns about delays, while the Greens says the two new members will need to be independant.”

*Tigdh stands, shuffling feet in campfire remains at the entrance to his cave* Yes, I do apologise folks, I had failed to see that my quote from Evowiki did not include the source when I posted.  I write all of my posts in my DTP progamme of choice, and then copy and paste this into the TT editor.  It allows me to keep a record of what I write, and allows me to repost should any postings go missing.  It was an error I will avoid repeating. 

It would also be obvoius to anybody reading the post that it was a quote, hence the quotation marks.  Suggestions of plagiarism are laughable in this instance, even more so given that it highly unlikely I would be quoting myself. 

A question for you Bonnie, “Would you care to share with this forum the de riguer Methode Scientific so that we may all become more enlightened?”  Seeing as you state that the “crude hypothesis-driven model” is no longer the model used, would you be prepared to advise us on the “ecellence Science” model you use, and don’t worry if don’t understand it, for I’m sure you are more than capable of “dumbing it down” for someone as misguided and evidently “lame” as I *Tigdh straightens dreds, picks up charcoal writing stick and prepares his best palm leaf for the authorative reply from the esteemed Doctor*

Bonnie, do we really need to have a study to tell us that pouring more effluent into the oceans and air will result in anything different that what we already have?  Will the world suddenly start becoming less toxic if the Gunns Limited/Lennon Government plan goes ahead?  Will the outfall from their ‘smoke-stack’ start a reversing trend and begin to improve the air quality?  I don’t believe either of those scenarios for a minute.  You do yourself no favours in pretending not to have an educated and experienced idea of the difference the addition of extra toxic crud will make to our environment.  You are seen to lack ‘intestinal fortitude’ in this regard, as you’re continual ‘walloping’ seeks always to avoid addressing the hard questions, and finds solace and sanctuary by tearing others down.

Finally, Dearest Bonnie, you are hardly a “unique subject”, though you are certainly one of a kind.  Your physical being responds to environmental influences the same as the remaining six billions or so of the globes inhabitants (unless of course you don’t excrete waste products, which may explain a few things).  My “experiment” is no different to the experiment that is being conducted on us all, everyday, 365 days a year, by governments, banks, industry, science and religion all over the globe.  You appear to have developed an isolationist view of the world Bonnie, and compartmentalised it to the degree that you have become disconnected from it. /-;

“In reference to your second last paragraph Tidgh, you seem to be doing a good job of doing just that.

Posted by John Herbert on 01/04 at 02:43 PM”

Actually Herbie, I think you’ll find that I am “extracting the urine” (taking the piss)!  A somewhat different pastime.  I prefer to leave it to Bonnies sycophants to explore any scatological fantasies they may have with regard to intentional coprophagia that takes place, though I was led to believe it was only dogs that did this.  I thank the good Doctor for enlightening me, and I reaffirm that the world would not be the same without him.

Bon Appétit Herb!

Further to Bob McMahon’s post #46 is it my imagination or since Fairfax took over Rural Press has the Examiner’s coverage of the pulp mill issue been more balanced. Would the Examiner have released the contents of Julian Green’s resignation letter if it had occured six months or a year ago?

Tidgh, I’m not your research assistant.  If you want me to enlighten you on those areas of the philosophy of science in which your understanding is so demonstrably lacking, you will have to pay me, or else at least cease unprovokedly referring to me by other than my actual name.

While you seem to simply assume anything churned out as “effluent” must be environmentally harmful,  more enquiring minds will want to know whether the chemicals produced are harmful (not all chemical discharges necessarily are), whether any that are harmful will be produced in significant quantity to cause harm, and if so what the harm caused might be.  On that basis people can then make value-based decisions about whether the project should be continued given its perceived human benefits.

My reference to “unique subject” was because your proposed experiment was not on whether this faecal ingestion fetishism you seem so obsessed with would kill humans in general, but specifically on whether it would kill some fictional character, “Bonnie”, who you seem to foolishly align with me.  You also omitted “green propagandists” from your list of those seeking to engage in the mode of poisoning to which you refer, and your inclusion of “science” in the list demonstrates an ignorant general science-phobia on which grounds all further comments you make about science can be safely disregarded by all.

Indeed it is ironic you include both science and religion since aversion to scientific fact is one of the two things (alongside political illiberalism) that has most earned organised religion a place in such a list through history.  It is *especially* ironic in this case that you quoted the EvoWiki, which is, in case you did not realise it, a pro-evolution and hence pro-science website.  You really are one confused cookie.  In #54 (step 3) you even suggested your excrement was vertebrate in nature.  Looks like you’ve been looking for your lost spine everywhere.

For one who would accuse others of “blethering”, your own penchant for longwinded, self-indulgent, failed attempts to be funny, is rather sad.  Indeed, your fourth paragraph is unsubstantiated nonsense based on complete misrepresentations of my previous statements. Extracting the urine?  Not likely - you’re too busy drowning in it!

*Tigdh stands, doubled over, entrenched in a large puddle* Ahh Bonnie… you so funeee… you make me laugh long time…. You real good at dodge Bonnie… You feel all funny inside…  You still no answer question… 

“I see Tidgh is still following me around like a lost puppy looking for lurvvve. Tidgh, how about you and DON DAVEY just tag-team each other in circles, preferably on a chatline or something else suitable to your level?”

*Tigdh, near to passing out from laughing so hard, falls to his knees, potentially to get a better look at Bonnie’s face* But you promised me so much Bonnie Darling, you even said you pay me for it, and called it a morality-free exchange…

Hang it it on me all you like you bufoon, I’m not even raisin’ a sweat!  Though I can’t stop you cracking me up!  You verry funny man… (O:

Mr Hingston - have we got off topic somehow?

Tidgh (#66), your post is absolute self-indulgent drivel; even DON DAVEY would be stretching his sycophantic excesses to find that funny.  If you raise the sweat (of fear?) you refer to you will only get yourself flogged harder, if that’s possible. I suggest you quit the whole internet now, sardine, even *after* it is clearly far too late.

In response to Dave (#64) - I think you are right, Dave. I have also noticed a more balanced reporting of the pulp mill issue in the Examiner of late - so much so that I have started buying it again.
The Examiner has also been printing many more anti-pulp mill letters from readers - six months ago it was almost impossible to get one printed.
And front page coverage of the RPDC resignations issue! - I think that not so very long ago that scoop story would have been buried on about page six.
The Examiner is to be commended for this about-face in policy which more closely represents the views of its readership.
Anne

Its a bit rich for Will Hodgeman and Peter Gutwein to start questioning the role of the Pulp Mill Task Force now.  It was obvious from the start that their glossy brochures, information bus, role in responding to criticism of the mill (instead of Gunns Ltd)and promotional DVDs would put a great deal of pressure on the RPDC.  I know a lot of people think mill approval is a fait accompli but put yourself in the shoes of an RPDC panel member whilst a decision to approve may make the powers that be happy in the short term watching the environmental and economic fiasco unfold in the next ten years would not be a pleasureable experience.

“Even don davey would be stretching his sycophonic excesses to find that funny” quoth our resident fesof…..,phesof….,phissoff… ahhh well! whatever !  nah ! not at all ,in fact apart from remembering the spelling of his name i find tidgh,s   humour a very refreshing alternative to the crud spewed out by bonham , bring it on ! i say heh,heh, i lauuuuurve a good laugh ! by the way has our would be doctor as yet given articulate explanation for his eagle crap ? no !  tsk,tsk,!  why aren,t i surprised !
                  d.d.

Trouble at mill: resignations add air of pollution to pulp project
The Age, Australia - 5 Jan 2007
Gunns calls its $1.4 billion baby “the world’s greenest pulp mill”, and it has much more in mind than the paint job. Supporters, including both major ...
Links: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/trouble-at-mill-resignations-add-air-of-pollution-to-pulp-
——————————————————-
Tas Govt under pressure to fill pulp mill panel vacancies http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1822355.htm

Shock resignation has pulp mill plans up in air Tasmania Examiner http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=378617

Quit shocks hit panel http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21013303-5007221,00.html

ABC Online - The Age
all 15 news articles »

A real ‘kon’ of a job on the people of Tasmania: “...I have no idea why he (Julian Green)would like to retire 10 month early,... but I know it’s got nothing to do with us.”
grin grin—“... Ahhh actually, it’s perfect timing, he retires now just before the pulp mill process gets going in earnest!”
One may ‘kon’ some people sometimes, but there is a limit until the joke goes rotten.
I say “We shall remember him and his mates!!!!!!!”

————————————————-
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21022263-3462,00.html

Putt fires up pulp-mill row
CHARLES WATERHOUSE

January 07, 2007

Article from: The Sunday Tasmanian

THE State Government forced the resignation of two members of the pulp mill assessment panel by putting them in an intolerable situation, says Greens leader Peg Putt.

Resource Planning and Development Commission executive commissioner Julian Green and Warwick Raverty—two of the four members of the panel assessing Gunns’ project—quit last week.

Ms Putt claimed the Government tried to cover up that its pulp mill taskforce had put material on its website purporting support for the pulp mill which in some way allegedly could be sheeted home to Dr Raverty.

Dr Raverty denies any suggestion of bias.

He said the taskforce, which until recently was headed by new Forestry Tasmania managing director Bob Gordon, had been told previously to tone down its activities but this had been wilfully ignored, leading to the two resignations.

In his letter of resignation published in a northern newspaper yesterday, Mr Green said his resignation had been brought about by the activities of the taskforce.

Ms Putt said Premier Paul Lennon should admit culpability, “heads should roll” and the taskforce should be disbanded.

Liberal leader Will Hodgman said the Government had failed to listen to previous warnings from Mr Green and in its “arrogant and bullish” way had done more damage to the pulp mill project than assisted it.

He said the Government had compromised the independence and integrity of the RPDC and this would damage public confidence in the pulp mill project and the commission.

And Mr Hodgman said the Government’s announcement about Mr Green’s departure had been shown to be deceptive and misleading.

Mr Lennon had said Mr Green had decided to take early retirement.

Mr Green made clear yesterday his resignation letter was not leaked by him. Mr Gordon had no immediate comment and Dr Raverty could not be contacted.

Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry CEO Damon Thomas said the circumstances of Mr Green’s resignation were disappointing and regrettable.

Mr Thomas said it was probably fortunate public hearings on the pulp mill had not started.

Planning Minister Steve Kons said the Government had examined the concerns raised by Mr Green over documentation used by the taskforce.

He said the Government’s opinion was that use of those documents did not compromise the process.

Mr Kons said despite Mr Green’s resignation the Government had great faith in the independence and integrity of the RPDC and its capacity to ensure fair and just approval processes.
============================================
A bid of background on wikipedia.org:
State Planning Minister Steve Kons
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:BRXCOLyWxw8J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kons+"Steve+Kons"&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=3

Hey Mr.Bonham, your a big shot scientist (and a fast typer too!! that might get you over the line) who knows it all, and you’re great at weasel words. Why dont you apply for one of the vacant RPDC jobs? You could live out one of your fantasies and stitch up all those pesky greens.
I reckon that’d be a real hoot.

It would seem that the ‘retirement’ of Julian Green clearly shows that he has some form of conscience, and is at least prepared to protect himself and, it would appear, the RPDC from further harm. 

At the very least, we can hope that the resignations of Mr. Green and Dr. Raverty will offer the public an opportunity to demand the Lennon Government appoint truly independent replacements. One would hope, and not as Greens Leader Peg Putt fears, that ‘Big Red’ will simply appoint those most likely to acquiesce to the vested interests, and of the massive $$$$$$$$ on offer to the relative few.

So get amongst it folks, get in your local and state pollies faces and let them know we want people who are impartial to the interests of the proponents and objectors.

What is needed are people who will take on board all that is to be said for and against this proposed mill, and to be freed of any influence from the ‘big-end’ of town, or, as some will no-doubt point out, the ‘green-end’ of town.

If we are all too ‘involved’ to make an equitable and honest decision ourselves; clearly the case, given the claims leveled at the Pulp Mill Taskforce by the retreating Julian Green, then we still need to be sure that objectivity is attained, and that requires truly independent arbiters and procedural transparency.

I still believe that We are capable of better usages than that which this pulp mills plans for our native timbers and forests, than to chip it, pulp it and destroy the intrinsic beauty and value of our unique part of the world.  I’d also like to see us using the best knowledge possible to develop REAL ‘low/no impact’ production, and with an aim of ZERO Tolerance to pollution and environmental damage.

Tell you what Bonnie Ol’Son, rather than *giggle* “quit the whole internet” (I’ll) go back to engaging meaningfully with our fellow posters, those to whom the issues in the threads are most important, and not this endless cycle of braggadocio and filibustering you seem intent on repeating.

Knowing that you cannot but have the last word, I shall leave you with a Max Gillies salutation; “Stop it, or you’ll go blind!”

Now where did I park my Klingon B’rel so that I may depart from the internet at warp speed…