Something's in the water at the ABC

A failure to acknowledge the small extent of plantation in the George River catchment: “Something in the Water” was predicated on the basis of there being a substantial concentration of plantations in the George River catchment. At one point in the program, Dr Scammell referred to St Helens as being “surrounded by plantation timbers - the Eucalyptus nitens …” In fact, plantations occupy only about 4 to 5 per cent of the George River catchment and are mostly located in the upper catchment at least 25km from St Helens.

A failure to acknowledge the potential impact of non-forestry threats in the George River catchment: “Something in the Water” failed to mention that a significantly greater area of the George River catchment is being used for agriculture and so is subject to far greater disturbance and more frequent pesticide use than the small portion under plantation.

The North Eastern Rivers Environmental Review by L. Koehnken (2001) identified potential water quality issues in the George River catchment as including uncontrolled stock access, dairy effluent, septic tank leakage, and past tin mining activities. “Something in the Water” provided no evidence that the prospect of water contamination from these non-forestry threats has ever been seriously considered.

Misrepresentation of the state of public health in St Helens and surrounding areas: “Something in the Water” was largely built around the view of local GP, Dr Bleaney, that incidences of human cancer and other serious illnesses were increasing in and around St Helens. However, there is no hard evidence to support this. In fact, in 2005, the Tasmanian Director of Public Health invited Dr Bleaney to nominate an independent reviewer of her patient files in a bid to establish if there was any obvious commonality or cluster effect. None could be found by the reviewer, Associate Professor, Dr Malcolm Sim, of Monash University but this was not acknowledged in the program.

“Something in the Water” also ignored the latest annual report published by the Tasmanian Cancer Registry which shows no statistically significant differences in the incidence rates of common cancers for persons living in the Break O’Day municipality within which St Helens is located, compared to Tasmania as a whole.

Misrepresentation of the Tasmanian Government as being indifferent to Dr Bleaney’s concerns: When the 2004 Bleaney and Scammell report was released, the relevant government authorities responded by immediately testing St Helens water supply. The Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) also investigated the oyster deaths in Georges Bay and responded to Bleaney and Scammell’s report. Natural Heritage Trust funding was used to conduct an independent scientific assessment of the health of Georges Bay which was completed in 2005.

The DPIW also conducted their own testing of the river system in February 2005. “Something in the Water” acknowledged this government testing of samples taken from the same sites and collected in the same manner as Drs Bleaney and Scammell. However, it did not explain that the government’s finding that toxicity was due to natural organic compounds was based on comparing samples taken downstream of the plantations with a sample taken from a natural bush catchment upstream of the plantations. Conversely, Dr Scammell’s more damning finding appears to have been based only on samples taken downstream of the plantations because his upstream sample had a chain of custody documentation issue and could not be used.

The government’s report of its finding remains freely available on the Tasmanian Environment Protection Agency’s website.

In addition, a Community Consultative Committee on Water Quality was established and funded as part of the 2005 Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. Both Dr Bleaney and Dr Scammell were appointed as members but this was not mentioned in “Something in the Water”.

River health is routinely monitored in Tasmania and recorded in annual reporting of water quality and quarterly reporting of pesticide contamination. After five years of published results pesticides have only ever been detected at trace levels, with nothing exceeding the levels required for healthy drinking water. Again, this was not mentioned in the program.

Despite all these efforts, a central theme of “Something in the Water” was that Drs Bleaney and Scammell were ignored and have had to battle on against government indifference to their concerns.

Implying that genetic improvement of Eucalyptus nitens plantation trees was responsible for increasing their toxicity: Although “Something in the Water” used the term “genetically improved” in relation to plantation trees, many viewers appear to have interpreted this as being akin to “genetically modified”. Tasmania’s plantation trees have been genetically improved over several generations by selective tree breeding for desirable traits by using seed from individuals which possess these traits. This is vastly different from genetic modification (or GM) in which genetic profiles are altered by grafting in genes from other organisms.