Comments on: Noosa fish deformities continue to raise questions

By: Gwen Gilson

Gwen Gilson — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:40:08 +0000

In February 2010 the APVMA released a press release, stating they have now banned the use on Carbendazim on many food items including Turf. However they still consider it is still safe to spray Carbendazim on Macadamia nuts. When one does not normally eat Turf, it defies common sense that it is safe to eat Carbendazim sprayed Macadamia Nuts.
Carbendazim has deformed human babies overseas, and I suspect many other countries banned it's use because they feel the risk is not acceptable. Surely Australian people and animals are very similar to overseas people and animals and could be similarly adversely affected by Carbendazim?

Remember the deformed 2 headed Noosa River Austalian Bass followed by the Noosa River Sea Mullet with 2 and 3 tails and Carbendazim and Endosulfan Sulphate are testing positive in the Noosa River System.

By: Gwen Gilson

Gwen Gilson — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:29:31 +0000

In July /August 2009 the EPA did water tests on the Noosa River System and found widespread chemical contamination. There were 9 passive samplers put in this river system. 7 out of the 9 registered Carbendazim an 1 sample in the middle of Lake Cootharaba registered Endosulfan Sulphate.
Further testing was done in December 09 but that is being kept secret, and I hear more testing has been ordered.
Add the 2 and 3 tailed Noosa Sea Mullet embryos discovered July 09 to the 2 headed Noosa Australian Bass in August 08 and one does not have to be a rocket scientist to know what caused these severe mutations.
For the last 3 consective sprayings on the macadamia farm in 2009 around my hatchery, the residents along Gilson Rd had their water tanks tested and all tanks and 1 swimming pool registered positive to the chemicals the macadamia farm sprayed.

Crop Life Australia, you owe Dr Matt Landos an apology!

By: alison bleaney

alison bleaney — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:15:03 +0000

APVMA put this out as a ’Hot Topic’

“Further event at the Sunland Fish Hatchery near Noosa
10 July 2009
The APVMA has been advised of a further event at the Sunland Fish Hatchery near Noosa where wild fish caught from the Noosa River produced embryos showing abnormal cell division.
Spray drift of agricultural chemicals has been ruled out as a cause by Queensland authorities.
The issue is being investigated and will be considered by the Noosa Fish Health Investigation Taskforce.
The APVMA will continue to liaise with the Taskforce.
For further comment contact Dr Simon Cubit, Manager (Public Affairs), Ph 02 6210 4869
Media statement from the Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland - Taskforce to examine fresh case of Noosa fish abnormalities (external site).”

The Minister and DPI have released details of this recent ‘deformity event’ before there has been any investigation or verification by DPI. How can this be?
The APVMA has released a statement, again claiming no agvet chemicals involved and on the basis of no factual input. What on earth is our national regulator playing at? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
Increasingly the APVMA is sounding like a strident lobbyist for the chemical companies.
Water and food users beware!

By: alison bleaney

alison bleaney — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:09:40 +0000

Sure, I've read the article. And I also know that many things directly cause adverse effects but are difficult to prove by direct evidence; an example of this is smoking and lung cancer, or the pedestrian injured at the side of the road in a hit and run. But to get back to water catchments and pesticides, which by definition kill living cells. The pesticides used in the catchments and so far detailed are endocrine disruptors. These include atrazine and other triazines, endosulfan, carbendazim, synthetic pyrethroids, nonyl-phenols; the list goes on. These pesticides are often detected only in small quantities if the water samples are taken after spraying and are taken in association with spraying.But the Endocrine Society, a highly respected international medical society of over 14,000 members in 100 countries, issued a seminal new report stating that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals are a growing threat to human health and well-being. This also extends to all animals similarly exposed in the ecosystem. The report explicitly states that “the precautionary principle is critical to enhancing health.” It also states “...infinitesimally low levels of exposure – indeed, any level of exposure at all – may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, particularly if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window. Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects than higher doses.” Effects may also be transgenerational, transmitted through changes in gene function. The problem is that detection levels are above 'infinitesimally low levels of exposure '. There are pesticides in the catchment; that is beyond doubt and there have been adverse impacts..So lets see all of the evidence, including the observational and circumstantial, all of the spray plans used for all pesticides and wetting agents from that entire area. Circummstantial evidence and indirect evidence may have to be used.That's how a major crime investigation operates, isn't it? Police forensics use as much science as possible over as wide an area as they can!

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:38:28 +0000

Alison Bleaney, have you actually read the report? From page 2: "To-date no definitive diagnosis has been found for any of the six identified syndromes despite a comprehensive investigation. Only two of the samples taken have tested positive for any chemical contaminants (one fish feed sample from the Hatchery (tested in December 2008) and one environmental sample from Cooloothin Creek (tested in May 2009)). Neither of these can readily be linked as cause/effect to the syndromes listed at this stage." So while the report says that its possibly caused by chemical use, there is no evidence to suggest that this is what occurred. As stated in the article "if" one part is impacted by chemicals, the whole system is degraded. Lets wait and see if there's ANY evidence of that before pointing fingers.

By: Alison Bleaney

Alison Bleaney — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:55:50 +0000

'One thing is certain, a river catchment, is the sum of its parts. If one part is impacted by chemicals, then the entire system is degraded. And it's not only the local environment that suffers'.
This is the crux of the problem.
An increasing number of catchments- and drinking water catchments- are now demonstrably polluted by pesticides and adverse impacts, especially from endocrine disrupting chemicals (endosulfan, carbendazim, pyrethroids, atrazine, simazine, organophosphates, some wetting agents - the list goes on and on) are occurring at below detectable pesticide levels.
Mixture effects are not taken into account. Native wildlife sensitivities are not known. Endocrine disrupting and epigenetic effects are not taken into account with regard to toxicity to the foetus/ larval forms - that includes adverse effects on humans.
Action needs to be taken now by all levels of Government to stop further pollution and poisoning of lifesystems.