Potential Contamination of Waters from Plantation Catchments

[volcboy]

It seems that there are quite a few comments from certain corners about 'conspiracy lovers' and their relation to (or possibly being one and the same as) 'people in white coats', 'so called scientific people' wandering around with 'closed eyes' indulging in 'scientific snobbery' that need to make an 'apology to those concerned about the so-called conspiracy between government and industry'. It is disappointing that this passive aggressive tone is often used when talking about science and scientists, and it has been on the rise recently, especially in terms of climate scientists. The choice to like or dislike scientists seems to go along with the predisposed values and views of the individuals - the same person who claims a climate scientist is a 'lab-coat wearing boffin lining their own pockets by manipulating data to suit themselves' happily gets on an aeroplane weighing thousands of tonnes with complete trust in the scientist who proved that the lift caused by the Bernoulli effect will quite safely fly them across an ocean, even though they are completely ignorant of the science involved.

The crux of the request for an apology by some parties to the government and industry seems to revolve around the lack of identification of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides in the current study. The unfortunate fact is that the use of chemicals with these properties is intrinsically linked to the development of monoculture crops of all descriptions, including plantation timber. Naturally biodiverse systems (and diverse systems that are not natural, for that matter) have self-regulatory feedback mechanisms that limit the ability of pests (animal, fungal and herbal) to become excessively predaceous on any species within the system. If one species, such as a tree, booms in population, pests that have a natural symbioses with that species will also increase in number with the increase in available food/energy, thus naturally controlling the population. If a species' population 'busts', the same occurs to the pest population, increasing the chance of more progeny.

Multiple studies of complex systems involving feedback control mechanisms have shown that the ability of a system to self-regulate is directly related to the diversity of feedback mechanisms within the system. In nature, this means that removing biodiversity from an ecosystem removes the ability of that ecosystem to self-regulate the numbers of all species within the system, including 'pests'. The creation of monocultures is the extreme of this situation, where a large input of energy into the system in the form of direct regulation (herbicide, pesticide, fungicide) is necessary to control the numbers of unwanted or pest species booming in number along with the monoculture crop.

That chemical substances were not found in this particular instance does not mean that they do not remain a serious issue, as all are used extensively in plantations and, to a lesser extent, in many agricultural and residential activities. Most organochlorine pesticides, phenylamide fungicides and glycophosphate herbicides have 'safe' drinking water levels around 0.01-0.03 mg/L in Australia. That 'safe' level is often based on a broad calculation that deems that the ingestion of water at that level will not induce an increase in 'unwanted effects' (toxicity, carcinogenic effects etc.) of greater than 5% in a given population. Yes, you may be safe eating peanuts, but not if you are in the unlucky 5%. More alarmingly, many of the substances used in chlorinated pesticides and herbicides (and chlorinated waste from pulp mills) have not undergone significant testing - the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines state for chlorinated furanones that 'Data are inadequate to set a guideline value for MX in drinking water', while also stating that 'Studies have shown that MX is an extremely potent mutagen when applied to some strains of bacteria, and about a third of the mutagenicity of chlorinated drinking water has been attributed to this compound. Genotoxic activity has also been observed in vitro using cultured mammalian cells, although in vivo experiments showed no evidence of genotoxic activity. No carcinogenicity data are available for MX.' In simple terms, there are many compounds in our environment that are known to have adverse biological effects that have no guidelines due to lack of study. For further information, visit http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/sy ... yn.htm#syn

Toxicity is present everywhere in our lives to some degree. Toxic substances rarely poison or kill us straight away rather, as I previously pointed out, they weaken our cells and especially effect our immune system, which relies on biochemical communication to function correctly. In a healthy body, thousands of cancerous cells occur every day and, with a properly functioning immune system, they are destroyed or repaired. If a toxin, especially one that is immunosuppresant, enters the body, it isn't the toxin that kills but the act of the toxin weakening the body's ability to defend itself. Hence the term 'auto-immune disease' (which can also mean, it must be pointed out, that the immune system is incorrectly attacking the body in some way).

On AS on Monday night, it was stated that the government response to the issues raised was that the plantations were a 'natural environment' and, therefore, there was no need for the government to monitor or be responsible for the runoff from these plantations. Trouble is, the plantations are not 'natural' biodiverse ecosystems at all, but rather man-made introduced monoculture crops. If opiates were leaching out of poppy fields into drinking water supplies, do you think the government would run the same line??? As to whether there is a 'conspiracy' in terms of whether forestry gets favourable treatment with respect to other industries in Tasmania or not, IMHO only someone in deep denial could not see that this is the case.

Yes, there are scientists that have a personal viewpoint that can ideologically cloud their statements. There are also internet posters, accountants, teachers, politicians etc. etc. whose personal viewpoints ideologically cloud their statements. As far as I know, a scientist is the only one of those that has to back up their statements with peer-reviewed research. Whether or not you choose to believe that research, have some faith in those who have spent years developing relevant understanding or work towards increasing your own individual scientific understanding is really up to you.

[corvus]

Yes, there are scientists that have a personal viewpoint that can ideologically cloud their statements. There are also internet posters, accountants, teachers, politicians etc. etc. whose personal viewpoints ideologically cloud their statements. As far as I know, a scientist is the only one of those that has to back up their statements with peer-reviewed research. Whether or not you choose to believe that research, have some faith in those who have spent years developing relevant understanding or work towards increasing your own individual scientific understanding is really up to you.

Do I detect an ideological viewpoint rather than a pure scientific based one
corvus

[volcboy]

Corvus - I have attempted to use science to point out that the issues raised in AS, along with issues of other toxins in the environment, is one that should be taken seriously. I have attempted to back up my statements with logic and scientific facts and knowledge.

I have not posted throwaway one liners with no supporting evidence attempting to belittle the views of others.

Each to their own, I guess

[corvus]

Corvus - I have attempted to use science to point out that the issues raised in AS, along with issues of other toxins in the environment, is one that should be taken seriously. I have attempted to back up my statements with logic and scientific facts and knowledge.

I have not posted throwaway one liners with no supporting evidence attempting to belittle the views of others.

Each to their own, I guess

Heaven forbid that " wee me" with no research or scientific background should be accused of an attempt to belittle anyone, oh! you naughty boy corvus for saying "beat up" go sit in the quiet chair,
Oh sorry Sir /Mam it was that BIG boy Forestry that made me do it

And I know that if we have serious Toxins in the water that it will be fixed by whoever is in power after the election in March.
corvus

[Ent]

The simple fact is many issues get cloaked in political ideology. To claim that one group because they "wear white coats" are the good guys is trading on mystic not fact. This example is where the community split over what the result indicated with a section pursing the theory that the problem was caused by man made chemicals injected into the environment and industry and government were actively covering this up. This is clearly not the case based on the report from the local doctor's report. The hypothesis was wrong so a good start would be those that held and express that view publicly acknowledge that there claims of cover up were wrong. They accused people of things that would result in huge political, economic and legal sanctions. The world liable comes to mind and it is by the grace of common-sense that the people so slander have so far chosen to accept such attacks as a the price of standing for public office. Until such apologies are forth coming people can justifiable hold a dim view of the people making the claims.

Actually, in the Examiner, letters to the Editor the head scientist gave a very public acknowledgement of the right of local doctors to be active in ensuring the environmental safety of the community they practice in. So looks like one body of opinion is seeking to improve the way things work and I hope to see further willingness to address issues.

Volcaboy this was a response I got when someone took one of my posts to pieces when expressing my dislike on the constant attacks on forestry and its people on 8 July 2009

Brett wrote:I for one have strong concerns over mono culturing of "super" trees.

Now the reply

Emotional dribble Brett. If you are going to argue that trees are just another crop, then treat them as just that. Breeding better trees that grow faster with shorter rotations and more timber per hectare is just that, treating trees as a crop. The question is not whether or not to grow the crop, but what we loose in the process. Or rather what society is willing to give-up in order to grow trees, have timber and produce paper. Actions and consequences again. The arguments for and against growing forests for timber are no different than the arguments for an against any other intensive agricultural or silvicultural practice.

Err what side am I on again? Curious indeed how coloured and blind I am as an accountant. Actually given I today handed in my acceptance to a job offer with a company involved in Forestry so I will following my rules regarding self interest and will no longer post on forestry issues but do hope people will apologies for attacking people's ethics.

Cheers Brett

[wander]

Can someone clarify why the trees were GM?

And I was under the impression that Tas was to be GM free? Obvioulsy an incorrect understanding. What is the Tas Gov's position on GM?

[sthughes]

I could be wrong but I think we are just talking about selective breeding here. By choosing only trees with certain desirable traits and using only them to propergate from, whilst disposing of the rest, over several generations you are in effect genetically altering the plant. Just like with dogs, horses etc. It's not actually genetic engineering but has a similar effect over a long enough period of time.

[wander]

The words used in the AS episode were quite specific that the trees were a GM product and not just a "breed". Unless of course the folks mis-understood the advice they were provided by the forsters to whom they asked the questions about the trees. A comment was made that thye asked for clarification as to why a GM tree and they reported the reply was a very broad and general "trees that grow faster stronger, higher".

[Ent]

It is my understanding if they followed the approach APPM pioneered then trees from the population where examined and the winner with the best traits (insect resistant being a major consideration) were then cloned by tissue culture so you have plantations with genetically identical trees rather than even brother and sisters. The selective breading approach is also used but the speed of change is dependent on the speed of life cycle so if you are looking at a tree having say a twenty year period before identifying the champion the process would be quite slow compared to say an annual crop.

I am not aware if genetic material was transplanted from another specie. That is where the term GM is used rather than selective breeding which relies on a "desirable" trait already existing in a gene pool being maximised. The holly grail for roses is the blue rose as the blue gene apparently does not exist in the rose gene pool so "blue" roses are actually dark lavender (I think) or have had the "blue" gene from a pansy incorporated into the gene pool or Photoshopped to stir up the local rose growing society.

It is a good question to ask though as GM is a relatively new science so "dysfunctional consequences" are to be expected as with biological controls. The lack of "clarity" in the report along with silence if the existing town water treatment mitigated any problem was to me an area where the program missed the boat but then again it is too much to expect a few local people to examine every thing and fund this from their own resources. It is time for the Government to step up to the plate and answer those questions.

Ok I broke my own rule about no further comment but I would like to see the above dealt with. I am pretty sure the answer to the GM will be no but if not then I to was under the impression that Australia was a GM free zone. I also believe the local residents should be informed of any toxicity regardless if it is natural or man made. I know I would want to know. Given the rationalisation of water authorities you now should have the economics of scale to be a bit more pro-active on water quality. Maybe compulsory publishing of results in their annual reports is the way to go along with the number of days with boil water alerts.

Cheers Brett

(PS I make no comment on the reason for the lack of clarity and what if any reason for it as I sense yet another conspiracy cover up theory evolving. Maybe a simple question is, "has any genetic material from another specie been incorporated into the trees in the catchment area". A fair question deserving a answer IMHO.)

[stepbystep]

Hi wander,

I think sthughes is on the money with his interpretation.
It's always been a bit of a grey zone for me, after all just cross-breeding is genetic modification and look at all the freaky dog breeds they create that can't give birth naturally or have brains too large for their skulls.
I'm thinking much the same is going on here where they have 'bred' super potent trees, but then I don't really know - all pretty suss to me.

Great comments by voicboy on this matter too, actually worth reading such a long post

[Ent]

Just a question to answer my curiosity. Given that the ABC was reporting on a subject of great public safety why were the water finding results split from the first episode, dramatic effect, attempt to trap an unsuspecting politician or the result were not ready? Seriously hope that our public funded body was not playing on the dramatic effect aspect as that would be rather tacky given that real concerns raised and the effect this would have on the local communities.

Maybe someone with contacts inside the ABC can answer this one as the ABC is very curious when a minister receives advice.

[stepbystep]

dramatic effect

It is TV Brett, never heard of the cliffhanger
BTW, not sure where I heard it , maybe a promo(?) but I already knew it was the trees prior to the 2nd ep.

[wander]

I think the program was very clear at the end of the day the issue was an unitended one and one that was very difficult to see or forecast with the best will in the world by the plantation folks. The best science could not predict the outcome without doing a whole of scale project. And I think there is a problem of some sort to address.

Australia is not GM free. Rape seed is a GM crop. And there are many others. Some areas have proclaimed themselves to be GM free but it is a very very difficult thing to control. South Australia declared it would be GM free on 8 Febraru 2008, but we grow Rape seed here. So it is a mute point. And we carry out GM research at Adelaide University.

The world is a fuzzy grey place.

[Ent]

Hi SBS

Just a personal hope that reporting will be reporting not drama and yes I do hope for honest and transparent politics as well as world peace (current situation in Ireland does give some grounds for hope). Yes I have given up on commercial stations but not on the ABC. To quote from Billy Joel "I may be naive but I have not given up on what I believe" The day Four Corners becomes a publicly funded "Sixty Minutes" clone is the day to abandon public funding. Hopefully that day will never happen as it is just too tiring being a perpetual sceptic.

Hi Wander

So GM is beginning its slow march as is did the cane toad once did. Most biological controls and aids such as dung beetle are good things as will likely be most GM produce but it is the unpredictability of another cane toad that worries me. I do get the feeling with GM that we are but like young children playing with fire, yes it is nice to warm but not so keen on the burnt to a crisp aspect. Though in the current thread this appears not to be the case.

Brett

[corvus]

I heard a comment today on the ABC Radio that the trees were not GM,and a further comment that aquatic creatures of all sorts still thrive in the Georges river.
corvus

[stepbystep]

aquatic creatures of all sorts still thrive in the Georges river.

Obviously GM creatures

[norts]

I was watching a platypus the other day, just near where the water is taken for St Helens.

Roger

[Robbo]

I heard a comment today on the ABC Radio that the trees were not GM,and a further comment that aquatic creatures of all sorts still thrive in the Georges river.

Good comment, Corvus. It seems that not all fauna is obviously affected. The question should be though, is it OK for even one species to be affected? Maybe its a balance between which industry, trees or oysters, is best?

Bit sad that this kind of choice needs to be made I would have thought.

TR

[stepbystep]

Ever given any thought to the idea that some species are more inclined to be affected more quickly than others?
Some mutate slowly over years, others die instantaneously.
Anyone heard of the problems the Platapus are now starting to experience?

Some humans survived Hiroshima into their 90's, their neighbours died within a couple of years.
Look at the results of DDT, asbestos, Chernobyl for goodness sake - c'mon people we are all our own laboratory that is affected by our genes and our environment, so why roll the dice???

Just because you see fish in the river doesn't mean they are healthy!

[corvus]

Ever given any thought to the idea that some species are more inclined to be affected more quickly than others?
Some mutate slowly over years, others die instantaneously.
Anyone heard of the problems the Platapus are now starting to experience?

Some humans survived Hiroshima into their 90's, their neighbours died within a couple of years.
Look at the results of DDT, asbestos, Chernobyl for goodness sake - c'mon people we are all our own laboratory that is affected by our genes and our environment, so why roll the dice???

Just because you see fish in the river doesn't mean they are healthy!

Yes SBS and I would have thought that water Fleas would have been the most susceptible of the invertebrates they survive and are you are drawing a long bow on the Platypus disease as I believe they are healthy in the Georges River .
The Foam was collected from a gully type trap and bottled to be tested full strength,was the clear water tested ??
If there is a real problem how do we fix it ? clear fell the trees
To many question marks for me and I believe that by including DDT,Asbestos,Nuclear Fallout and Atomic Bombs you should include Exhaust Fumes and Second Hand Cigarette Smoke what about Plastic Drink Bottle reuse,Red Meat ,Butter, Palm Oil,Crossing a Busy Road,Excess Alcohol,Illicit Drugs.
As silly as my list is so is the possibility in my belief of getting poisoned by drinking good Tassie water from clear flowing sources(would you drink foam) in my walks I source water from many creeks ,rivers and waterholes dont treat it and have never had any adverse effects ,so what message are we sending to our visitors "the water is crook" which I believe it is not.
corvus

[sirius Tas]

If the good Doctor and Ecologist weren't so skeptical of the original SCIENTIFIC findings by Government officers they would have saved themselves a vast amount of time and money. The following excerpt from AS.
(Excerpt from Government sample findings March 2005)
(On screen text): The Tasmanian Government reported that no man-made chemicals were found in the water. Bottom and surface samples did not prove toxic to daphnia (water fleas). Only concentrated surface scum proved toxic to daphnia. The scum was analysed and found to contain organic compounds from 'naturally produced vegetation such as ti-tree and eucalypts'. These organic compounds are common and natural.
(End of excerpt)

IN THEIR DESIRE to prove it was the plantation trees causing the effects a heck of a lot of actual SCIENTIFIC evidence has been either left out or deliberately not obtained.
HOW EXACTLY did they form the view that it was only the 'Nitens' genus of Eucalypt causing the problem. DID THEY in fact test the native Ti-tree leaves for the same toxicity...or in fact DID THEY TEST the native Euc. leaves for toxicity.
IN FACT they have no genetic link specifically to the Nitens.....following extract from AS.

So from that we really feel we’re very close to being able to confirm that the eucalyptus nitens is the primary source of toxicity in the foams. We just haven’t been able to actually get down to the final fingerprinting and molecular weight determinations which will give us our final linkage to the eucalyptus nitens.


ALSO....did they actually test the Urban water supply i.e water coming out of taps for the very same toxins???? Considering their initial assertions re public health I'd of thought this would have been MANDATORY....but oh no...couldn't ruin a good story eh!

For me...I'll wait until THE FULL and COMPLETE story eventually unfolds...with a proper scientific study.

[stepbystep]

Can't preach to the converted - if you want to trust govt, over the public up to you.
I'm pulling out of this debate, as I said can't preach to the converted

[volcboy]

Can someone clarify why the trees were GM?

And I was under the impression that Tas was to be GM free? Obviously an incorrect understanding. What is the Tas Gov's position on GM?

Forestry Tasmania has confirmed that the trees are 'genetically improved', but have declined to elaborate on how the trees have been 'genetically improved'. Almost every plant or animal that we utilise today has been 'genetically improved' through selective breeding processes, so the trees being grown are not necessarily 'genetically modified', which would infer that genetic material from another species has been artificially introduced into the plant's genome to allow the plant to exhibit the desired trait. The process of selective breeding to achieve 'genetic improvement' has both positive and negative benefits - vegetables and fruits are larger and fuller of nutrients than their natural cousins, and animals are bred to carry more flesh/meat and be of larger stature. Selective improvement can also have its downsides, as is seen in severe inbreeding in certain dog breeds and also in some animals such as cows, whose breeding for size and shape has led to a large number of cow species now being unable to give birth unassisted. Ask any vet about calving season and you will understand the downside of this issue.

As I mentioned in a previous post, it is likely that the plantation trees were selected for their fast growth and their ability to survive as saplings when they are most prone to destruction by 'pests' such as wallabies and wombats. Selecting trees for increased levels of toxins in their leaves/bark is the way in which this is done. This 'genetic improvement' through selective breeding is then passed on to a large plantation population through cloning and/or other industrial propagation methods.

As with SBS above, I will also keep out of this debate from now on. There are obviously many people who have strong views which will not change, even when evidence is presented to them. If anyone is unsure of any scientific issue being presented surrounding this issue, feel free to PM me.

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn" Benjamin Franklin

[Taurë-rana]

Funny how different people can hear such different things from the same story - I saw two scientists desperately trying not to imply that they have proven anything, just presenting the facts of what they have found after extensive and unbiased testing. What on earth have they got to gain by attempting to falsify findings? They didn't start from the point of "plantations are evil", they started from a desire to do their jobs ie find the cause of unexplained oyster deaths and disease, and the same in humans. The fact is that their investigation led to looking at the water supply and considering what might be affecting, and in turn to the only thing that might be affecting it - the plantations. If there had been old mines leaching into the water supply and they had found similar evidence that it was from them, would they be questioned as much? Bizarrely, it seems to be politically incorrect in Tasmania to suggest that plantations might in some way be bad and you have to go above and beyond normal scientific investigations to even get heard.

As for trusting the government, I think I may have done once, but after nearly 30 years of seeing how they run the state, no longer.

[photohiker]

Selective improvement can also have its downsides, as is seen in severe inbreeding in certain dog breeds and also in some animals such as cows, whose breeding for size and shape has led to a large number of cow species now being unable to give birth unassisted. Ask any vet about calving season and you will understand the downside of this issue.

I think that while some cow breads are more likely to suffer calving problems that others, the problem is more specific to certain individuals, especially for the first gestation, and especially in the herd management via choice of sire. As in most genetic issues, purebreds are more likely to suffer than crossbreeds. Of course the first gestation is important for the poor cow, as calving problems will likely lead to culling.

Feel for the cow though. Many farmers are known to 'have a go' themselves to save vet bills, and in some cases this leads to the death of both cow and calf in what could only be agony for them.

[Taurë-rana]

Thank you for your comments volcboy, you have been articulate and obviously know what you are talking about.

Very interesting watching the program on Brenda Hean and Max Price tonight. The comment was made somewhere along the lines of our history always being violent from the attempted extermination of the Aboriginals to the convicts, to the unnecessary extinction of the Tassie Tiger and on to the death threats and intimidation during the Peddar campaign, and the violence perpetrated against forest protesters. It almost made me wonder if a culture of violence lingers and contaminates future generations because the level of anger and hatred, sometimes on both sides, seems to me to be out of place in a modern, so called enlightened society.

By the way corvus, having not got my post in before yours, my comments about anger and hatred do not refer to you or anyone here, I know you're just a *$#@ stirrer! Just you do it a bit effectively at times.

[geoskid]

Thank you for your comments volcboy, you have been articulate and obviously know what you are talking about.

Ditto, your posts have increased my understanding of the science involved, much appreciated.

[Taurë-rana]

I have strong long held beliefs about our fantastic State and have been an adherent of organic gardening , grey water use, bucket in the shower , composting and recycling for many years.I grow and eat many healthy plants and herbs ,therefore a practicing conservationist not just one with lip service ,the bees, skinks and other invertebrates are living proof of this and I have a myriad of birds come visit
corvus

Apart from your love of birds, I really haven't picked much of that up from your posts. It would be nice to see your garden sometime, maybe come and catch up with Mrs corvus as well.
I get very emotionally involved with what's happening in the state (in case you haven't noticed ), it's a bit like what I feel seeing what I love about my dad slowly disappear to Alzheimer's, except that what's happening in Tassie could be prevented. I do find it very hard to lighten up and take a step back at times.

[Son of a Beach]

volcboy and Corvus...

You both have good points, and we appreciate your input, but please lay off discussing each other, and stick to the topic. Some of the comments are getting too personal, and are definitely beyond polite and friendly.

Admin EDIT - offending posts removed.

[Ent]

The following is not pro or anti forestry just a wish that all sides take a long hard look at themselves and consider if spin could be left out of the debate as thanks to our education system people are better educated than in any time of Australian history to identify spin. By the way some one might enlighten me on what is happening with the Wilderness Society and does it speak for the same section of people it use to or is the current reported bust up a media beat-up?

Interesting reading in the Examiner yesterday as politics as usual returned to the debate. Once again I see the miss use of terms in the predictable ways When at Uni the first four weeks of any subject was the barrage of understanding the specific meaning of terms so maybe our science teachers could with the current students reinforce that a bit so what may be genuine mistakes does not appear as spin to the people understanding what the terms actually mean.

It appears no tree was genetically modified in the "proper" meaning of the term and by the looks of it the slow breeding cycle means that the "super (my term)" trees are only two generations selectively bred from their native grandmothers and grandfathers. Bit surprise that tissue culturing was not use (wonder if that proved too expensive compared to letting the birds and the bees do the work). We have what appears to be a naturally occurring toxin that might be from the plantation trees and or from Tee Trees. Nice pickup Sirius that such facts got bypassed for a while in the hunt for a more dramatic reason. The simple question is the toxin dangerous to humans once it passes through normal water treatment process and intake level. Yes our water engineers do place care on what level they mount the intake pipes, or at least the smart ones do. If the answer is yes then the local residents need to know as I would think they would be concerned about drinking water with a toxin regardless of source.

I personally have often wonder about the tea colour tarns and rivers for many years and what effect the tannin can have. It would not surprise me now that there is some toxicity in the tannin. As for safe levels we now surely should understand that the safe level is for bulk of the population or more accurately the confidence level that sample size matches the population, not "all" the population. PS I did very well in statistics so will our white coat wearers please not assume that this subject is limited to the mystic of their sphere of knowledge or I will start using other terms with a specific meaning. Also do not assume that a none uni educated person is not smart nor well read. My Aunty was of the generation that though anything of more than a grade four education was wasted on girls but her investment knowledge would be better than the vast majority of accountants and investment analysts.

As for toxicity I have a friend hyper-sensitive to mushrooms. Simply using the same knife or cutting board will transfer enough of the toxin to her food that will cause the airways to close off. The sight of a leading Ear Nose and Throat surgeon scouting the table and asking for a pen should convince the sceptics it was not psychosomatic or an act. I would not like to calculate the toxin rate but would not be surprised it is in the parts per million. In all probability there are a few people that could be hyper-sensitive to tannin and other naturally occurring toxins. Oh, and yes we (or most of our genetic material) are an introduced sub-specie and may not have a natural immunity to low level of native toxins as could Pacific Oyster as it is introduced itself. In case someone from the less scientific community cries racist, there are certain plants that bring certain reactions that are not experienced by people from other parts of the world.

I note no apology for the accusation that there was a cover-up on forest spraying practices by elements of the anti-forestry side that made such claims so I assume facts are rather unimportant to that section of opinion or they are missing the simple grace to admit that their comments were scaremongering of the worst sort. As mentioned, until the proponents of such comments apologies then claiming any moral high ground is rather contrite.

Brett