Dear all,
Please find an update by the leading independant veterinarian about the on-going saga of whether agrichemicals are causing harm to the environment, showing its effects first, in aquatic organisms.
Richmond.
ACTIVIST GREENS CRYING WOLF ON FISH DEFORMITIES – 160609.pdf
RoundupandBirthDefects.pdf
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Matt Landos
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Subject: independent science vs industry funded science- Gladstone- time to speak up
Hi All,
My full report for the public interest on Gladstone Harbour dredging and sick aquatic life will be released v soon. I hope the media inform the public who may then rightly demand adequate management of coastal development to protect the inshore aquatic ecosystems and the GBR. What is taking place in Gladstone Harbour is a national disgrace- the evidence-based findings of my study do not agree with the view of Qld DEHP, or the opinions expressed from Tony Burke’s office, that Australia’s largest ever harbour dredging project (within a World Heritage Area) is being managed well.
I expect that some in Govt. and elsewhere will attempt to discredit the report, and will be unsurprised if the attacks become personal. I’ve already experienced these tactics on the Noosa two-headed bass pesticide case, when the lobby group for agrichemicals, Croplife Australia, released the attached press release on me. Notably they avoided the science, preferring to sell doubt, rather than evidence-based science. In that case I requested on ten’s of occasions to seek a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture Joe Ludwig, to explain the ecosystem and human health problems associated with unsafe agrichemical use in Australia. On all occasions I was refused- all polite letters sent (about 100 over 3 years) were rebutted, with rhetoric, failing to address the peer reviewed science I presented. Alas Croplife, accesses the Minister routinely- weekly an APVMA staff member told me.
Science has never been less valuable to society than it has become right now.
The resistance of Govt and big business to the release of uncomfortable science, which runs contrary to their public statements, or their balance sheets has become the norm. But still economic development at any cost is an irrational approach to management of the planet and long-term business in my view.
One question is, what will the response of the rest of the scientific community be?
CSIRO are already on the record suggesting all is well in their dubiously timed water quality report on the smallest tides of the year from Dec 2011, http://www.csiro.au/Port-Curtis-survey-2011. Alas they never looked at any of the animals, yet declared the area healthy- a great result for Gladstone- seriously- What the? When asked by media if they had read my preliminary reports (free online)- they replied “no”.
But, more recently they were more circumspect on ABC Catalyst. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3593812.htm now suggesting we should look at the animals affected.
Will other voices be heard?
I hope so. Looking outside Australia for a moment at what is taking place to another independent scientist, trying to flag serious risks (links below) and attached report,… it can get mighty lonely as an independent scientist. Like Seralini, Tyrone Hayes, or Rachel Carson, I expect that there are imperfections in my report, or investigations methodology, but there is also a lot of credible evidence and analysis that should not be swept under the “mining at any cost for economic development” carpet.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/of-course-monsanto-says-its-safe/
Stay tuned-Gladstone report release should be lodged online for free download at : www.gladstonefishingresearchfund.org.au
Let’s hope the less common knowledge gets heard and we have honest, rational and scientific discourse on this critical issue.
http://independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup/
“When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk. Safety testing, science-based regulation, and the scientific process itself, depend crucially on widespread trust in a body of scientists devoted to the public interest and professional integrity. If instead, the starting point of a scientific product assessment is an approval process rigged in favour of the applicant, backed up by systematic suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest, then there can never be an honest, rational or scientific debate.”
best wishes
Matt
Dr Matt Landos BVSc(HonsI)MACVS
Director, Future Fisheries Veterinary Service Pty Ltd
Honorary lecturer, associate researcher, University of Sydney
PO Box 7142, East Ballina NSW 2478
Skype: matt.landos
