Well! in the looming election isn’t it entirely obvious where the bias of this particular newspaper (Examiner) lies.

First we have front page headlines of the cause of facial tumours in Tasmanian devils followed by a glowing editorial on the subject, surprise, surprise!, devils actually bite one another! , now I know it is reputed that we Tasmanians are somewhat “backwoodsy” but have devils not been doing exactly this for thousands, and most likely millions of years and only now with the environmental changes that we humans have created, that is what is infecting those wounds ?

Perhaps the “greens” time would be best spent exposing just who it was that funded this entire farce, and no prizes for the outcome. I think we all know the answer.

Mr Davey seems to have missed something of the sheer scale of environmental change that has taken place in Tasmania over the last few decades.

[Leaving aside the effects of broadscale clearfelling and use of napalm, the extensive burnoffs that follow, the intensive agricultural cropping, and the wide use and increased dissemination of other toxic non-pesticde chemicals in our living environment.]

There are over 7000 chemicals designed to kill living organisms that are registered for use Australia wide.

From 1945 to 1995 there was a 50 fold increase in the use of pesticides. From 50 million kilograms to 2.5 billion kilograms.  (Pimental, 1997). After that, ‘the sales of insecticides in Australia increased by some 40% between 1998 and 1999’.
Similar rises were experienced for herbicides.

At the same time many of the chemicals now released on the market are more concentrated.  That is, more toxic per unit of weight.

The real question is:  Why did it take so long for this disaster to occur?

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj

Be aware:
Latest alarming news reached the media last week about an affected Tasmanian Devil found close to the “safe haven”, near the Narawntapu National Park
There was no mentioning about the tree harvesting and cropping situation. 
Fresh Pine plantation rotations developments bordering on to the Narawntapu National Park…
What chemicals, (incl. hydrocarbon products) used on the robotic processing machines have been in use during and after the harvesting of the pines? World best practice?

Background, links and stories:

Sympathy for the devil http://www.smh.com.au
In the state’s north, Narawantapu National Park remains a safe haven and devils
in the far west are protected by vast tracts of inhospitable button-grass ...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/02/20/1108834659984.html

You may ask Forestry Tasmania & US company, Rayonier(GMO Renewable Resources Ltd.)

Narawntapu National Park
Visitors Guide to Tasmania’s National Parks - Narawntapu National Park ...
Narawntapu National Park (formerly known as Asbestos Range National Park) is a ...
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/natparks/narawntapu/index.html
————————————————————————————————————————

NAFI News: July/August 1999 Forestry Tasmania has announced a joint venture with GMO Renewable ... of the land and another US company, Rayonier will provide forest management and ...
archive.nafi.com.au/newsletter/1999-08/section1.html

[PDF] Plantations, Farm Forestry and Water
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Forestry Tasmania retains ownership of the land and. another US company, Rayonier,
will provide ... eucalypt forest and pine plantations (Fig. 3) which ...
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/AFT/01-20.pdf

The usual rubbish from Brenda.  There is no proof this condition is linked to human-supplied chemicals in any way.  It is just another hypothesis.

Blind Freddy could see that this disease is related to the devil being the top predator/scavager and linked to the accumulation of chemicals not normally found in the bush.

Hasn’t anyone heard of the DDT scenario. Difficult to prove but really very obvious. Unfortunately politics is interfering with science on this one.

Kevin
I don’t call your writing ‘rubbish’ do I now?

There is ample proof that man-made chemicals cause mutations in animals.  There’s tons of evidence that most mutations in animals are not very helpful.  That is, they generally lead to some sort of disease or deformity.

Most pesticides (and other synthetic chemicals) have been released into our environment without the tiniest bit of research on how they affect the immune system.  The existing research base, in fact, won’t tell us very much at all about the whole range of possible effects on living organisms and the environment.  Such are the limitations of our knowledge base.

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj

I think the Devil disease is caused by the Devil. The religious amongst us would accept that the Devil does exist and is likely to be pretty annoyed at this marsupial appropriating his unholy name. It’s obvious when you think about it. There is ample proof of the Devil’s work amongst us and this disease is likely to be an example of his cunning, yet inscrutable, plan.

But of course, it could also be caused by Space Aliens. We all know that Space Aliens have been visiting us for years and they have probably been introducing their evil Alien genes into Tas Devil’s over multiple generations, which has led to such a tricky tumour.

Mind you, I wouldnt rule out the Tas Government. We all know, or assume, they are evil as well, and those evil scientists at Forestry Tasmania have probably developed this tumour either for their own amusement or perhaps to deflect attention from trees for one minute.

Or perhaps it is GM-contaminated food? We all know there have been secret trials of GM foods in Tasmania for years and those foolish devils probably have been eating gentically altered wombats that have escaped from the labs of evil corporations.

I could go on…

I will go on ...

There is no way that Forestry Tasmania has anything to do with the Devil Facial Tumour Disease.  Absolutely no way.

Yes, Forestry Tasmania has spent decades spreading countless poison baits, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides across the state.  Yes, that has happened.  But there is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to link the decades-old use of poisons in the bush, to the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease.

None.

So all you fucken greenies should just shut up and suck it down.  And don’t forget the mantra either ... while sucking it down, repeat after me:

“Poison is good.  Without poison, forestry is not economic.  Poison is good.  Without poison forestry is not economic.  Poison is good…

Mr Lovell obviously feels that by the use of strong language he can stifle debate - here and in other posts. He misses the point of my attempt at satire - it is that long-held personal beliefs often temper the interpretation of facts as they stand.

There is no direct evidence that man-made chemicals have precipitated this unusual tumour. It is not a bad theory is my guess, but it is just a theory. What irks me is that Greens supporters would use this horrible disease (as indeed other human cancers in rural areas) as prima facie evidence of the nasty side-effects of forestry (and other land-use) practises.

I reject this faulty thinking. We all have strange beliefs that colour our thinking, but it is important to recognise this when it occurs so we base action on fact, rather than fairy tales.

SA says:
“What irks me is that Greens supporters would use this horrible disease (as indeed other human cancers in rural areas) as prima facie evidence of the nasty side-effects of forestry (and other land-use) practises…”

Come off your high horse SA!  As if we don’t already have AMPLE and REPEATED evidence of the ‘nasty side-effects of forestry and other land-use practices’. 

A bit of background reading wouldn’t go astray before you post again to Tassie Times.

Try the following:
Special Report - ‘Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders’ at:
http://www.rcep.org.uk/cropspraying.htm

‘Our Stolen Future’ at:  http://www.ourstolenfuture.org

‘Pesticide Abuse in Tasmania’ at: http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj
+
Many stories of injury and environmental damage in the searchable message archives at:

http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/tascleanwaternetwork

For your info Super Arse, my post above (No. 8) is an example of mischevious behaviour - you know, that thing you previously accused me of, when I pointed out how much I dislike people who make up and spread baseless rumours about others and then accuse those same others of dishonesty when they deny your lies.

But you are right SA, there is no evidence that man-made chemicals have precipated the unusual Devil Facial Tumour disease.  Common-sense tells us otherwise, doesn’t it?; “it is not a bad theory”, but as yet there is no evidence.  I believe I made this quite clear in my post.

For the record, I am not trying to “stifle” debate, you big cry-baby.  I made my point and you have responded ... somewhat like a stuck pig, in my opinion, but you don’t seem too “stifled” from where I’m sitting.

So how about you grow up, Super A, act like the man we all know you are and for god’s sake stop your whining about the way other people treat you.

Its called karma mate, not that I believe in much hippy feelgood shite, but it is true that what goes around comes around.

I personally have zero respect or tolerance for those who make up lies, spread them as if they were true and then accuse all and sundry of everything under the sun when they reject your lies.  In a small place like Tasmania, people who make up and spread nasty rumours cause untold damage, until the rest of us cotton on and give you the cold shoulder that you truly deserve.  You come from Sydney of course, so you don’t really understand how damaging this practice can be in a small community. 

Anyway, to get to the point, I hate liars and this means I dont like you and I never will.

So let’s drop the pretence Super Arse ... we are not friends, colleagues, peers, partners or lovers, you whingeing, lying twango.

Yours,
Jason Lovell

PS You know, only two posters on this site call me Mr Lovell ... Super “Anonymous” and that “other” bloke who’s always threatening to consult his lawyers, which is why I won’t name him here. 

PPS When that “other” bloke bangs on about “consulting his lawyers,” does anyone else mentally picture him gazing intently and lovingly into the mirror while conducting said “consultation”?  Surely it’s not just me.

Jonathan, your Blind Freddy obviously isn’t a scientist.  If your view is so obviously true then prove it. The current view on this disease is that it started with a single devil or a small group of devils and then spread.  The cause could have therefore been anything - a genetic aberration, a manmade chemical (agricultural, forestry or other), or a rarely-occurring natural chemical.  It could be that these cancers develop fairly regularly but that when devil populations are low density they do not spread effectively between populations. We just don’t know.

Brenda, if you spout rubbish here you get called on it, and I am sure I could dig up plenty of unreasonable things you had said about my comments in the past if I was foolish enough to waste that sort of time.  Just because man-made chemicals can cause diseases does not mean they are the only possible cause of any specific disease.

As an addendum to what I said above.  We may never have concrete proof that the Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease is directly caused by bad industrial and forestry practices (such as the widespread and grand scale dispersion of chemicals).

However, we do have AMPLE proof that the practices of dispersing toxic chemicals in the environment is detrimental to biodiversity and human health.  That, alone, makes the grounds for banning such practices IMPERATIVE.

We have two major parties in power in Tasmania (the Liberals and the Labor party) who REFUSE to warn residents about the extent of drift of these poisons.  The chief scientist of the APVMA has failed to provide (despite constant requests over years) the aerial spraying drift risk assessment for helicopters on top of hills, at high altitude and at any height above 9 feet.

The only risk assessment I’ve seen for aerial spraying (published by the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority) shows a MINIMUM drift of 600 metres if chemicals are sprayed at a height of 3 metres (Note: only 9 feet) in windspeeds of 15 kph.

The current aerial spraying buffer is 100 metres between the helicopter and a residence and 10 metres for creeks and dams and rivers.

“..Management of forests should use the precautionary principle for prevention of environmental degradation and the principle of inter-generational equity to maintain the suite of forest values for present and future generations. ..”

Australian Forestry Standard
http://www.forestrystandard.org.au/publications/pdf/4708.pdf

Brenda, thankyou for the admission in the first paragraph, which is pertinent to this thread.  The remainder of your post is not.

  You continue to bang on about issues to do with chemicals on threads to which the broader chemical issue is not really relevant.  We all know the address of your website and anyone with a predeliction for masochism can click on it any time they wish to read whatever you have to say on such subjects.

Of course one reason “we may never have concrete proof” that something is the cause is that it may turn out not to be the cause after all.

I think I may have hit several raw nerves with Mr Lovell. I delight in this as he exposes for us all his inability to argue with the facts. I am not sure what he is on about with the tirade about ‘lies’ etc – as this is my thesis, how we must stick to the facts at hand rather than interpret the world through whatever biases we carry.

For the record, I am umpteenth generation Tasmanian with the prerequisite convict heritage and god knows what else there. I am no intellectual, not particularly pretty and revel in acknowledgment of my many shortcomings. However, I also carry some pride in not being slack with the facts and having low tolerance for hypocrisy and bad manners.

Mr Lovell describes himself elsewhere as a “larrikin” – good on you, I am happy that you are so well defined by a single expression. I just ask you, in the spirit of refined discourse, to stick with the thread of the argument rather than focus on personal attack. I am, however, glad that Mr Lovell agrees with the lack of evidence for man-made chemicals having a role in the Devil disease. 

PS – No idea who the other ‘bloke’ with the lawyer connections is. Whether you like me or not is irrelevant and a diversion to the central debate. Your rant is yet another good example why I choose to stay anonymous and Annoyed.

Some interesting facts:

Statements about causation of disease cannot be proved - only disproved.

When a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and it is not disproved we eventually develop some confidence in the reliability of the hypothesis.

The hypothesis that probably MOST needs to be examined in the case of the devil tumour disease is the one referring to the widespread dissemination of known toxic chemicals in the environment of Tasmania. (napalm, pesticides, nitrogen fertiliser, PCBs, dioxin, smoke.  And combinations of all).

It is sensible to approach the MOST LIKELY cause of the disease rather than to allocate rare resources exploring less likely ones first.

SA can try and fool readers by referring to “the lack of evidence for man-made chemicals having a role in the Devil disease”.  The TRUTH is that the devil is a living organism.  A mammal in this case.  There is already a huge body of evidence available that provides evidence of harm to mammals from man-made chemicals. 

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org

For pitys sake SA, when are you going to learn?

There’s no way you can hope to use logic and evidence based science to batter through the misplaced righteousness driving the majority of contributors on this board.

As much as I have admired you trying, you have to learn not to argue with PCT’s as it only makes them feel better about the rubbish they peddle.

Well said Brenda.

Unfortunately the “No Proof” advocates will continue, probably because it serves their own agenda. That or they like be very very very pedantic.

What a desperate person ‘The Critic’ is!  When you can’t win (because your arguments are pathetic) just verbally attack your opponent.

Getting under my skin, Super Arse?  I think not.

I’ve developed a real fire in my belly over the way my state is being trashed for the benefit of the few and I will not stop or change anything I do because of the whining of a few pathetic forestry apologists. 

Now SA, why are you so glad about the lack of a tangible link between the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour disease and the host of poisons sprayed and laid in and around the forested areas of Tasmania? 

Your pleasure intrigues me ...

Regards,
Jason

Sorry TwoHeads, try as I might I don’t understand your post.

Firstly I haven’t argued anything; secondly I haven’t verbally attacked anyone. The purpose of my post was to encourage SA not to feel too bad over the verbal attack dealt out by Mr Lovell - those who resort to name calling have already lost any argument well before it begins.

When you learn to read, perhaps you can have another go?

Mr Lovell- you must really enjoy being wrong. I am no forestry apologist, although I have sympathy for forestry workers as well as bee keepers and furniture makers. I also draw no joy from the Devil facial tumour disease. But I have no sympathy, nor any joy, with folk who twist the facts for their own ends. I delight in a conclusion drawn from analysis and discussion of the facts. I am even happy to “agree to disagree” if uncertainties persist in consideration of teh relevant issues.

You have demonstrated little ability to argue with the facts at hand and choose instead to act like an excitable adolescent (which you may well be?). I am glad you have fire in the belly, it compensates for an empty intellect.

Jason,
Cool it.  Readers of good will and sense will see ‘super arse’ and ‘the cricket’ for what (and who) they really are.

``We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.’‘
George Orwell

If any question why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.

— Rudyard Kipling

‘They’re trying to kill me,’ Yossarian told him calmly. - ‘No one’s trying to kill you.’ Clevinger cried. - ‘Then why are they shooting at me?’ Yossarian asked. ‘They’re shooting at everyone,’ Clevinger answered. ‘They’re trying to kill everyone.’ - ‘And what difference does that make?’
-Joseph Heller, in Catch-22, 1961

““Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” Mark Twain

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Tolstoy

Brenda, you say “When a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and it is not disproved we eventually develop some confidence in the reliability of the hypothesis.”  Indeed.  The current stage of your hypotheses is that they have had no tests whatsoever.  That manmade chemicals are the most likely cause is just more speculation - albeit speculation that you are not the first to advance.  There is indeed a huge body of evidence that mammals can be harmed by manmade chemicals.  There is also a huge body of evidence that mammals can be harmed otherwise.

Jonathan - spurious accusations of pedantry are just another lame way of forfeiting the debate.  If you think the difference between something being an unsubstantiated hypothesis and something being a strongly supported hypothesis is pedantic then you have no clue about the meaning of the word.

Having had the fun of demolishing the odd wildly inaccurate Jason Lovell spray in my direction over the years I don’t suggest anyone takes his righteousness about factual accuracy seriously, and I’m thoroughly confident he doesn’t.  Jason can be an amusing stirrer here from time to time but is often more concerned with bluster than his own consistency.

Dr Kevin: “Pot. This is Kettle. Over”

In response to your comment, Kevin, where you said:
“There is indeed a huge body of evidence that mammals can be harmed by manmade chemicals.  There is also a huge body of evidence that mammals can be harmed otherwise..”

Yes, that’s true.  It is equally true to say that our world cannot be measured in ‘linear’ terms.  It’s hard, if not impossible, to isolate one biological threat from another.

These days we are seeing the linking-up-of or merging of individual disasters that are likely to cascade into an eventual sudden and violent upheaval for all life on the planet - not just the Tasmanian devil.

Global warming, loss of water quality and quantity, incessant bushfires, change in weather patterns and increased ferocity of storms and hurricanes. Rising sea level, the increase in politically despotic and corrupt states, forced migration, economic failures, atmospheric pollution, soil erosion, corporate irresponsibility, nuclear accidents, war, famine, disease epidemics of all varieties.

It may not be that important to know what the specific trigger is for the devil disease?  What is far more important is that we are witnessing the loss of the infrastructure necessary for a decent world and society collapsing before us.

Getting rid of the unnecessary chemical threat to our wildlife and ouselves is just another one of many IMPERATIVES.  It needs to be acted upon quickly and decisively NOW.

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj

” . . . merging of individual disasters that are likely to cascade into an eventual sudden and violent upheaval for all life on the planet . . . “

” . . . we are witnessing the loss of the infrastructure necessary for a decent world and society collapsing before us . . . “

I think someone needs to breathe into a brown paper bag.

Brenda, you strike me as another of these rather obnoxious people who decide to move into long established farming district for the idyllic country lifestyle and then complain about farm and forest practices.

Why don’t you and your ilk ever sit down and have an open-minded chat to farmers and forest workers?

You might well discover why they use the chemicals they do, how they feel about using chemicals, and what they believe the alternatives to be, or why they consider that there currently aren’t any alternatives.

But, instead, you’d rather dismiss them all as a bunch of rednecks and search the web for dubious information that you can use to support your emotive arguments.

Fortunately, most in the community are able to see straight through this nonsense.

Bob
Do you really think that I would live next door to farmers without talking to them.  They think these poisons are bloody awful.  Bruce wouldn’t eat the potatoes he grew for ‘the market’ because of the nature of the chemical cocktail that big business insisted he had to apply to his crop before they would buy it.
Here’s a list of what Vic spud farmers use:
Ambush - (Permethrin) - insecticide
Amicide - (2,4-D) - herbicide
Amistar - (Azoxystrobin) - fungicide
Bladex - (Cyanazine) - herbicide
Bravo - (Chlorothalonil) - fungicide
Lexone - (Metribuzin) - herbicide
Lontrel - (Clopyralid) - herbicide
Maxim - (Fludioxinil) - herbicide
MCPA - herbicide
Nitofol - (Methamipophos) - insecticide
Pyrethroids - insecticides
Ridomil - (Metalaxyl) - fungicide
Rontril?
Roundup - (Glyphosate) - herbicide
Score - (Difenaconazole)
Select - (Clethodim) - herbicide
Sencor - (Metribuzin) - herbicide
Simcor ?
Slowgrow ?
Sprayseed - (Paraquat) (Diquat) - herbicides
Starane - (Floxypur) - herbicide
Stomper - ?
Thistle Killem - (MCPA as dimethylamine salt)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TasCleanWaterNetwork/message/1090

The forestry workers I have spoken to don’t like applying chemicals on plantations.  They say it makes them sick.  And they don’t like the way their overseers turn a blind eye to emptying chemical containers in water catchments and (often) the lack of provision of protective clothing.

The farmer next door would not consider - for even a moment - spraying the whole of his paddocks with poisons, like these new fan dangle ‘forest’ industrialists do.

It sounds like YOU’RE the one that hasn’t listened to the workers.

It’s not surprising that this dangerous industry is having trouble recruiting them.

Jonathan, a more concise version of the insult you have attempted in my direction is simply “PKB”.  But since you haven’t even tied it to any point I have made the reader is just left to wonder what the hell you are talking about. I’m sure it is nonsense as your level of comprehension of the debate is not up to making a credible claim of inconsistency. Don’t let the door hit you more than twice on the way out.

Brenda, while it is also possible for phenomena to have multiple causes (in the devil’s case a combination of natural and artificial causes perhaps) speculating that this is the case for the devil again does not prove it.  Most of the issue you refer to are totally irrelevant to devil disease.

You seem to have a rather depressed little view of the world in which every nasty phenomenom seems to be increasing out of hand and anything that is going the other way can be simply ignored.  Consider all the environmentally damaging practices of the past that have been wound back or abandoned altogether.  Several of the nasties on your list are actually in decline compared to 50, 100, 150 years ago.  I’m not going to give any examples because you have made no attempt to prove all these things are actually on the increase.

What has been wound back in relation to dangerous pesticide practices, Kevin?

Currently there are no mandatory limits on aerial spraying of toxic pesticides in relation to:
1.  windspeed and wind direction;
2.  temperature, humidity, inverstion conditions;
3.  spray release height;
4.  number of times pesticides can be applied in the same location or region;
5.  speed of aircraft;
6.  field source width.

No examples are available for the public to peruse how a ‘no spray’ zone is determined. The industry and Government won’t provide any documentation when requested.

There is no legal definition of unnacceptable risk.

The only model of spray drift available is for aerial application at 3 metres.  Yet forestry sprays at 15 metre heights and above.

Just how bad can it get?  Surely it can’t be much worse than it is at present?

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj