contaminated sediment from dredging the bay

[therapy]

Thought this might be of interest....http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/c...46-952,00.html
Cheers....Terry....

[Chris Ryan]

My comments to the courier mail below.

Well what an enlightening story.

We recreational fisherman have been telling the Governments that it is pollution which provides the most toxic of cocktails killing off marine environments. However our points are squashed with the "but we spend $20m on the health waterways scheme". Well that isn't obviously working and the EPA should be made accountable for their lapse.

We also heard nothing from the Qld Conservation Council nor the AMCS about the dedging happening in the bay, both of which Mr Bailtis is spokesperson, we just heard the bleating of "no fishing, close more down". Yet now they are concerned?

Well with millions of cubic metres being taken from not only the Port but also for the Airport to fill in creeks and mangrove forests (enough to string dump trucks together from Brisbane to London) it is found not to be safe for humans or marine creatures. Maybe they will now see that Recreational Fisherman are part of the solution, not the root cause of the problem and listen to what we say.

Well we warned them ages ago.....

Regards,
Chris Ryan
President
www.saveourbay.org.au

[TimiBoy]

Nice to see it's made the Press.

Disappointing to see that Simon Bolt Arse is the one they asked for comment.

SOBA will soon be on the "Ask for comment" list, too I hope!

Cheers,

Tim

[TimiBoy]

My comment as published on the Courier Mail website

Recreational Anglers are part of the solution to Moreton Bay's problems. We are being locked out of large areas of the Bay under the spurious argument that we damage the ecology, but the EPA approves dredging up of toxic waste at an alarming rate. Siltation and toxicity are demolishing coral and sea grass, not Rec Fishos. We know more about the area, and care deeply for it. Pollution is the problem, but it's too expensive to deal with it, so Anna pushes it under the carpet.


Cheers,


Tim

[CreelReaper]

The worst part of this type of editorial and the following comments is that they are so few and far between. Some of the comments made by joe public seem to have a 'surprised' anticipation to them.
It will be interesting to see what or how Anna and the green front do or say to get out of this predicament......or whether they will even bother.
And yes it also amazes me how Bailtis always seems to be the the one asked to share his expert opinion on these things.
This is another reason why SOBA is so important......get the messages out there LOUD and CLEAR so everybody can hear it from afar!!!!! Maybe a 'shame' file wouldn't go astray.....

Shane

[Chris Ryan]

For SOBA members Shane, there is a Dirty Pictures section aimed at showing & shaming those for pollution. For the members out there that don't have a pic then just post up your words and put the location your were in and the time so we can refer back to it as the needs arise.

I started it with the continued dump that is the Pinkenba boat ramp. fair dinkum there is less rubbish at the tip!

[harry_h01]

It is also interesting to note that whilst they are looking for a place to dump the contaminated waste, they are stiull digging it up and exposing more contaminants.

This expose opens itself to run off with the rain, and also being blown around when it dries out, as the waste is not covered.

My two bobs.

Harry

[tunaticer]

Lets put forward a location for this toxic waste to go to......

Seems to be harder and harder to find a location that will accomodate the large amounts that must be removed every year to keep the ports deep enough to handle the shipping. Or do we relocate the shipping to somewhere else?? I suppose that the govt could build deepwater wharves and rail lines out over the south passage bar to offshore wharves........ well the way I see it, it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't affair.

As far as creating a huge stink about the rights and wrongs of anything we should be trying to solve a problem that services the industries involved all around. Catering for one and ignoring the other just leads to less productivity.

I suppose that with all the millions of cubic metres of coal being removed from Qld mines there could be an avenue of railing up to there a substantial amount of this toxic waste and burying it under the regeneration programs all mines must adhere to. The mines themselves are toxic areas anyways and need substantial amounts of rejuvenation programs to bring them to being pastures at best.

Our environment is constantly changing naturally sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse, nature itself does not really care if it is better or not it just does it naturally. It is our perceptions of possible benefits to us that defines the better or worse status. That can be very biased when opposed to nature. For example if a huge mountainside gives way and falls accross a major river it will be classed as a tragedy by the people yet nature will deal with this new environment and create something of it, we could try digging it out for our own benefit but that would be interfering with nature would it not?

There are many environments we take for granted as being lovely and enjoyable that can naturally be destroyed through no human interference at all. The Great Barrier Reef sits atop a massive oil and gas deposit that hopefully someday will not start leaking upwards to endanger the reef, yet this is a distinct possibility.

We need the river and its approaches dredged regularly to maintain our access for our trade, that part is basically not negotiable. Come up with some ideas on handling what we are currently having to deal with and this will be solved. Ideas is what is needed not whinging or cursing or grandstanding will ever achieve a result, that is also known as the academic solution, not worth as much as a piss into a fan.

[therapy]

That's a very balanced and sensible response TT. Thanks for putting in the time and thought in relation to a solution. It is obviously something that has been accumulating for a long time and the current government has inherited the problem. The worth of the ruling party will be in their response and actions.
As much as the dredging is disturbing the toxic sediment, it is also reducing it at the same time so perhaps not the worst thing that can happen. It is definitely better off out of the bay than in it.
Something that concerns me though is the sediment that is not in the channels and therefore not being removed.It must be there as well. I imagine everyone who has been out on the bay when trawlers are working (not a shot at trawlers) or when large container ships are moving about has seen the long lines of disturbed sand in their wake. This must contain some toxins, potentially buried before but then released when disturbed to join all the naturally occurring suspended particles in the water to be ingested by filter feeders and then onwards and upwards through the food chain. Not all of it can settle again surely. Definitely a cause for concern.....
Cheers.......Terry............

[tunaticer]

Terry, I think for the most part the DDT part of the toxins will be fairly well buried outside of the main channels as the siltation has stepped up dramatically oer lots of the bay. Being 30 yrs since its banning it has seen several floods deposit large amounts of sediment over the non channel areas. As for the more recent toxins they wll be everywhere regardless of what you will be stirring up.

[oldboot]

DDT and orgaophospate pesticades are incredibly persistent in the enviroment....there is almost nowhere on earth that they can not be measuerd in the soil and water. and they accumulate high in the food chain.
Another good reason not to eat large fish.

these chemicals will continue to be washed into the ocean till the end of time...it will be a continuing problem that requiers a continuing solution.

heavy metals are a problem also but nothing like the above.

we can happliy injest mercury in small but significant ammounts with little or no harm or residual in tissues......there are some stomach ailments that respond to small doses of mercury.
breathing mercury vapour or particles is another thing all together.

lead does accumulate in the body if repeatedly exposed to high levels... but the body is capable of disipating and discharging lead from the body in small quantities... eating eggs and omega3 oils helps.....

We do not to my knoweledge redily metabolise or discharge the uggly pesticides.

Better out than in....use it for reclamation or land fill for mines.....we have dug plenty of holes and sold what we dug up.. lets fill em in.........we could start with Collingwood park.

cheers

[therapy]

Oldboot, fortunately (or not) I haven't had to worry about eating a large fish for quite a while as the pre-requisite to the consumption of a large fish is actually catching one!!!(not for lack of trying..lol...)
I wonder where is the voice of the lone greens MP, (elected as a Labor candidate), Ronan Lee, in relation to this?? You would think these self appointed guardians of the planet would be up for some sort of comment or be demanding a comprehensive evaluation of the bay and it's contents??But that might show that the influence of rec fishers in comparison to all of the other factors affecting the bay is minimal to neglible at worst. They are probably too busy scurrying around from Labor to the LNP trying to shore up there insidious influence on our daily lives...
Cheers.....Terry....



Cheers....Terry..........