Bethells Beach Wetland Willow Spray Program
Often it is what is not said that proves more enlightening than what is said.
At the meeting of the Waitakere City Council a gentleman speaker representing Biosecurity ARC, (Jack Craw) stated that they had tested the water before, during and after the test spraying, he said nothing about what the tests were actually testing for, it is most likely the tests would be merely for the presence of glyphosate and not the surfactant, also not as involved as testing for biological damage such as deaths of marine organisms or tests on their body tissues for the presence of either.
When the young lady from the Bethells group mentioned photos of the brown slime on Bethells beach he said they did not test there and that it was a pity she did not, do what should rightfully have been their job, take samples the entire length of the waterway to the ocean.
Since the wetlands are a moving body of water would it not be logical to expect a thorough and legitimate scientific study to test downstream?
There was no mention of the effects of a surfactant on water, the major damaging effect is; where there is a collection of surfactant in a body of water, oxygen levels in the water decrease providing ideal conditions for toxic algae to flourish, The effects of toxic algae on marine life are commonly acknowledged to be detrimental to both the marine life and anyone who may consume edible marine organisms from the area where toxic algae occurs.
There is no question scientifically that surfactants are a pollutant, even the manufacturers state that they are. Just where that pollutant ends up is the relevant factor that needs to be considered, contrary to Jack's belief that it is less toxic than table salt, unbelievable a so called expert can make these comparisons, this stuff is a poison I doubt he would be game to eat or drink it even if it were a millionth part to one. If you spray salt on the willow it will not die proving that it is not a poison like glyphosate. Salt is also good for fresh water fish as it can kill fungus, viruses and bacteria that attack their fins and scales but leaves the fish perfectly healthy.
The second thing I note that Jack mentioned was the necessity to kill the willow because it would block the waterway and cause flooding.
In naturally occurring circumstances a blocked waterway will flood for a period until the water carves it's own path to flow to the sea, the willow then plays little or no part in the flow thus making willow management no longer an issue of any great emergency. It is not beyond the abilities of council engineering to create artificial waterways in locations where housing or economically important land may be threatened.
Biological and botanical life forms simply shift their location, the ecosystem reliant on that water relocates itself naturally without pollution.
Also contrary to Jack's belief that willow degrades the water it does the exact opposite and helps to purify it.
In the order of nature, man will always eventually make way for nature, man's efforts to change nature most often result in the loss of some aspect in the natural order of organisms connected with an ecosystem, once organisms are lost from an ecosystem, an ever increasing effect today, many do not return thus decreasing the diversity and health of said ecosystem.
Even the humble earthworm, which is so important to the health of soils, suffers from these poisons (FYI 1080 - 100% kill rate on earthworms that come in contact with 1080 - http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/dsis143.pdf ). I am unable to find an equally in depth study on either glyphosate or Pulse, which is much the same as "what is not said is the more enlightening factor" which equates to - because a study has not been done does not mean there is no risk.
50 years ago, as a seven year old child I could survive with ease on raw food I found whilst exploring our New Zealand coastlines. Today I believe that is no longer possible, not because the Asians or the Islanders strip the sea life but because pollutants and agricultural poisons have killed off the marine life that is necessary to support a healthy abundant coastline.
Note three is Jack's statement that the willow they want to target is inaccessible by normal methods, I find that extremely hard to believe in light of knowledge that there are extremely few places on this planet that have not been and cannot be explored by mankind, I would like to know what makes this location inaccessible, is it merely the fact that they are on private property that this is used as a seemingly plausible reason to spray?
Note four, aerial spraying cannot be accurate even if it only involves wind drift caused by the aircraft rotors. Jack acknowledged that some non target species were effected but tried to minimize the fact that aerial spraying is all encompassing and not accurate by saying that some cabbage trees and another species were burnt but recovered. This also confirms the fact that the poison itself and the method is not selective and will damage other flora and fauna there are no guarantees on the day that damage will be minimal and certainly no way of reversing it should it prove that aerial spraying goes beyond the intended coverage area as was the case when foray 48b was dumped on us when the painted apple moth became an issue.
A moth that prefers black wattle, and the female of the species does not fly which pretty much confines their breeding grounds to small areas of trees with no commercial value. this program saw hundreds of people affected with numerous "non specific cause" health concerns and even death, due to the fact that the BTk used was not natural, it is unknown even which batch or batches New Zealand received they would have had the gene sequences from staph aureus, anthrax, e-coli, hepatitis, meningitis to name a few, these sequences added to the DNA of BTk to increase the toxic protein production and increase the antibiotic resistance. Then there was the devastation to animals and birdlife, the likes of hedgehogs and most birds not returning for around 8 years, adult ducks developing a limp and duckling that developed the limp dead the next day.
During the "accurate GPS" BTk spray program the gulf also experienced large toxic algae blooms all the way up to Warkworth affecting mussel farms some of you may recall, the media was careful not to suggest a connection with the spray program (social favours).
New Zealand is no longer a healthy place to live because of people whose focus is personal gain, power and status. These people manipulate scientific information in order to fabricate beliefs that suit their own purposes, a sociopathic approach, if they truly cared about the health of others they would logically choose not to use poisons or surfactants or any chemicals around the places we live.
Kubi Witten tells us he fought to make waitakere 1080 free, I was told by one of their contractors recently that they had laid 1080 in the waikumete cemetery, if I find any I will bring it to you personally Kubi and get your explanation.
Jack Craw, if there is money involved then it is a factor, if it is less about money it is then more about social favours for personal gain! certainly not primarily about public health or benefit to the ecosystem.
At the meeting of the Waitakere City Council a gentleman speaker representing Biosecurity ARC, (Jack Craw) stated that they had tested the water before, during and after the test spraying, he said nothing about what the tests were actually testing for, it is most likely the tests would be merely for the presence of glyphosate and not the surfactant, also not as involved as testing for biological damage such as deaths of marine organisms or tests on their body tissues for the presence of either.
When the young lady from the Bethells group mentioned photos of the brown slime on Bethells beach he said they did not test there and that it was a pity she did not, do what should rightfully have been their job, take samples the entire length of the waterway to the ocean.
Since the wetlands are a moving body of water would it not be logical to expect a thorough and legitimate scientific study to test downstream?
There was no mention of the effects of a surfactant on water, the major damaging effect is; where there is a collection of surfactant in a body of water, oxygen levels in the water decrease providing ideal conditions for toxic algae to flourish, The effects of toxic algae on marine life are commonly acknowledged to be detrimental to both the marine life and anyone who may consume edible marine organisms from the area where toxic algae occurs.
There is no question scientifically that surfactants are a pollutant, even the manufacturers state that they are. Just where that pollutant ends up is the relevant factor that needs to be considered, contrary to Jack's belief that it is less toxic than table salt, unbelievable a so called expert can make these comparisons, this stuff is a poison I doubt he would be game to eat or drink it even if it were a millionth part to one. If you spray salt on the willow it will not die proving that it is not a poison like glyphosate. Salt is also good for fresh water fish as it can kill fungus, viruses and bacteria that attack their fins and scales but leaves the fish perfectly healthy.
The second thing I note that Jack mentioned was the necessity to kill the willow because it would block the waterway and cause flooding.
In naturally occurring circumstances a blocked waterway will flood for a period until the water carves it's own path to flow to the sea, the willow then plays little or no part in the flow thus making willow management no longer an issue of any great emergency. It is not beyond the abilities of council engineering to create artificial waterways in locations where housing or economically important land may be threatened.
Biological and botanical life forms simply shift their location, the ecosystem reliant on that water relocates itself naturally without pollution.
Also contrary to Jack's belief that willow degrades the water it does the exact opposite and helps to purify it.
In the order of nature, man will always eventually make way for nature, man's efforts to change nature most often result in the loss of some aspect in the natural order of organisms connected with an ecosystem, once organisms are lost from an ecosystem, an ever increasing effect today, many do not return thus decreasing the diversity and health of said ecosystem.
Even the humble earthworm, which is so important to the health of soils, suffers from these poisons (FYI 1080 - 100% kill rate on earthworms that come in contact with 1080 - http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/dsis143.pdf ). I am unable to find an equally in depth study on either glyphosate or Pulse, which is much the same as "what is not said is the more enlightening factor" which equates to - because a study has not been done does not mean there is no risk.
50 years ago, as a seven year old child I could survive with ease on raw food I found whilst exploring our New Zealand coastlines. Today I believe that is no longer possible, not because the Asians or the Islanders strip the sea life but because pollutants and agricultural poisons have killed off the marine life that is necessary to support a healthy abundant coastline.
Note three is Jack's statement that the willow they want to target is inaccessible by normal methods, I find that extremely hard to believe in light of knowledge that there are extremely few places on this planet that have not been and cannot be explored by mankind, I would like to know what makes this location inaccessible, is it merely the fact that they are on private property that this is used as a seemingly plausible reason to spray?
Note four, aerial spraying cannot be accurate even if it only involves wind drift caused by the aircraft rotors. Jack acknowledged that some non target species were effected but tried to minimize the fact that aerial spraying is all encompassing and not accurate by saying that some cabbage trees and another species were burnt but recovered. This also confirms the fact that the poison itself and the method is not selective and will damage other flora and fauna there are no guarantees on the day that damage will be minimal and certainly no way of reversing it should it prove that aerial spraying goes beyond the intended coverage area as was the case when foray 48b was dumped on us when the painted apple moth became an issue.
A moth that prefers black wattle, and the female of the species does not fly which pretty much confines their breeding grounds to small areas of trees with no commercial value. this program saw hundreds of people affected with numerous "non specific cause" health concerns and even death, due to the fact that the BTk used was not natural, it is unknown even which batch or batches New Zealand received they would have had the gene sequences from staph aureus, anthrax, e-coli, hepatitis, meningitis to name a few, these sequences added to the DNA of BTk to increase the toxic protein production and increase the antibiotic resistance. Then there was the devastation to animals and birdlife, the likes of hedgehogs and most birds not returning for around 8 years, adult ducks developing a limp and duckling that developed the limp dead the next day.
During the "accurate GPS" BTk spray program the gulf also experienced large toxic algae blooms all the way up to Warkworth affecting mussel farms some of you may recall, the media was careful not to suggest a connection with the spray program (social favours).
New Zealand is no longer a healthy place to live because of people whose focus is personal gain, power and status. These people manipulate scientific information in order to fabricate beliefs that suit their own purposes, a sociopathic approach, if they truly cared about the health of others they would logically choose not to use poisons or surfactants or any chemicals around the places we live.
Kubi Witten tells us he fought to make waitakere 1080 free, I was told by one of their contractors recently that they had laid 1080 in the waikumete cemetery, if I find any I will bring it to you personally Kubi and get your explanation.
Jack Craw, if there is money involved then it is a factor, if it is less about money it is then more about social favours for personal gain! certainly not primarily about public health or benefit to the ecosystem.