A Working Document - Many more instances of contamination yet to be documented
REPORTS EVIDENCING SIGNIFICANT OR WIDESPREAD CONTAMINATION
List of reports:
APVMA Draft Spray Drift document, July 2003
Pesticide Use in Australia
More from Dr Peter Davies
1997 APVMA Review of the herbicide Atrazine
Towards Ecologically Sustainable Management of Chemicals in Australia, Scoping Paper
Discussion Paper 'Review of the Code of Practice for Aerial Spraying' Tasmania
Environment and Heritage Report, 2005
Testing of the Rivers in the Cotton-Growing Regions of New South Wales
Instances of Contamination in Tasmania
List of places in Tasmania that have experienced contamination of water by pesticides:
Tuson's Creek, Tasmania. December 2004
A Creek at Franklin, 1997
Meander River, 1988
Gad's Hill, Lorinna, 1993
Simazine in Prosser River 2004 and 2005
Atrazine in the Upper Esk
Overspray Kills Organic Garden - St Marys, July 2000
Derby Town's Water Contaminated with Atrazine 1993
Simazine in the Hellyer River, 1994
Atrazine Cattley Creek at Blackmarsh Road, 1994
Little Henty River - Hexazinone, 1994
Lisle Creek off Nook Road - Hexazinone, 1994
Rubicon River at Smith and Others Road - Atrazine, 1994
Great Forester River at Tasman Highwy - Simazine, 1994
South George River at Colomba Falls - Simazine, 1994
Great Forester River, Prosperity Rd -Simazine,1994
Great Forester Catchment -Simazine,1994
Tamar Valley Vineyards, 1988
Mt Leslie treated water - simazine. May 2003
West Tamar untreated water - simazine. 2003 and 2004
DH Aerial Overspray -2004
DH Ground spraydrift. Eucmix and Roundup - 2004
West Calder, 1997. Simazine in community rainwater tanks
Wyena atrazine contamination, 2004
Atrazine in the Guide Reservoir, Burnie - circa 1994
Simazine, Cambelltown. June 2004
Simazine in a creek at Franklin, 1997
Chemical Spraying Linked to Oyster Deaths at St Helens, February 2004
Dead fish after heavy rain, Tatlow's Beach Stanley. July 2005
PCBs and DDT Found in Tamar Fish, November 2004
More Oyster Deaths and Morbidity after Flooding - September 2005
REPORTS EVIDENCING SIGNIFICANT OR WIDESPREAD CONTAMINATION
"The practice of aerial spraying of toxic chemicals produces diffuse pollution. As it is impossible to adequately predict or monitor the effects of the spray, contamination of non-target areas is therefore extremely probable. "
Reference: Operating and Proposed Registration Requirements in relation to Spray Drift Risk. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority-Draft Document-July 2003.
A report organised by the Australian Technological Scientists and Engineers. This document mentioned the studies done by Dr Peter Davies who found that of 29 streams tested in Tasmania, 22 were found to be contaminated by pesticides.
Note: Dr Davies was formerly working with the Tasmanian Inland Fisheries Department.
Approximately 80% of samples of fresh water found contaminated in Tasmania.
GRAHAM DAVIS: So after two years of somewhere being sprayed with Atrazine, it's still there?
DR PETER DAVIES: It's still there. Yeah. And a lot of chemicals that get used in the environment have, have a degree of persistence. They hang around in the soil and continue to have - exert controls on - on weed growth in crops or in plantations.
GRAHAM DAVIS: But since that study 10 years ago, the land converted to plantations has increased almost fourfold - to 207,000 hectares.
DR DAVIES: If you were having a continuous application within a larger catchment on different parcels of land and you've got a persistent chemical then it's not surprising that you're going to pick up residues of that chemical over - over quite a period of time. [Reference: 'Tasmania Name Your Poison' Channel Nine Sunday Program 26th September 2004).
Davies et al studies of 1994 in Tasmania
"In Tasmania in 1994, 20% of water samples were contaminated with Atrazine and Simazine at concentrations reported to cause sub-lethal impacts on biota (20 -100 ppb) and 28% of samples had concentrations within the range reported to cause mortality (20 - 500 ppb). [Reference: Davies, P. E., L. S. J. Cook and J. L Barton (1994). Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 1994, 45, 209-26] At that time approximately 27,000 hectares were under hardwood plantation in Tasmania using 40 tonnes of Atrazine and 5.5 tonnes of Simazine per annum. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2003, 208,000 hectares were under plantation of which 129,000 hectare were hardwood.
In 1997, the APVMA review acknowledged that contamination of surface waters and groundwater with atrazine and its metabolite, desethylatrazine was widespread across Australia. [Reference: Review Summary on The NRA review of ATRAZINE, November 1997, Existing Chemicals Review Program National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals, Canberra, Australia at 37.
] The review accepted that the safety margins for aquatic organisms are, in some circumstances, quite narrow. They concluded that "Although precise mechanisms are not fully understood, it is evident that the endurance of atrazine in the environment, together with its limited attachment to soil, significant water solubility and widespread use, are disadvantageous from the environmental perspective as they lead to long-term, low level contamination of surface and groundwater."
[Extract from the Australian Toxics Network submission to the APVMA on the review of Atrazine, 2004]
http://www.ephc.gov.au/pdf/EPHC/chemicalsmgt_scoping.pdf
"The environment is the major pathway for chemical impacts on natural resources, primaryindustry, biodiversity and human health. The OECD's Environmental Outlook to 2020 identified chemicals management as a 'red light' issue, noting that persistent and toxic chemicals will continue to be widespread in the environment over the next 20 years, with serious impacts on human health."
Agricultural, Silvicultural and Veterinary Chemicals Council, Tasmania. April 2005.
"Currently our water systems have been and continue to be degraded because of lack of control over pollution from chemicals and the practices of the timber and agriculture industries. Inadequate administrative measures such as those used by the Spray and Referral Unit have contributed to this." [As quoted by Dr Alison Bleaney in her May 2005 submission to the review on the aerial spraying code of practice, Tasmania].
[Senator] "Heffernan believes there is widespread contamination of waterways. He has the support of a Department of Environment and Heritage report that detected measurable contamination in ever state except the Northern Territory. "Pesticides were detected in 20 percent of samples indicating significant contamination," the report says..."
(Reference: 'The cancer scare around a common chemical' ,Australian Financial Review, Page 26. May 7-8, 2005.Julie Macken).
From 1991 to 1995 the State Government of New South Wales began to test four rivers in the main cotton growing regions of that state. The program was quite limited as affordability issues, for instance, resulted in some common pesticides not being tested for, eg paraquat. Nor was much information gleaned about chemicals that 'prefer' to bind to sediment, eg endosulfan. Of the 40-odd substances tested for up to 1995, 12 were detected in the rivers.
Endosulfan exceeded the limits and no environmental limits were set (at the time) for the other pesticides such as atrazine.
"The highly toxic endosulfan was detected in 80% or more of samples taken during the spray season between 1991 and 1994. The following year, the detection rate was 50%. ...Since cotton growers, to their credit, do recycle their left-overs after irrigation, and since stormwater can be ruled out in a drought period, the report surmised that the chemical must have come from the air..."
Reference: 'Cotton' Radio National, Ockam's Razor. 1997
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s32.htm
Instances of Contamination in Tasmania
Government testing revealed contamination by Simazine (0.61 micrograms/litre), Atrazine and Terbacil in Tuson Creek - a tributary of Western Creek near Deloraine. The source of the contamination was unknown with Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd denying any part in the contamination. Tuson Creek, however, is part of a 110 hectare Gunns Ltd eucalypt plantation that was established 18 months before. Gunns Ltd, as part of its 'Good Neighbour Charter' has agreed not to use Simazine or Atrazine on the plantation. Terbacil was used by Gunns Ltd when the plantation was established.
A local resident, Mr Knowles, said that most properties along Western Creek drew their water directly from that creek. Residents called for a Government investigation as well as an outright ban on such chemicals.
Reference: 'Resident fear at trace of chemical'
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,11682931%255E3462,00.\htmll. By ROHAN WADE. 14th December 2004
[NOTE:
In 2003 Anthony Amis from Friends of the Earth received an email from a concerned resident in Tasmania. The email detailed the concoction of pesticides to be used in a planned spraying operation at Western Creek. The list is as follows:
glyphosate, clopyralid, haloxyfop, metsulfuron-methyl, sulfometuron-methyl,
terbacil, atrazine, simazine, pendimethalin, sethoxydim, clethodim,
amitrole, oxyflurofin]
A creek at Franklin was contaminated with simazine following aerial spraying for plantation establishment. The then Tasmanian Liberal Government failed to prosecute after contamination of 9 parts per billion was confirmed (well above the Australian Drinking Water Guideline of 0.1 ppb - a level set to herald the need to initiate an investigation and implement action to prevent future offsite contamination).
Reference: Tasmanian Greens Media Release, 19 August 1997. Peg Putt,Spokesperson on Forests -'GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROSECUTE OVER SIMAZINE CONTAMINATION'. http://www.vision.net.au/~tasgreens/newsdesk/aug19pp.html
"In late December, 1988, a party of bushwalkers in the Huntsman valley, northern Tasmania, noticed a large number of dead fish floating in the Meander River. Subsequent investigations revealed that APPM had sprayed a plantation a few days earlier with Cypremethrin. As a result of heavy rains, large numbers of dead beetles were washed into the river as well as the chemical residues.
While the spraying had occurred on the 21st December, news reports alerting residents only occurred after contamination had occurred, and residents in the nearby township of Deloraine (pop. 2,500) were warned to boil their water.72 [ABC Radio News, 27/12/88 ]
Pyrethroid insecticides are used extensively for the control of a wide variety of insects. Cypermethrin was employed by APPM to control predation of their E. nitens plantations by Chrysomelid - or Christmas - beetles. The spraying wiped out a number of species of non-target, native insects, some populations of which took as long as six months to recover. In addition to the dead fish, a number showed side-effects related to the ingestion of poisoned beetles. Cypermethrin has been shown to have affects on muscle and brain activity in mammals as well as fish. Some of its effects on fish may also mirror exposure to PCBs, PBBs and dioxins.73 [Davies, P. E. and Cook, L. S. J., "Catastrophic croinvertebrate drift and sublethal effects on brown trout,Salmo trutta, caused by cypermethrin spraying on a Tasmanian ream", Report to Inland Fisheries Commission, undated ]
Reference: http://www.green.net.au/boycott/north5.htm
Boycott Woodchipping Campaign. North Ltd Corporate Profile. 'Forest Destruction: North's Woodchipping Agenda'.
NOTE: North Forest Products' forest holdings were subsequently purchased by Gunns Ltd.
A plantation was established in the Lorinna water catchment. Subsequent spraying of Atrazine was carried out by Forestry Tasmania who objected to the community's ideal of a chemical-free environment.
Widespread and long-term community protest in the Lorinna valley was not enough to prevent the spray campaign. "Forestry said publicly that if they were going to permit us to negotiate over our water catchment they would be in a position where everybody would want to negotiate over their catchment..."
The resulting contamination of the community's drinking water was disastrous with the atrazine levels exceeding the World Health Organisation's safe level. AND this was in the context of Forestry Tasmania providing EXTRA buffers "- they were supposed to be 70 metres from the stream and they increased it to 100 metres. "
"We went to Hobart in May and promoted The Davies Report, an Inland Fisheries Report, 1991, on the contamination of streams. Davies reported really high levels of atrazine in streams following rain in all the plantation coupes that he'd tested The commissioned Report said the presence of pesticides in streams as a result of forestry plantation spraying is a concern; the need to prevent stream pesticide contamination should be realised at the planning stage of plantations, not left to be considered as an inconvenience when the need to spray arises. This was reported on 10 May 1993 in The Mercury."
"After the first real rain post spraying: "DELM came out 45 minutes after us and took samples in exactly the same spot. We were there to meet them and they didn't know we had taken samples. We sent ours to Melbourne. They sent theirs back to Hobart and had them analysed. Ours came back 0.2 parts per billion and theirs came back 0.1 part per billion. We jumped up and down; ours were twice as high; the laboratory in Hobart was not certified to test for atrazine whereas the Melbourne laboratory was...."
"But because the atrazine was definitely there and there was a discrepancy, after the next rain a week or so later DELM authorised a dual sample. They took samples from a number of sites and sent one of each to Melbourne and Hobart laboratories. Forestry wanted to show how responsible t hey were and genuinely wanted to look at it and get it right. Paul Smith had used this 0.2 parts per billion benchmark and the next result was way over. It was 9.3 parts per billion; nearly five times the World Health Organisation allowable limit. Forestry now had to come up with some story to destroy the position they had created for us. So they said it's OK for short term exposure."
"Meantime, practically on a daily basis, I'd be ringing them to ask for results of analysis. When they first tested they refused to give them to us until they had the complete result, and when we had these huge levels, we couldn't get any results out of them. We had rung and rung and they passed us on one time too many. I said to whoever it was on the other end of the phone, I don't actually need to speak to Brian, I just need the results of these tests sitting on his desk, and the Forestry staff member read them to me. So I informed the media without Forestry having officially released the figures!"
"Immediately those trees disappeared the ball game changed. The following agreement was made between Lorinna Community and the Forestry Commission on Future Management of Gads Hill Eucalypt Plantations. It was dated February 1994 -
'In response to the concerns of the community the Forestry Commission will not use 1080 poison, herbicides, fertilisers or synthetic pyrethrum based on chemicals in the catchments that supply water to the community. Biological control agents (Bacillus) may be used to control leaf eating beetles if growth of the plantations is threatened by defoliation."
"The Eucalypt plantation, Gads Hill, has been established to grow sawlog. Thinning and pruning of selected trees will be required to promote sawlog growth."
"..In the event that full funding for non-commercial thinning is not available, the Lorinna Community have offered to non-commercially thin the plantation within the catchments that supply the water to the community. That being the case, the Forestry Commission will facilitate training to enable residents of Lorinna to gain appropriate accreditation to carry out the operation . . .'"
"As for our water supply, Forestry installed activated carbon filter cylinders that required back flushing twice a day. For the first three weeks they reduced the level of atrazine. DELM tested the water pre-filter and post-filter every 10 days. After three weeks about 60% of the atrazine present in the water was coming through the activated carbon filters which were the only commercial filters which claimed to remove atrazine. After they were showing 60% we didn't want one anymore..."
"As early as May 1993 Forestry put out a call for public submissions on alternatives to chemical sprays but it was only after the Derby campaign that they employed Paul Dredge to look into alternatives. Meanwhile they had a moratorium on atrazine. The PR was getting bad. They have gone public saying they have ceased the use of atrazine and that it cost them only 10% extra to reduce their level of chemicals by 90%. They are still using Round-up, simazine and hexazinone. These chemicals are just as bad but don't have the negative profile."
"...Twelve months after spraying I had a soccerball-sized ovarian cyst growing inside me; it was removed but it wiped out my right ovary. There is no doubt in my mind that this was a result of the atrazine, no doubt.
I'm really clear about that. I can't prove it even though atrazine is renowned for its effect on the reproductive organs. "
"..They tested Lorinna water until they had three successive non-detectable levels. Whereas initially they tested every ten days, they later tested every six weeks, for about four years. In January 1994 atrazine was still detectable at low levels after rainfall events. Even with it being no longer detectable there is a sense that this pristine water source has been violated. There is a sense of impurity."
"I feel personally tainted. To be obligated to feed this poison brew to my kids, to my animals, to my garden, you know, all the things I put time and energy into doing as purely as I can and as wholesomely as I can. To have an external source create a situation where I'm obligated to give them something decidedly inferior, is a real personal slight. 'You smoke too much or you eat the wrong foods but the role of unknowing exposures to carcinogens in food, water, air and the workplace is ignored.'"
http://www.hancock.forests.org.au/docs/adelaide.html#TAG8
'The Atrazine Campaign' by Annie Willock and Bart Wisse From 'For the Forests'. by Helen Gee
A second detection of Simazine in Orford's water supply (Prosser River)was found over a 6 month period. "The level is above the trigger point for action in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.." Tests taken on January 18th, 2005 revealed levels of 2.5 micrograms per litre. Previous tests done in July 2004 revealed that contamination was at the level of 1.2 micrograms per litre with the level of Simazine still detectable the following month.
Reference: Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services, Media Statement
http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/environmentalhealth/documents/medrelease-herbicide-orfordwater-11feb05.pdf
1994 - Mrs Christing Milne in a Notice of Motion' to the Tasmanian Parliament (Hansard, Wednesday 3rd August 1994) mentions the Atrazine was found in the water supplies of the Upper Esk (as well as Lorinna and the town of Derby) as a result of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's activities. Mrs Milne called for a total ban on the use of Atrazine and the triazines (in general) for use in water catchments citing the banning of these chemicals in Europe due to widespread contamination of groundwater by these chemicals.
2001 and 2002 On the 19th June 2002 I received an email from Mr Roos (resident in the Upper Esk region). Mr Roos referred to spraying operations on a Gunns Ltd tree plantation along side the South Esk River in the vicinity of Upper Esk. Mr Roos said: "I could smell some chemical 2km away". Mr Roos referred to numerous calls to Gunns on 16.11.2001 who informed him that 'he could not smell it' and advised that Atrazine was being used. Mr Roos expressed his doubts about this saying: "from a helicopter pre emergence weedicide on top of a plantation? I rather think it was insecticide. .."
2003 - An article is published in the Examiner newspaper entitled: 'Scientis warns on catchment logging', Sunday 31st August 2003.
http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=193103
"A new report sounds the alarm about water flow from forest plantations, says FRAN VOSS."".... Dr David Leaman (hydrologist of 40 years experience in Tasmania) states that "Conversion of native forests to plantations may lead to a substantial loss of water yields from which the catchment may never recover... The water demand of the growing trees can exceed that of old- growth forest by as much as 50 per cent during the peak growing period, which occurs at the time the new forest achieves canopy coverage at around 30 or 40 years..."
2004 - September 2003. An image is posted on the internet at http://www.fair-trading.com/south-esk-river.html showing a stream rushing down a steep clearfelled slope with obvious catastophic impact on water quality. Later in the year Mr Roelf Roos raises the alarm about simultaneous logging and fish farming in the Upper Esk and states that the fish farmers are very concerned about water quality. (Email from Mr Roos, 5th November 2004)
North Esk 2004
(NorthEskLockout2004) - this is current action in the Launceston region.
Rolley Naïve On Community Crisis
13th February 2004
http://update.tas.greens.org.au//fulldoc.php3?title=Rolley+Na%EFve+On+Community+Crisis&date=1076590800&author=Kim+Booth+MHA
A group of residents faced a locked gate into a catchment area (the farm ‘Ben Nevis’purhased by Forestry Tasmania) when they tried to inspect it after concerns were raised regarding their adversely affected water quality...
"Many of the residents of the area draw their water directly from the North Esk and it's tributaries and we have people who after drinking fresh, clean water for fifty years are finding it dirtied and unfit for consumption."
Patti O'Donnell of Gardener's Creek Road, St Marys said that the Break O'Day Council workers' activities led to herbicide overspray contaminating her organic garden. The garden had been cultivated for 3 years.
"Mrs O'Donell said that she phoned the council depot to ask why spraying was occurring in such windy conditions and ws told that the work had been scheduled in advance."
Reference: The Examiner,Tasmania, 20th July 2000. page 13.
"Forestry Tasmania sprayed Atrazine in water catchment areas after clearfelling areas of forest or plantation. Twenty days after one such instance, Atrazine was found in the town of Derby's tap-water. "
+
[From: Tasmania: name your poison. September 26, 2004. Reporter :Graham Davis
Producer : Nick Rushworth.
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1649.asp
" DR DAVID LEAMAN: They had a couple of what you could only call disasters. One was at a town, a town called Lorinna and the other was at Derby.
GRAHAM DAVIS: What happened?
DR LEAMAN: And in both cases people were basically poisoned.
GRAHAM DAVIS: You lived in Derby, didn't you?
TAMARA RICHARDSON: Yes. Yeah, I did.
GRAHAM DAVIS: According to Tamara Richardson, many residents were oblivious to the contamination and kept drinking from the tap.
GRAHAM DAVIS: It had such a potent effect in Derby that Forestry Tasmania stopped using Atrazine. Did you know that?
TAMARA RICHARDSON: No, I didn't know that at all.
GRAHAM DAVIS: Do you know that while Forestry Tasmania has stopped using it, that private concerns like Gunns are still using it?
TAMARA RICHARDSON: No, I didn't know that?
GRAHAM DAVIS: Do you feel like a mushroom now? Under the circumstances?
TAMARA RICHARDSON: Yeah, I do now.
GRAHAM DAVIS: Kept in the dark and fed ...
TAMARA RICHARDSON: Definitely.
GRAHAM DAVIS: ... something unpleasant.
TAMARA RICHARDSON: Yeah. Not good.
GRAHAM DAVIS: But apart from the Atrazine scares in Lorinna and Derby, Simazine has been found this year in the water supplies of Campbell Town and Orford. And then there's St. Helens, where we know more than 100 people are sick with mystery illnesses and many more complain of feeling unwell.."
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Hellyer River at Guilford Link Rd. Simazine 0.06 µg/L"
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Cattley Creek at Blackmarsh Rd. Atrazine 0.1 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Little Henty River d/s Zeehan Hexazinone 0.2 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Lisle Creek off Nook Rd. Hexazinone 0.2 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Rubicon River at Smith and Others Rd. Atrazine 0.7 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Great Forester River at Tasman Highway Simazine 0.2 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
South George River at St Columba Falls Simazine 0.2 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Great Forester River at Prosperity Rd. Simazine 1.0 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"..A number of sites around Tasmania were monitored for pesticides, as part of the River Health program in the mid-1990’s. A summary of the results of this monitoring program is provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Pesticide Monitoring Results from the River Health
Program
Spring 1994 121 sites sampled Pesticides detected at 8 sites
Great Forester catchment Simazine 0.5 µg/L
Great Forester catchment Simazine 0.4 µg/L
Reference: Review of the Scammell Report – Aerial Spraying in Georges River Catchment – Tasmania. Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment, August 2004.
"1988 Tamar valley vineyards affected by drift 20kms away from source "
Report of the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia – July 1990. As Cited in Dr Alison Bleaney's submission on the review of the aerial spraying code of practice, Tasmania 2005.
"5/2003 Mt Leslie treated water - simazine"
Reference: Dr Alison Bleaney's submission on the review of the aerial spraying code of practice, Tasmania 2005.
"May 2003 - West Tamar untreated and treated water - simazine" and
"7/2004 West Tamar untreated water - simazine"
Reference: Dr Alison Bleaney's submission on the review of the aerial spraying code of practice, Tasmania 2005.
1/2004 DH aerial overspray - Polyram*
*“Polyram” contains of metiram and spraymate
Reference: Dr Alison Bleaney's submission on the review of the aerial spraying code of practice, Tasmania 2005. This story is noted as a personal communication to Dr Bleaney. 'DH' stands for??
"10/2004 DH ground spraydrift contamination - Eucmix and Roundup*
“Roundup” contains glyphosate and tallowamine surfactant."
Reference: Dr Alison Bleaney's submission on the review of the aerial spraying code of practice, Tasmania 2005.
A Cry From The Heart ... our nightmare
By BRENDA ROSSER
[As published in the Tasmanian Times - www.tasmaniantimes.com]
In 1997 Forest Enterprises clearfelled the native forest next door. The residents of West Calder were given no warning. An aerial spraying operation was planned as a follow-up to destroy the groundcover in preparation for the planting of an exotic monoculture of Niten eucalypt trees.
Our entire community (with the exception of the household that leased their property to Forest Enterprises) were appalled at what had already taken place.
The community subsequently organised for a letter to be sent to Forest Enterprises seeking a written undertaking that the company would not spray any toxic agricultural chemicals on the coupe concerned. The reasons given were (i) the threat to the health and safety and quality of life of members of the community and (ii) the ongoing nature of this threat which would require long- term monitoring of individual water supplies - a cost the community refused to bear.
The coupe concerned was the water catchment for both the nearby Inglis and Calder Rivers. It had a multitude of creeks, streams, dams, and swamps on it. There was no practical way that aerial spraying could take place over that land without contaminating water. In addition, the area is home to the giant freshwater crayfish and other threatened or vulnerable species.
A drawn-out political battle ensued. The then Liberal Government allowed the application of residual and water-finding pesticides over the entire coupe. They were applied in water-logged and damaged streamside reserves.
Although aerial application of herbicides didn't take place as feared it alarmed us when we were notified that drinking water tanks (3 out of only 5 tested) were already contaminated by a highly toxic herbicide.
The local newspaper reported on our contamination experience. But the story downplayed the dangers that were presented to our community by the presence of Simazine in our drinking water. The article failed to mention that the contamination was picked up by accident. It failed to say that the levels were over three times that accepted by the World Health Organisation. No reference was made to the fact that no-one knew what the ORIGINAL levels of contamination were. Nor did the paper highlight the refusal of the Department of Environment to extend the monitoring of drinking water to the rest of the region nor test for the entire range of pesticides that could also be present in our rainwater tanks.
So, why did the Department of Environment refuse to assess the risk exposure in our region? After all, the Simazine in the tanks at West Calder had clearly drifted by at least 4-5 kilometres. No aerial spraying occurred closer than that. How bad was the situation closer to the action?
Why did this same Department and the subsequent newly formed Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment continue to refuse to provide an ongoing monitoring system for local residents? Why did DPIWE allow (and continue to allow) a whole range of pesticides to be applied in a manner that was GUARANTEED to drift onto neighbouring and community property?
Industrial 'forestry' (read clearfell/plantation industry) began to quickly dominate the West Calder/Takone region. We began to notice planes and helicopters a hundred plus feet in the air spraying several kilometres away several times a year. Indeed Forestry Tasmania began to spray high over a plantation coupe along the Takone Road that was the upper catchment for a creek providing the water supply for several households along the West Calder Road. Their 'monitoring system' involved checking the immediate neighbour's tank when the pipe from the roof was disconnected before, during and after spraying.
When I complained about our vulnerability a DPIWE worker came out and checked my family's tank - again, with the pipe disconnected before, during and after the spraying event.
The integrity of the so-called regulatory agencies was now well and truly LOST. Risk assessment data was asked for over and over again and not provided. Startling things were said on the phone by bureaucrats that these same people were uncomfortable repeating publicly.
When Gunns Ltd moved in for yet another aerial spraying operation along the Takone Road the community pleaded for funds from the corporation to carry out their own INDEPENDENT testing. No response was provided and Gunns Ltd sprayed.
A local newspaper quoted Gunns Ltd claiming that no contaminants were ever found with their testing regime.
DPIWE continue to deny reliable and standardised protocols for sampling and testing pesticides in water 50 and more YEARS AFTER PESTICIDES ARE APPROVED FOR USE IN TASMANIA.
While we continue to read about 'ecologically sustainable forest management' (ESFM) as underpinning the Tasmanian forest industry the people in Tasmania feel sick in the gut.
Tasmania has the highest cancer rate in Australia and Australia has almost the highest cancer incidence in the world.
The National Forest Policy Statement of 1992 is supposed to underpin and justify the management of our forest industry. It forms the basis for legitimising the Regional Forest Agreement and the Australian Forestry Standard. The NFP Statement provides the following definition of 'sustainable forest management':
"The integration of commercial and non-commercial values of forests so that both the material and non-material welfare of society is improved, whilst ensuring that the values of forests, both as a resource for commercial use and for conservation, are not lost or degraded for current and future generations."
Woolly and wordy but enough is said to prove that the legal basis for industrial plantation management is non-existent. So why does the industry and the so-called regulatory agencies continue to get away with this?
This is our story of finally achieving a long - term dream, unfortunately we soon became aware that things are not always as they appear to be, here in Tassie at least.
After Howard suffered health problems and finally a triple by-pass operation we decided to call it quits with city life and move to Tasmania, "THE CLEAN GREEN STATE " or so we were led to believe.
We had previously been to Tassie on a holiday and fallen for all the charms it had to offer. What better place to set ourselves up with a small farm in which we could grow all our own food organically, run a few chooks, and live a quiet, clean, simple lifestyle.
On arrival to our new island home at the end of 2002 with our small dog Joey we had arranged a unit to rent in Westbury for 3 months whilst we decided which part of Tassie we would eventually call home.
Although we had spent many hours on the inter-net looking at real estate sites , searching for the perfect place proved to be harder than anticipated due to the boom in real estate with many other mainlander's seeking out their little piece of paradise, at prices way below that of main land states.
Hence the availability of suitable places was low.
On a visit to the picturesque town of Scottsdale in the north east, we made our way to the local real estate window, there to our delight a photo and description took our eye, under the heading of 'Tranquil Living'. It seemed to be the ideal property we were looking for.
We decided to have a look. The property was at the end of a gravel road in a secluded valley. On either side of the gate were two very large oak trees leading into a beautiful park like setting.
There was a large established vegetable garden, fruit trees and it even had chooks !!! We were surrounded by trees and no close neighbours, it was magnificent, exactly what we were looking for.
We had found our home at last!! After settling in we began to make plans to re open the accommodation business which had closed in 1998.
Refurbishment was needed to bring the B & B to todays requirements and standards. Many dollars and hours were invested into our soon to be tourism accommodation venture.
It was a very exciting time for us, we both were extremely positive about the future. Unfortunately this was not to be. After only 2 months of peace and quite the silence was broken by the sounds of chain saws and heavy forestry machinery which was clear felling the forest that surrounded us.
We lived with the noise day and night with the constant procession of log trucks passing by our front gate daily for almost twelve months. At times the public road into our property became impassible due to the mud that had been carved up by the log trucks. On many occasions we were unable to leave the property in our sedan car necessitating the need to purchase a 4 x 4 vehicle.
Within a short time our surroundings and vistas resembled an industrial war zone! Every tree to all boundaries of our property cut down, now only bare hills, forest debris lay every where in full view of our home, we were just part of the coupe, we did not exist. There was no consideration or empathy, for us, or our future tourism business.
After the logging had finished and new trees planted we thought we were over what was the worst twelve months of our lives, HOW WRONG WE WERE. 1080 poison was layed around our property resulting in approx 60 dead wallabies and possums, laying under trees and shrubs around our house.
Those carcasses that were not found and removed the day after baiting were soon rotting, and the stench was unbearable. We were in constant fear for our dog's safety, if they were to consume any of the dead animals they would also die an agonising death.
Following the 1080 baiting shooters were contracted by Gunns to kill any animals that had escaped the poisoning. On many occasions we were woken at 1 or 2 am by the sound of high - powered rifles and shot guns being discharged less than 150 meters from our bedroom.
On the afternoon of the 18th August 2004 we were on the southern boundary of our property when a helicopter flew in low and started spraying the adjoining plantation.
We soon became aware of an unfamiliar odour, and spray drift in the air followed by allergy symptoms, running eyes sneezing and a bitter taste. We returned to the house to shower and seek refuge, the spraying continued around the property for approx 2 hours. At times the vibration from the helicopter caused the windows in the house to shake. This was a very stressful experience for us, and our animals.
The chemicals sprayed were Atrazine and Verdict. We were not informed on the day that aerial spraying operations would be taking place.
Six weeks after the spraying event test results from our spring fed bore, the only water supply to the property, revealed it was now contaminated with Atrazine. What was once a plentiful, clean water supply was now undrinkable. 'NO WATER' how do we live here with no water, we were both in shock and disbelief. Weekly tests have been taken from our bore , after six months the water is still contaminated. Gunns have had to supply us with water delivered by water tanker on a regular basis.
This incident has had a devastating affect on our lives! Many tears and sleepless nights worrying about our future and of course our health has been a constant worry, with many doctors appointments and tests with more to come.
We both have a fear that one day we may end up with cancer as the chemical Atrazine is a known carcinogen.
All this when all we ever wanted was a quite, safe country lifestyle.
We were very much unaware about forestry and their uncaring practices until we moved to Tasmania. Who would ever think Tassie would have this terrible dark side to it! A beautiful island with so much to offer is quietly being poisoned.
Since this has happened to us we now know of many other people who have had their lives and livelihoods affected by the ever- increasing horror of monoculture plantations and what comes with growing them. There is no doubt if forestry keeps on expanding at this alarming rate Tasmania will lose all the charm and natural beauty that visitors come here to see. What a terrible shame that would be.
Howard & Michelle Carpenter.
Story conveyed by phone on Wednesday 28th July 2004
Donald Reid from Elliot (Tasmania) spoke about his experience about 10 or 11 years ago in relation to a fishing experience in the Pet River Dam (the city of Burnie's water supply).
Donald said that at the time he had caught a nice fish in the Pet Dam. Rumour was going about at the time that the connected Guide Reservoir was contaminated with high levels of Atrazine. He said that he believed there were reports of this problem in the local paper at the time (presumabley 'The Advocate' newspaper).
Donald said that he phoned the Burnie City Council asking for a guarantee that the fish he had caught would be safe to eat, being particularly concerned at the time because he had a very young daughter.
He phoned a friend in the Department of Health who should be able to confirm the details. [Name and phone number available].
Tests were done on the fish in the Pet Dam as a result of the concerns Donald raised. Levels of atrazine were, indeed, found but the Council had emphasised that the contamination was very small. Donald did not have copies of the test
results and could not relate exactly what levels of Atrazine were found at the time.
Author:
Brenda J Rosser
West Calder Tasmania
Traces of simazine were found upstream from where Campbelltown draws its water supply according to water testing organised by Gunns Ltd..."It is understood simazine is used in the management of plantations in the Lake Leake catchment area, where the town's water is drawn..."
Reference: 'Town has herbicide in water'.Danny Rose. The Mercury newspaper, Tasmania. 18th June 2004
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,9876972,00.html
GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROSECUTE OVER SIMAZINE CONTAMINATION
19 August 1997. Peg Putt, Spokesperson on Forests.
http://www.vision.net.au/~tasgreens/newsdesk/aug19pp.html
A creek at Franklin has been contaminated with simazine following aerial spraying for plantation establishment, but despite Greens questions in Parliament it is not
clear whether the Department of Environment and Land Management will prosecute.
The Greens have called on Environment Minister, Peter Hodgman to clarify what action his department will take following his statement last week that legal action
should be taken where such sprays leach or drift from the property on which they are applied.
"The Minister gave a confused answer that he stood by his statement of last week, but did not say whether a prosecution was planned or even being investigated
now that contamination at 9 parts per billion of simazine has been confirmed," Greens spokesperson on forests, Peg Putt said.
"Instead he tried to defuse the situation by offering a briefing on the wealth of information on simazine, a member of the triazine family of herbicides, which
includes the controversial atrazine compound."
"I am quite happy to be briefed on the Departmental views of simazine, and to give them information sourced internationally from the United States Environment
Protection Agency and from Europe on the increasing strict policing of this chemical."
"However, it is unsatisfactory for the Minister to hide behind an offer of a briefing. He has to let people know if the Government has the backbone to
prosecute."
"This is the spraying season, and the Franklin incident is the tip of the iceberg - more examples of water contamination will pop up daily."
"We can't claim to be clean and green, yet allow people to be involuntarily subjected to chemical contamination of their water," concluded Ms Putt.
"The oyster industry of Georges Bay at St Helens was almost wiped out earlier this year when almost 90 per cent of oysters in some Georges Bay farms died
virtually overnight....About $1 million worth of stock was destroyed. Rising floodwaters were initially said to be the cause of the deaths, but the Department of
Primary Industries, Water and Environment report into the matter could not reach that conclusion as oysters are quite tolerant of fresh water. ...But The Examiner
was also able to uncover that a chemical spill occurred near the river when a helicopter, spraying private forests at Pyengana in December, hit powerlines and
crashed. The aircraft, flown by Tasmanian Helicopters on contract from Austwide Forestry Services, was carrying about 60 litres of a cypermethrin-based
spray mix. About 20 litres of the chemical spilled on to the ground, not far from the water."
Source: 'Chemical probe urged', The Examiner newspaper, Tasmania.By CHRIS JOHNSON , Published Friday, 11 June 2004
http://www.examiner.com.au/print.asp?id=235907
See also: 'Environmental Problems, Georges Bay'. www.tfic.com.au/scammell_report_07.04.htm
Background to the mass oyster death at St Helens:
"Commercial oyster farming commenced in Georges Bay in 1980. St Helen’s farmers, along with others on the east coast, started reporting problems associated
with oyster growth and mortality to the department of Primary Industry, Water and the Environment (DPIWE) in 1997 and by 2000 it had been established that
oysters displayed shell chambering and mortality following heavy rainfall. Since early 2002, the DPIWE had commissioned three experts to undertake varying
projects relating to TBT as the possible cause of oyster health problems. ( TBT had been removed from the market place in 2002.) All three (Professor Noller,
Dr Scammell and Dr Mortimer) concluded that TBT alone was unlikely to be the cause of the problems being experienced by the oyster growers in Georges Bay
and that other factors should also be investigated.
As a result, the DPIWE Animal Health and Welfare Branch commissioned a project to collate and analyse all the available information that may be relevant
to the oyster health problem as a basis for either identifying the cause of the problem or developing a strategy for future investigation. (Percival Report 2004).
Despite a thorough analysis of historical information and the investigation of the oyster mortality event in January/February 2004, they could establish no definitive
cause of the oyster health problems in Georges Bay and Moulting Bay. In 2002, Dr Bleaney, one of the St Helens medical practitioners, became concerned that
proposed timber plantation expansion in the drinking water catchment could result in degradation of town water supply. In Tasmania, limited water testing has
detected simazine and atrazine at low levels in raw water in the Break O’Day area since 1994. They may temporarily exceed recommended limits for 14 days after
spraying. ...
On 15th December 2003, an aerial spray helicopter crashed in a plantation in the upper George River catchment. The crash was not investigated until 5th April
2004, and the Spray Information and Referral Unit then determined it not to have been hazardous despite significant quantities of the following found in soils at the
helicopter crash site.
This also give an indication of what was being sprayed over the whole area:
• Alpha-cypermethrin (insecticide)
• Atrazine (herbicide) (see attached Hayes 2004)
• Simazine (herbicide)
• Terbacil (growth regulator)
• Chlorothalonil (fungicide)
A record flood occurred on the 30th and 31st January 2004 following the heaviest rains on record with large-scale fauna mortality observed in early February 2004.
Mass mortality of oysters growing in the intertidal farming areas was observed first by the oyster farmers . Subsequent observations by the farmers, their staff and
others, sampling between 8/2/04 – 11/2/04, noted extensive mortality of filter feeders (clams, mussels, barnacles, etc.) in shoreline intertidal zone as well as prawns,
crabs, sea urchins, starfish and ascidians. A variety of dead fish and "rafts of dead frogs and other insects" were also noted."
Source: Case Study: 'Community Monitoring in St Helens, Environmental and human health problems, Georges Bay, Tasmania. aerial_spray.pdf
A local fisherman at Stanley in North West Tasmania, Jim Hursey said "Every time we get some heavy rain, freshwater runs from Black River into the Eastern inlet...
the fish seem to school up into a frenzy, have a bit of a panic attack, beach themselves, and then die." .."When the freshwater runs down into the beach it tends to
run in a black line, and (the fish) won't swim through the fresh water, so when they get caught between the dark water and the shore they get completely fenced off
and die."
"A sample of the dead fish had been taken to the Mt Pleasant laboratory for examination. Mr (Warren) Jones, Director of the Tasmanian Department of
Environment, said it was unlikely [that testing was] to provide any different evidence of cause [to Mr Jones theory that the fish died from a "natural event"].
Source: The Advocate newspaper. Thursday, July 21, 2005. Page 3
Fish caught at Deceitful Cove and Deviot on the Tamar River were found to have PCBs at similar levels to Victoria's far more industrialised Port Phillip Bay
according to a study conducted by the University of Tasmania and the University of Lund in Sweden in 2001. "DDT levels in oysters from Deviot were four times
higher than other areas" (such as Port Sorell, Squeaking Point and Coles Bay, also included in the study)..."Contamination in the Tamar Estuary may not be limited
to the lower estuary waters in close proximity to the heavy metal smelting and recycling operations," the study found. "Potentially high levels of organochlorines
may extend to at least the middle reaches of the Tamar River."
"Despite being banned, non-metabolised DDT was present in fish from Deceitful Cove indicating possible recent illegal use or disposal.Deceitful Cove
sediment samples exceeded Sediment Quality Guidelines for PCBs.".." PCBs in Deceitful Cove oysters were twice that in flathead." and "Fish with higher fat
content, such as cod or larger flathead from deeper water, may have higher levels..."
Aluminium and smelting industries have been pumping discharge into the Cove for two decades.
"The fish themselves may be adversely affected, the study said. Exposure to PCBs can cause biological and toxicological effects in aquatic organisms
including reduction in bio-mass and growth, endocrine disruption, reproductive impairment and failure, thyroid dysfunction, carcinogenicicity, immuno-deficiency,
neurological disorders, wasting syndrome and death. The study also raises concerns about possible organochlorine levels in local shore birds, sea eagles, seals,
penguins and dolphins". Deakin University's Dr Julie Mondon is one of the authors of the study. She said organochlorine levels in Tamar fish were a concern for
human health as there was was potential for PCBs to accumulate in people who ate flathead, greenback flounder and cod.
PCBs accumulate in fat.
Source: 'PCBs found in Tamar fish'. The Mercury Newspaper. By SIMON BEVILACQUA. 7th November 2004.
In contradiction to these findings the Tasmanian survey conducted during 1999 - 2000 by the Environment Division and Inland Fisheries
Service entitled 'Survey of PCBs, DDT, Heptacholor and Heavy Metals in Tasmanian Water Catchments' found no levels of DDT in flesh and liver samples
of biota taken from the following catchments: Tamar, Derwent, Forth, Emu, Pipers, South Esk River, North Esk River, together with lakes Pieman, Pedder,
Great Lake and Western Lakes. All analysis was undertaken by Analytical Services Tasmania laboratory.
"In all flesh samples no PCBs were detected at a detection limit of 0.1 ppm. The allowable concentration of PCBs in fish and fish products is
0.5 ppm as defined by the Australian Food Standards Code. All flesh sample concentrations were therefore at least five times less than those allowable..."
The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment then goes on to reassure the public about this study saying:
A number of liver samples from widespread locations had detectable levels of PCBs, most were in the range 0.1 to 0.3 ppm with the maximum level being
two samples with 0.6 ppm. This is not unexpected as livers and some other organs typically concentrate such chemicals to a greater degree than flesh. These
parts of fish are not generally consumed. [No mention of the tendency for PCBs to bioaccumulate in people who ate the fish nor that PCBs accumulate in the fat
of the fish.]
Source: 'Survey of PCBs, DDT, Heptacholor and Heavy Metals in Tasmanian Water Catchments'
http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/CDAT-65C37E?open
"Anyone wishing to view the original data or discuss the results:Contact: Scientific and Technical Section, Senior Environmental Technical Officer.134 Macquarie
Street, Hobart TAS. Phone: 03 6233 3373 Fax: 03 6233 3800Email: [email protected]
Is this the report that the Govenment sat on for 3-4 years?
Probably not, as there is no mention of testing on farmed and wild salmon. See 'Toxin Tests Under Wraps' Published in the Tasmanian Mercury
newspaper, Sep 27, 04. Author: SIMON BEVILACQUA.
"Repeated requests for information about the testing program were stonewalled..."
"Veterinary pathologist David Obendorf blew the whistle in 2001 when he wrote to then primary industries minister David Llewellyn.In his letter, Dr Obendorf
recommended regular and routine monitoring of PCB and dioxin levels in wild trout and sea-run salmon, salmonids from aquaculture and commercial marine fish
and fishmeal. Mr Llewellyn responded in a letter on February 16, 2001: "For the last two years DPIWE has been conducting surveillance on PCB and other
organochlorine levels in trout, eels and sediments in Tasmania as part of the national strategy for reduction of PCBs. "Preliminary results have so far shown
extremely low levels of PCBs." Mr Llewellyn said Tasmania would take advice from national authorities on whether further monitoring was needed. "A residue
testing program in cultured salmonids which, among other things, will monitor for organochlorines is expected to commence shortly," he wrote. Dr Obendorf wrote
back asking for preliminary results. In April 2001 Mr Llewellyn responded: "The department has not as yet written up the final report on PCBs and other trace
organics in fish, eels and sediments and this will not be completed for some time." Testing had been done for a range of organochlorines including PCBs, BHC,
Heptachlor, DDD, DDE and DDT and contamination levels were low, he wrote. More than three years later the results of the testing have not been made public."
[A US study released in 2004 year found 10 times more PCBs in farmed salmon than the wild variety.]
Brian Lay from the Tasmanian Oyster Grower's Association in Tasmania spoke on the Country Hour of Tuesday 13th September 2005. He mentioned that
more oyster deaths and illness had been observed after the recent flooding of 8th September 05.
Other information gleaned from the interview:
- The marine farmers on the East Coast are "Still not moving forward with any help outside our own efforts."
- The problems have arisen in the last 8 years. Prior to 1997 there were no issues.
- The marine farmers are undertaking their own monitoring and testing regimes with testing being performed outside of the State.
- The oyster growers are still waiting for results of samples taken back in April 2005 from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries Water
and Environment (DPIWE). Mr Lay said it was not acceptable that "4 or 5 months later we still have no idea of the results."
- There is now a river and flood alert system thanks to the help of the Bureau of Metereology.
- It is mandatory that all oyster health issues are reportable in Tasmania.
- The marine farmers sent a lengthy submission to the recent review of the Aerial Spraying Code of Practice in Tasmania. They want a total cessation
of spraying in the catchment and called for the precautionary principle to be invoked.
- The oyster growers [and other members of the community] still don't know what's being sprayed, where and when.
- Growers are concerned that it's coming up to the time when heavy spraying regimes are about to occur in plantations with more flooding likely this Spring.