Ok, long time no post and then I drop a whole essay on you all
...but ya loves me anyway
Part 1 of the TV show was little more than scaremongering. As others have pointed out, all of the allegations made in part one were addressed, and dismissed, in part two. It is scaremongering because the shows producers knew what was to come before part 1 went to air. I'll quote the show itself, because the scientist "
effectively eliminated all possible known man made, and all naturally occurring toxins that have caused problems in the literature. These include all the pesticides, they include metals, they include blue-green algal toxins, they include toxins from fungus's, they include fungicides and so on and so forth. Everything that we knew could cause toxicity we had eliminated. We'd tested it twice and it wasn't there. And yet the toxicity was there every time we went. So this is 26-27 water samples later or sampling events later, we still couldn't find a cause". Dr. Marcus Scammell. You'll remember Dr. Scammell was the author of the original report calling for scientific investigation into the phenomenon.
On the question of clusters of rare cancers. The claim was made by Dr. Alison Bleaney that there was an "
unexpected and unexplained.... large increase in cancer". Absolutely no evidence was presented to support the claim or compare the incidence of cancers in St. Helens with those across the population of Tasmania. I can't comment on whether the assertion is true or not, because there was nothing offered in the show at all by way of evidence.
On the question of Genetically Modified trees, I'd like to point out that the term Genetically Modified was never used in the show. GM has a very specific meaning. In the show Dr. Scammell referred to Genetically Improved Trees. Since these problems manifest prior to 1997, and since the plantations in question date back to the 1980s, it is unlikely that GM is involved at all. Never mind that it would be an illegal, foolish and costly path for Forestry Companies to have followed, and a very risky venture to engage in for large scale plantations. If it occurred at all, and I doubt it did, it would have most likely be confined to small experimental plantings. Genetic Improvement on the other hand refers to the age old practice of selecting and growing the best plants - sometimes referred to as Super Trees. I can assure you that this has been done. In my experience, these plants are normally selected because of their superior phenotype - ie. they look better than other plants around them - they are bigger, grow faster etc. It is deduced that this means they are genetically superior. This is an age old practice in horticulture and agriculture. Many garden plants and nearly all vegetable crop plants have been Genetically Improved using this type of practice. There was no specific evidence presented that all or any particular plantations in the catchment where Genetically Improved. Just a general statement with no discussion, nor any attempt to clarify.
Does this mean that these Genetically Improved plants are more toxic. Well, lets leave that to the New Zealand scientist who appeared in the show, Dr. Chris Hickey. "
We decided that we'd test the toxicity of old growth Eucalyptus nitens in Victoria and compare those with the plantation trees in Tasmania. There were subtle differences in chemistry within the leaves but it wasn't increasing the toxicity of the leaves". So no, the "
Genetically Improved" plants aren't more toxic. There was also no discussion on the naturally occurring variation in populations of E.nitens within Victoria. However, "
the Tasmanian trees generated a lot more foam and this foam was a lot more stable than the Victorian leaves. The significance of this is that... in that the toxicity is carried by the foam. This is the mode by which the toxin can be transferred within the catchment and move down the river system". Dr. Chris Hickley.
Ok, so the gum trees produce lots of foam, and the foam is toxic and is polluting the environment. Well, not quite... "
We are quite comfortable that we know that the foam is very toxic, but we don't know what quantities are produced and the frequency that it has occurred, and how often things are exposed." .... "
Since our original experiments we designed a second set of experiments where by we would chemically analyse both the leaf material from Eucalyptus nitens and the foam material and then follow that up with bio-assays.... What we've been able to do is come very close to showing that there is a common chemical fraction in both the Eucalyptus nitens leaves and in the toxicity of the foam". Dr. Chris Hickley. Very close to showing.... but not conclusive. Dr. Hickley again - "
So from that we are really very close to being able to confirm that Eucalyptus nitens is the primary source of toxicity in the foam". Very close.... primary source... so wait, are there other sources. Dr. Hickley -
"I think that something we shouldn't dismiss entirely is the potential for this being a cocktail effect of a number of different things in this catchment". I would hasten to point out that foam in rivers is not unique to E. nitens plantations nor to the St. George River, but you are all bushwalkers, so you already know that.
So will it kill us to drink the water near plantations. Well first you must remember that the apparatus used to catch the water samples was deliberately used to concentrate the sample of foam by skimming the foam off the surface of the water over a long period. Dr. Christian Khalil tested these samples on human skin, liver and lung cells and found that "
whatever is in the water is killing all the cell population in my tests. It is toxic but I don't know the extent of the impact on the whole body, because as you know, we are doing experiments using single cells, which is different from an organism where you have multiple cells interacting with each other, and when cells can repair themselves in the human body". Dr. Khalil also said, "
the more you dilute the water the less kill rate you get".
This was an interesting programme, and the whole area certainly deserves much more investigation. However, nothing in this show should call for
Forestry Company bashing or
Politician bashing or
Scientist bashing or any similar reactions. The TV Show and the original Scammell Report where both calls for further investigation, which is now happening - even
if a bit belatedly. I'm prepared to wait for additional information before drawing a final conclusion.
(very evil thought crossed my mind just then 
) Bamboo spreads by self propagation (ie cloning) and has the interesting characteristic of dying all at once even if cuttings have been taken to a different hemisphere. I hope the stuff at my place gets the memo 
Ridgley's research was the shinning star when I was at APPM many years ago so curious what happened to this approach.
