This research paper was conducted after an aerial poison operation in the Blue Mountains, in Otago, 2001.
What's interesting is the number of deer that were killed. For those that suggest "deer aren't killed in 1080 drops!", this research was conducted by Landcare Research.
20 birds were also found.
However, birds are allot harder to find dead, than deer. In one study it stated.."The mortalities of non-target birds from 1080 poisonings may be underreported because many die in their nests or roosts and are never found (Koenig and Reynolds 1987)."
It is illegal to kill deer with 1080, they are a non-target species.
As can be seen in this paper, and as is consistent with drop zones we have investigated, the non-target kill rates are higher than the target - as would be expected with a practice of dropping poison laced food from helicopters...
G. NUGENT
I. YOCKNEY
Landcare Research
P.O. Box 69
Lincoln 8152, New Zealand
Abstract Incidental kills of deer during aerial -1080 poisoning of brushtail possums (Trichosurus
vulpecula) using baits containing sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) causes widespread hunter
opposition to this control method. We document the deaths of a large number of fallow deer (Dama
dama) after aerial-1080 poisoning in the Blue Mountains, Otago. Three deer fitted with radio collars all
died during the poisoning. Eight randomly located "search cells" (25-57 ha) were each searched twice.
One pig (Sus scrofa), 53 deer, 58 possum, and 20 bird (three native) carcasses were found. Deercarcass
density varied widely between cells (2.2-38.6/km2), reflecting differences in deer density but
apparently also the amount of ground cover. The total number of deer killed was estimated using
Lincoln indices. More fawns were killed than larger adult deer. Comparison with historical harvest data
suggested that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the deer present had been killed. This unintended
by-kill will have reduced deer impacts on native plants and the risk of Tb spread or persistence in
deer. However, such incidental benefits may not offset the increased indirect "social" costs likely to
arise from increased hunter opposition to use of aerial-1080 poisoning....
For the full story, click here
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Macquarie Island Poison Drop Kills More Than Expected
Macquarie Island, situated between Tasmania and Antarctica, has recently been subjected to an aerial poison drop.
Click here top see the ABC story
The drop is similar to the one conducted on Rangitoto and Motutapu Islands, off Auckland last year that is believed to have killed over 7 dolphins, large numbers of penguins and fish, and hundreds of native birds...and some suspect, the mysterious dog deaths that were attributed to poisonous sea slugs.
The 24 million dollar project has reportedly been halted - after it was found to have killed 431 native birds, from 6 species - until a review has been completed. Click here to see story
The 300 tonnes of Brodifacoum bait designated for the Macquarie Island project was manufactured in New Zealand.
Click here for link to Parks and Wildlife Service Pest Eradication Project
Click here top see the ABC story
The drop is similar to the one conducted on Rangitoto and Motutapu Islands, off Auckland last year that is believed to have killed over 7 dolphins, large numbers of penguins and fish, and hundreds of native birds...and some suspect, the mysterious dog deaths that were attributed to poisonous sea slugs.
The 24 million dollar project has reportedly been halted - after it was found to have killed 431 native birds, from 6 species - until a review has been completed. Click here to see story
The 300 tonnes of Brodifacoum bait designated for the Macquarie Island project was manufactured in New Zealand.
Click here for link to Parks and Wildlife Service Pest Eradication Project
Sunday, October 24, 2010
SAFE - take stance on 1080
SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation) have come out strong with a stance against the use of 1080 poison.
This is more good news in the effort to have 1080 banned in New Zealand.
Good on you, SAFE. Click here to visit SAFE website
US bill to ban 1080 can be viewed at congress here
This is more good news in the effort to have 1080 banned in New Zealand.
Good on you, SAFE. Click here to visit SAFE website
US bill to ban 1080 can be viewed at congress here
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Progress
The government has agreed to fund a 4 million dollar trial on the effectiveness of a new, self-setting, instant kill trap which targets possums, rats and stoats. Click here to see press release. Super stuff!
The trial won't start until next summer, 2011/2012, and will run for 3 years - which means more 1080, in the mean time, which is concerning.
This new step in testing and developing this trap is good news, no question.
But why has it taken so long to develop something so simple? This trap is a result of private enterprise - good old kiwi ingenuity - should it not have been a government funded research institution that developed something so simple? Apparently not.
Why? Because our government funded - alternatives to 1080 - departments are looking for alternatives by developing new poisons. New toxic substances that can be dropped from aircraft - always developing that more lethal, targeted poison - and as a result, we believe, they're not putting enough effort into responsible, targeted trapping technology.
For heaven's sake, we can build huge bridges that span harbours, put tunnels through mountains, put man on the moon (I think), carry hundreds of people through the air at a time, from country to country - and you tell me we can't catch a few possums, rats and stoats? Non-sense!
We need to replace, or re-educate our inDoCtrinated, poison loving bigwigs that currently run our pest management departments. What's needed is sensible, humane, and clean-green thinking, community minded appointees.
We may then start to see harmony, unity, and respect return to communities, and to those charged with managing our wilderness areas.
The trial won't start until next summer, 2011/2012, and will run for 3 years - which means more 1080, in the mean time, which is concerning.
This new step in testing and developing this trap is good news, no question.
But why has it taken so long to develop something so simple? This trap is a result of private enterprise - good old kiwi ingenuity - should it not have been a government funded research institution that developed something so simple? Apparently not.
Why? Because our government funded - alternatives to 1080 - departments are looking for alternatives by developing new poisons. New toxic substances that can be dropped from aircraft - always developing that more lethal, targeted poison - and as a result, we believe, they're not putting enough effort into responsible, targeted trapping technology.
For heaven's sake, we can build huge bridges that span harbours, put tunnels through mountains, put man on the moon (I think), carry hundreds of people through the air at a time, from country to country - and you tell me we can't catch a few possums, rats and stoats? Non-sense!
We need to replace, or re-educate our inDoCtrinated, poison loving bigwigs that currently run our pest management departments. What's needed is sensible, humane, and clean-green thinking, community minded appointees.
We may then start to see harmony, unity, and respect return to communities, and to those charged with managing our wilderness areas.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
AHB not worried if US closes factory - AHB can source 1080 from China???
In a recent press release, Penny Fairbrother of the AHB stated that the AHB are not concerned with the Alabama 1080 factory being closed down because they could simply source 1080 concentrate from China. (click here for news link)
We understand there is no legal source of 1080 in China.
However, it is believed 1080 is being produced illegally in China - where it was reportedly banned years ago.
The following medical report and comments were supplied anonymously...
12. AN OUTBREAK OF SEVERE RODENTICIDE POISONING IN NORTH VIETNAM CAUSED BY ILLEGAL FLUOROACETATE
Ho¨ jer J,1 Hung HT,2 Du NT,2 Kylin H,3 Rosling H.4
1 Swedish Poisons Information Centre, Stockholm, Sweden;
2 Poison Control Centre, Hanoi, Vietnam;
3 Department of Environmental Assessment, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden;
4 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Background: Since January 2002 well over 100 cases of rodenticide poisoning have been admitted to the Clinical Toxicology Unit of the PCC in Hanoi. The responsible product is brought illegally from China, where it is illegally produced. It has been suspected to contain some organic fluorine compound. Methods: NMR spectroscopy, using standards of fluoroacetamide and sodium fluoroacetate as references, was used to analyze four liquid samples of the type of rodenticide ingested. The clinical findings in three typical cases are summarised below:
Case series - Initial GI symptoms - Hyperreflexia, rigidity, S-CPK ". Recurrent seizures
ECG findings - Hospital duration = outcome...
8 years, F accidental Yes Yes Yes T inversions and supravent. tachy. 11 days=survival
17 years, F suicidal Yes Yes Yes Prolonged QT; SVT 7 days=survival
21 years, F suicidal Yes Yes Yes Prolonged QT; VT; ventric. fibr. 1 day=fatal
Results: The presence of sodium fluoroacetate was demonstrated in all four rodenticide samples analysed. Conclusion: Although the extremely toxic substance sodium fluoroacetate has been banned as a rodenticide in China and Vietnam for many years, extensive illegal use is apparent and severe cases of intoxication are numerous.
Are the AHB considering negotiating with an illegal supplier of 1080, who may be responsible for hundreds of cases of human poisonings? Should they come clean with the NZ public and explain exactly who their proposed source of 1080 is in china, and prove that they are not dealing with anyone who is guilty of supplying 1080 illegally? Certainly!
Click here for link to US bill to ban 1080
We understand there is no legal source of 1080 in China.
However, it is believed 1080 is being produced illegally in China - where it was reportedly banned years ago.
The following medical report and comments were supplied anonymously...
12. AN OUTBREAK OF SEVERE RODENTICIDE POISONING IN NORTH VIETNAM CAUSED BY ILLEGAL FLUOROACETATE
Ho¨ jer J,1 Hung HT,2 Du NT,2 Kylin H,3 Rosling H.4
1 Swedish Poisons Information Centre, Stockholm, Sweden;
2 Poison Control Centre, Hanoi, Vietnam;
3 Department of Environmental Assessment, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden;
4 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Background: Since January 2002 well over 100 cases of rodenticide poisoning have been admitted to the Clinical Toxicology Unit of the PCC in Hanoi. The responsible product is brought illegally from China, where it is illegally produced. It has been suspected to contain some organic fluorine compound. Methods: NMR spectroscopy, using standards of fluoroacetamide and sodium fluoroacetate as references, was used to analyze four liquid samples of the type of rodenticide ingested. The clinical findings in three typical cases are summarised below:
Case series - Initial GI symptoms - Hyperreflexia, rigidity, S-CPK ". Recurrent seizures
ECG findings - Hospital duration = outcome...
8 years, F accidental Yes Yes Yes T inversions and supravent. tachy. 11 days=survival
17 years, F suicidal Yes Yes Yes Prolonged QT; SVT 7 days=survival
21 years, F suicidal Yes Yes Yes Prolonged QT; VT; ventric. fibr. 1 day=fatal
Results: The presence of sodium fluoroacetate was demonstrated in all four rodenticide samples analysed. Conclusion: Although the extremely toxic substance sodium fluoroacetate has been banned as a rodenticide in China and Vietnam for many years, extensive illegal use is apparent and severe cases of intoxication are numerous.
Are the AHB considering negotiating with an illegal supplier of 1080, who may be responsible for hundreds of cases of human poisonings? Should they come clean with the NZ public and explain exactly who their proposed source of 1080 is in china, and prove that they are not dealing with anyone who is guilty of supplying 1080 illegally? Certainly!
Click here for link to US bill to ban 1080
Monday, October 11, 2010
Can Predetermined Outcomes in "Science" be Bought?
Can science be bought? "Of course not!" is the anticipated retort from our research facilities.
I ask this question because the "science" used to support the use of aerial 1080 in New Zealand, certainly indicates that it can.
Poor research - often relying on guesses, estimates, predictions and crystal ball gazing - is, it seems, all that is required to ensure the continuance of the broad scale, poisoning operations we have in this country.
Some of the science is so poorly structured and obviously bias, that once exposed, will likely have far reaching, negative consequences for reputable, educational institutions across New Zealand.
If reliable research really is hard to conduct on an ecosystem level, then perhaps our authorities shouldn't be dropping large quantities of poison-laced food, from helicopters, into our environment - and then fund the advocacy science to justify the practice!..
The following letter of resignation http://www.climatedepot.com/ , is from Harold Lewis - Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
In many ways, the issues he highlights below resemble a similar culture entrenched in the methodology of research being conducted into pest control in New Zealand...
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis .From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence---it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind---simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
I ask this question because the "science" used to support the use of aerial 1080 in New Zealand, certainly indicates that it can.
Poor research - often relying on guesses, estimates, predictions and crystal ball gazing - is, it seems, all that is required to ensure the continuance of the broad scale, poisoning operations we have in this country.
Some of the science is so poorly structured and obviously bias, that once exposed, will likely have far reaching, negative consequences for reputable, educational institutions across New Zealand.
If reliable research really is hard to conduct on an ecosystem level, then perhaps our authorities shouldn't be dropping large quantities of poison-laced food, from helicopters, into our environment - and then fund the advocacy science to justify the practice!..
The following letter of resignation http://www.climatedepot.com/ , is from Harold Lewis - Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
In many ways, the issues he highlights below resemble a similar culture entrenched in the methodology of research being conducted into pest control in New Zealand...
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis .From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence---it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind---simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Congratulations Simon! - Local body elections
Congratulations Simon!
Firstly - Thanks to all those 4739 people (final count) that voted for me!
Secondly - A big thanks to those that helped with my campaign. It was incredible to see the support that came from all around the peninsula.
After final counting, I missed out by 378 votes! Not too bad.
It is true - I am dedicated to working for our environment, and I would have been dedicated to serving the people of the Thames-Coromandel Peninsula. However, Simon has won this election, and he is the best man for the job - that's the way the majority has voted.
We have a few more projects that we are committed to completing - and yes, they are all for the betterment of our environment, and New Zealand. I will then most likely head to Australia - to the delight of those perpetrating the ecocide taking place in this country, no doubt - and hide under a sun-scorched rock for a while.
We don't make lots of money from our documentary work, and no, we don't enjoy the condemnation that comes with presenting the truth.
However, we are in a position that means that we are able to present the facts about the atrocity that takes place in our wilderness areas, every week.
I hope that one day, those of you with blinkers on will finally open your eyes and realise what is really taking place in our forests.
Thanks again to those that supported this campaign.
Final results....
Constituency – Thames Coromandel (1 seat)
Candidate Name
FRIAR, Simon 5117
GRAF, Clyde 4739
SIELING, Dirk 3229
Firstly - Thanks to all those 4739 people (final count) that voted for me!
Secondly - A big thanks to those that helped with my campaign. It was incredible to see the support that came from all around the peninsula.
After final counting, I missed out by 378 votes! Not too bad.
It is true - I am dedicated to working for our environment, and I would have been dedicated to serving the people of the Thames-Coromandel Peninsula. However, Simon has won this election, and he is the best man for the job - that's the way the majority has voted.
We have a few more projects that we are committed to completing - and yes, they are all for the betterment of our environment, and New Zealand. I will then most likely head to Australia - to the delight of those perpetrating the ecocide taking place in this country, no doubt - and hide under a sun-scorched rock for a while.
We don't make lots of money from our documentary work, and no, we don't enjoy the condemnation that comes with presenting the truth.
However, we are in a position that means that we are able to present the facts about the atrocity that takes place in our wilderness areas, every week.
I hope that one day, those of you with blinkers on will finally open your eyes and realise what is really taking place in our forests.
Thanks again to those that supported this campaign.
Final results....
Constituency – Thames Coromandel (1 seat)
Candidate Name
FRIAR, Simon 5117
GRAF, Clyde 4739
SIELING, Dirk 3229
Monday, October 4, 2010
SPCA invites The Graf Boys to speak to their inspectors
We later listened to a presentation from visiting American forensic scientist and entomologist (insects) Dr. Jason Byrd, who is also a member of the American SPCA. He investigates crime scene forensic cases, and is employed by a university in Florida, I think he said. He appeared on TVone's Closeup tonight. He showed similar concern to the aerial use of 1080 as Dr's Pat and Quinn Whiting-Okeefe, and other scientists and experts, in regard to dropping food, laced with poison, into an ecosystem.
Dr Byrd has agreed to be interviewed for the new doco we are working on, due for release next year.
He raised similar concerns to the late Mike Meads (who was also an entomologist), in regard to the Krebs cycle and how the Krebs cycle is a process used by most organisms. Even the ones that break 1080 down. He suggested that when the 1080 is broken down it is possibly changed into some other toxic entity.
Dr Byrd pointed out that our native koura, among other things, will most likely be affected, and killed by 1080, if enough is eaten - whereas our DoC denies 1080 harms koura. DoC claims koura can eat 1080, and just pass it out with no harm being done. We dispute this, and believe it should be researched further, as where koura are present, they are poisoned in all streams 3 metres in width and under, on all aerial drops where cereal bait is used. They are also a food source for other animals and fish.
Dr Byrd also pointed out that plants have a Krebs cycle, and depending on dose, could be negatively affected by up taking 1080. (Once again, depending on dose) This could translate into poor flowering, or growth for example. Admittedly DoC have continued to drop their application doses more and more over recent years. I believe this is because they have still not been able to find benefit, and only harm is being realised. I think when DoC get to the stage where they go so light in dose, that they aren't actually dropping the poison at all - is when they will find benefit.
After all, up until the 80's, when 1080 had never been used over much of the country, and even when wild animal numbers were high, and had been so for many years, the forests were in a far better state than they are now, including higher presence of bird numbers, and species - when compared to areas where 1080 has been repeatedly used.
CLICK HERE TO SEE US BILL TO BAN 1080
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
