Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for August 2, 2006

What Do You Think About Treated Sewage Effluent in Water Supplies?

By

At the weekend 62 percent of Toowoomba residents voted against drinking treated sewage effluent. Just yesterday the Local Government Association of Queensland put out a press release suggesting Toowoomba is not typical of the rest of Queensland – or at least not typical of South East Queensland.

The association sponsored a survey which including 700 South East Queensland residents and 60 percent of them said they supported the use of treated sewage effluent to supplement the town water supply.

Across Queensland they found 57 percent of people in support of the concept with support strongest in males and lowest amongst those over 65 years.

These results correspond somewhat with a survey done by Graham Young and John Black last year as part of their regular gig on local ABC radio called ‘What the People Want’.

Nearly 500 people were survey for the ABC radio program.

Graham Young and John Black begin their report with comment that: “If there is one thing that Premier Peter Beattie could do that is less popular than making Brisbanites drink recycled sewage, it is to force them to add fluoride to their water”.

How about that! And I was given fluoride tablets as a child.

Anyway, Graham Young and John Black found that pretty much everyone agrees (96 percent) with recycling water for garden and industrial use, but only 48 percent agree when the recycling is for drinking water. 35 percent disapproved of recycling sewage as drinking water with a percent undecided or without an opinion or not wishing to answer.

The full report with lots and lots of table can be read by clicking here.

A few days ago they put up a new poll and emailed me. They are keen to know how you feel about this issue.

If you go to their questionnaire by clicking here or copying and pasting http://whatthepeoplewant.net/questionnaire-021-water-recycling.asp into your browser address bar, you can tell them.

ABC Should Apologize For Misleading Viewers on Forestry: Cinders

By

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) breached the ABC’s own Code of Practice 2002 by failing to make every reasonable effort to ensure that a Four Corners program about the forestry industry in Tasmania was impartial. ACMA also found the ABC failed to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the factual content of the program was accurate.

Following is some comment from Cinders, a reader of this blog and member of Timber Communities Australia:

“The ABC broadcast a summary of the finding at the conclusion of Monday’s Four Corners program but failed to apologise for the inaccurate and biased program of February 2004.

No apology was forthcoming when the ABC’s own Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) found the same program inaccurate, misleading and seriously lacking in balance and fairness.

Whilst the forest industry feels vindicated by the ACMA findings, when will the ABC actually publish facts about Tasmanian forestry such as 45% of its native forest being reserved and managed for conservation, that it has a million hectares of old growth locked up as well as 97% of its high quality wilderness? That its native forest harvesting has been assessed as ecologically sustainable and complies with all Australian and State laws and is internationally accredited.

E-journal Crikey has raised another dilemma for the ABC: What to do with its Eureka award for outstanding journalism that it received for three environmental programs including ‘Lords of the Forests’?

Can the ABC continue to advertise Four Corners and its journalist as Eureka award winners in the light of this damming report?

The ACMA also needs to review its procedures. This finding comes two years and five months after the program was first shown.

Despite having extensive powers to investigate and hold hearings under Section 168 of the Broadcasting Service Act, it chose to only assess the written submissions of the ABC and the complainants. In fact it provided only the ABC with a copy of its preliminary findings, denying the complainants of opportunity to dispute findings.

Four Corners claims to be Australia’s premier television current affairs program. It has been part of the national story since August 1961, with consistently high standards of journalism and film-making earning international recognition and an array of Walkleys, Logies and other national awards. The program claims that its current team of reporters maintains a proud tradition of investigative journalism and rigorous analysis.

Can these claims and its place in TV journalism be maintained if it fails to apologise and issue a retraction over this discredited program?

Hopefully the ABC will return the Eureka Award to the Australian Museum and the $10,000 to the Australian taxpayers who sponsored the award.

Cinders.”

——————-
Christian Kerr from Crikey summarized the case against the ABC in a piece published by the IPA titled ‘ABC’s Paralysis on Bias’ in March 2005.

Climate Skeptics on Trial in California: Steven Milloy

By

“The State of California has filed a request in federal court to force auto makers[General Motors, DaimlerChrysler Corp., and the Association of Automobile Manufacturers] to disclose all documents and communications between the companies and the so-called “climate skeptics”. California accuses the climate skeptics of playing a “major role in spreading disinformation about global warming.”

California has been joined in the lawsuit by environmental activist groups including, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense.“

… according to Steven Milloy at www.JunkScience.com .