Snappy New Possum Trap Effective and Humane
Watch Poisoning Paradise, free, online now, for a short period of time. Click link below
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Snappy New Possum Trap Effective and Humane
Apart from the inclusion of the usual propaganda, this story is good news for the humane management of possums - (The propaganda ... "Possums damage native forests, spread bovine Tb among cattle and deer, and eat the eggs and chicks of native birds" - when, in fact, possums have done little harm to forests; cattle pass bovine tb (bovine tb is catle tb) to possums, and rarely; and it is extremely rare for possums to eat birds and birds' eggs)
Snappy New Possum Trap Effective and Humane
Watch Poisoning Paradise, free, online now, for a short period of time. Click link below
Snappy New Possum Trap Effective and Humane
Watch Poisoning Paradise, free, online now, for a short period of time. Click link below
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"possums have done little harm to forests; cattle pass bovine tb (bovine tb is catle tb) to possums, and rarely; and it is extremely rare for possums to eat birds and birds' eggs"
ReplyDeleteIf that is true, why do we need to manage possums then?
In most cases, we don't. The trouble we have is that the propaganda has driven most people in New Zealand to believe that possums are a serious threat. They're not.
ReplyDeleteIt's fine to manage them, and most people would never accept it any other way.
However, research shows that populations drop back to low levels, after about 30 years, after the possum has established themselves in a forest. Most of our possum populations have been established for many decades, and are in low numbers. But, keeping the fear of the possum alive is big business.
In regard to bird populations, the real pest is probably the stoat and the wild cat. Those are the species that should be targeted, directly. I say directly - and not by poisoning the entire forest, in the hope that if you do kill any stoats, it's through them eating non-targeted, poisoned birds!
So, staying with the possums just for now - you dont think we need to manage their numbers at all, just let them go through the natural irruption/stabilisation process?
ReplyDeleteI think many areas have been through that phase. I think it's a good idea to keep an eye on populations, and manage them in key areas. Special breeding areas ect, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of eradication, though, is unrealistic and dangerous for other wildlife. It is too easy to extinct species we are trying to protect, while targeting a species that is far more resilient.
Many areas that we have visited, where the populations of possums are pretty high (like Stewart Island), also show healthy populations of bird-life. On the other hand, areas we visit which have been aerial poisoned, from our observation, are not healthy. Cheers.
So Clyde, you're saying we dont need to worry about bovine TB infections in possum populations then?
ReplyDeleteStewart Island has sustained possum control over about 30,000ha doesn't it? Uses a bit of 1080 too IIRC, as one of the tools.
Yes. The Island is about 180,000 hectares, and unfortunately ground laid 1080 is being used in some areas now. DoC can't help themselves.
ReplyDeleteOn the Western side, where the poison is being used, we've seen poorer populations of birds. Maybe to do with 1080, maybe the rougher side of the island?
But, Like I said, where the possum populations are higher, so is the birdlife. It seems to indicate that where poisons aren't used, the whole forest is better off. Certainly trap the possums, but don't use residual poisons.
In regard to TB - The farm stock are passing TB to possums, on rare occasions. There are some isolated areas where TB occurs in wild deer, but once again, it's the farm stock that delivered it.
For example, if 1080 was working to stop the spread of TB, you would think that after 30 years of spreading it around the Pureora, that TB would be eradicated. It's not. All that has been achieved is the wildlife has been decimated by poisons, and the farm stock still has TB.
The Ureweras are still one of the best places for multitudes of bird species, anywhere in the country. No 1080. Possums, rats, stoats, deer, pigs, and a great variety of bird-life, and no 1080.
Once again, I'm advocating for targeting the pest, not the ecosystem.
"The Island is about 180,000 hectares, and unfortunately ground laid 1080 is being used in some areas now."
ReplyDeleteWith the support of the local NZDA branch too, I believe?
You're getting off track, Clyde. Forget about the means for a moment, and just talk about the ends. Do we need to control possums as part of bovine TB control or not?
"The Island is about 180,000 hectares, and unfortunately ground laid 1080 is being used in some areas now. DoC can't help themselves."
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, it's use is also approved by the local NZDA branch.
You didn't answer my question, Clyde: do we need to do something about bovine TB infections in possum populations?
The local NZDA, if what you say is true, are then, perhaps unwittingly, supporting the death of un-targeted species. As My next post will point out, even in bait stations, poisons, and residual poisons are dangerous to native wildlife.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Bovine TB outbreaks in possum populations, there never has been. There may be isolated incidents, but not at population levels, and it's rare. Possums that have TB, die within weeks.
If a possum is found with TB in it, kill the stock that surrounds the area, because it is unacceptable that the forests are being areially poisoned because farm stock are spreading TB.
The AHB have demonstrated in research that TB can be managed by ground-based trapping methods from the pasture margin. That's fine - target the possums, not the entire forest.
In regard to TB - It's the farms that are the problem, not the wildlife.
"if what you say is true"
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting choice of words. Am I wrong?
I don't know what the Rakiura NZDA's stance on the use of 1080 is, when I haven't heard it from them. Just being cautious.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Rakiura Branch. The branch concerned is Southland.
ReplyDeleteI think a question of mine went missing, here it is again:
Does bovine TB not self-sustain in possum populations? Are they in effect a 'dead end' host?
Research on Possums as a vector is still not confirmed. Possums do die of TB, and they don't spread it to the wild population, as there has never been a recorded outbreak in the wild.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, if tb, that's bovine tb, was an effective killer of possums, then why not release it into the wild and kill all the possums? There's the possums taken care of!
Cheers.
"they don't spread it to the wild population"
ReplyDeleteOK, so you are saying that bovine TB definitely does not sustain itself in possum populations.
Therefore, the only way it gets into possum populations is by constant re-infection from domestic animals?
Define what you mean by 'outbreak', Clyde?
The evidence that possums are a major vector of bovine TB is irrefutable. I would like draw your attention to two articles on the subject published in internationally-recognised publications.
ReplyDeleteThe first is MAF journal Surveillance (1991, Volume 18, No 5), which details extensive epidemiological trials undertaken in the early 1970s when our understanding about the relationship between possums and bovine TB infections in farmed cattle was in its infancy.
The second is a paper by Morris and Pfeiffer published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal (1995 Volume 43, No 7) which reaches the following conclusions:
1) There is a clear spatial and temporal association between infection in possums and the incidence of infection in domestic stock.
2) Infection can persist continuously in possum populations without any evidence that it is being seeded from domestic or wild animals
3) Reductions in the spatial density of tuberculous possums by control methods produces a prolonged reduction in the incidence of infection in indicator species (mainly cattle)
The disease now endemic in possums across approximately 38 per cent of New Zealand (known as ‘vector risk areas’). In these areas, nearly 70 per cent of new herd infections can be traced back to possums or ferrets.
As farmers in the UK are now finding with badgers, no amount of TB testing and slaughtering of reactors will eradicate TB from herds if wild TB vectors are not also controlled. The AHB has reduced cattle and deer herd infection rates from more than 1700 in 1994 to fewer than 100 herds today. Much of this success can be attributed to sustained possum control reducing cross-infection and breaking the disease cycle. Taking our foot off the throttle now could very easily send the programme back to square one.
When possum control was stopped from 1979 - 1984 due to lack of funding, the number of infected herds snowballed and continued to increase until 1994. This was in spite of regular and frequent TB testing of cattle herds. Of equal concern was that the area of New Zealand where there were TB wild animals expanded from about 10 to 40 per cent. We are now paying the price of the short-sighted stopping of possum control by the Government in 1978.
That possums are such effective transmitters of TB appears to be facilitated by their behaviour once they succumb to the disease. Terminally ill TB possums will show increasingly erratic behaviour, such as venturing out during the daytime to get enough food to eat, and seeking out buildings in which to keep warm. As a consequence they may wander on to paddocks, where they naturally attract the attention of inquisitive cattle and deer. This behaviour has been captured on video.
By 2026, the AHB aims to eradicate TB from a quarter of the 10 million hectares of New Zealand where the disease is now present in wildlife. Biodegradable 1080 will be the ‘tool of choice’ only in places where ground control methods are impractical or unable to knock possum numbers down to a low enough level to break the disease cycle. The reality is that this is less than 10 per cent of the total area receiving possum control. To find out more about the TBfree New Zealand programme and how and why the Animal Health Board uses 1080 poison as part of its toolkit to control the spread of TB through possums, please visit www.tbfree.org.nz
Thanks for your comment, AHB. This comment will be addressed in greater detail, later, but here's another way of looking at what you have said...
ReplyDelete1/ TB is endemic across 38% of farmed areas in New Zealand
2/ There is anecdotal evidence that possums pass TB back to stock
3/ The AHB uses aerially applied 1080 in some of the most accessible, and rolling forests in the country (we have the footage to prove it - while standing on the sides of roads)
4/ It was improved stock-movement control that saw the incident of new TB infection occurrences, reduce.
5/ By 2026 the AHB will have eradicated most the native wildlife living in the areas where it uses aerial 1080.
How many of the 10 million possums in NZ have been confirmed as having TB, this year?
We support the eradication of TB, but we advocate for responsible, targeted methods of doing it - not by poisoning our entire ecosystems with persistent, cruel, systemic, secondary causing, deadly poison.
Sorry Clyde, but that is an extremely vexatious and misleading summary of our response. This is all backed up by hard scientific fact. It is not up for discussion and it cannot be looked at 'another way'. Just so you and your followers are clear:
ReplyDelete1/ TB is endemic across 38% of NEW ZEALAND and is certainly not limited to farmed land. Fact.
2/ The evidence that nearly 70 per cent of new herd infections in these areas can be traced back to possums or ferrets is scientific, not anecdotal. I have referred you to two prestigious scientific publications where the research is discussed in detail. Fact.
3/ The AHB uses aerial 1080 where ground control is not practical. The reality is that this is less than 10 per cent of the total area receiving possum control. Fact.
4/ When possum control was stopped from 1979 - 1984 due to lack of funding, the number of infected herds snowballed and continued to increase until 1994. This was in spite of regular and frequent TB testing of cattle herds. Fact.
5/ The latest research esitmates there are at least 30 million possums in NZ (Warburton et al. 2000). Fact.
Dear AHB,
ReplyDeleteHere is a summary of your achievements to date, from our perspective - just to ensure "our followers" are informed...
The AHB is responsible for mass-scale animal cruelty - Fact
The AHB is responsible for mass poisoning of endemic New Zealand wildlife - Fact
The AHB is responsible for the poisoning of 100's of New Zealand citizens pets - Fact
The AHB is responsible for the poisoning of New Zealand citizens water supplies - Fact
The AHB is responsible for psychological torment of many rural based New Zealand citizens - Fact
Please do not expect to come on to this blog and expect the same co-operation you get from other conforming news mediums.
This blog is reserved for truth, and for the defense of the battler that understands that the poisoning of our forests, ecosystems and wildlife, is wrong, and must be stopped immediately.
Thank you.
Clyde, you've missed another of my questions it seems.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying possums only get bovine TB from farmed cattle and deer, and the disease is not sustained within a possum population?
"By 2026 the AHB will have eradicated most the native wildlife living in the areas where it uses aerial 1080."
Where is your proof of this?
"The AHB is responsible for the poisoning of New Zealand citizens water supplies - Fact"
ReplyDeleteHow is it doing that and where is your proof, Clyde?
We have filmed people that have had 1080 dropped directly into the streams they draw their water from, and the response they get from those dropping the poison. The response is often the same - arrogance.
ReplyDeleteWe have filmed drops where the choppers have dropped poisons right across the huts we were camped in, and then turned up the following day to remove the visible baits from the roof, guttering and clearing around the hut.
We've filmed a childrens camp in Thames where baits were dropped across their water intake, and several days later, when the breach was informed to the camp, the intake pipe was mysteriously removed - film and photographic evidence.
We,ve filmed untold walking tracks where baits were dropped across the tracks and into the streams where trampers should be able to get uncontaminated water from. They can't.
It's endless, and it's a disgrace. If you knew anything about poison drops you wouldn't be asking these questions. I don't think you are doing your backers any favours, Aaron.
Who are my backers, Clyde? Are you trying to deflect? :)
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing baits in water with poisoning water supplies. Have detectable levels of 1080 ever been detected in water supplies for any more than very brief periods of time? And what is the risk from some bait falling in the water?
Watch Poisoning Paradise. A couple of baits were dropped around the Kaikoura water supply. 10 million litres were dumped, i think it was. Why? Because people don't want poison anywhere near their water supplies - and as the police officer said, they would prosecute anyone that was found to have done it.
ReplyDeleteAbout 4% of tested water from 1080 drops has had measurable residues. In most cases, those connected with the drops under take the water collection. Conflict of interest? Yes.
1080 degrades in the water samples, even when frozen. The point is - this is New Zealand, we don't drop water into our pristine waterways, do we???
Don't drop deadly poisons anywhere near waterways or forest ecosystems.
Who are my 'backers' Clyde? :)
ReplyDeleteWith respect - based on your comments, It appears that you're not batting for the people that are opposed to the use of 1080, and those that are having 1080 dropped around them and don't support it.
ReplyDeleteThe AHB is overplaying the role of vector control and underplaying the huge importance of stock movement control, and bush pasture margin work (with traps and bait stations). These have significantly improved the TB situation. Farmers were the ones who pushed for bush pasture margin work. Many of them believe that bovine TB is an ordinary disease, which can be dealt with on the farm, as others are. Using extreme management methods, which unnecessarily kill a wide spectrum of wildlife should never be the answer.
ReplyDeleteClyde, you may have overlooked my comment, and you didnt answer it last time:
ReplyDeleteWho are my 'backers', that you speak of?
Saying that it is a farmers problem to be dealt with on a farmers scale, is just like saying the Christchurch earthquake is a christchurch problem, and they should deal with it.
ReplyDeleteIf the AHB can effectively reduce the numbers of possums to the point where their ability to pass Tb through wild populations is sustained. If the dead carcass of an infected possum is ingested by another possum, or by cattle which are in the paddock the possum has walked onto then there is a high chance it will pass the disease on.
There is a correlation with higher possum numbers and higher incidences of Tb in possums, and stock. In 1997 the amount of Tb infected herds around Taupo was in the hundreds, by 2009 this has been reduced to 3 or 4 isolated cases.
Clyde, your 'poisoning' of water supplies implies that things are being poisoned. Please highlight which freshwater species or humans have come into harm through the use of 1080?
The manufacturer clearly states, keep out of any body of water, and pickup and burn or bury deeply, all unused baits and carcasses.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, Koura love to eat the baits. Whether it kills them is still to be determined. Unfortunately, the researcher that conducted the poor study on koura, killed them before they could die from the poison, so we're not sure about their mortality in drops. But if they're like lizards, which are cold blooded, for example, they could take over 20 days to die.
Koura are a feed source for kiwi, and other native birds and aquatic life. Koura that eat the bait can then be a delivery mechanism for other untargeted animals.
It's just so irresponsible, and bazaar, to drop poison across the entire ecosystem in the hope you can kill a few pests - and then leave the baits and carcasses lying around for any other animal or bird to feed on. There's no regard for where the poison terminates. There's just no argument - it's a crazy practice!
If you want to target possums - do it - but target them directly, that's all I'm saying.
Clyde, is there a reason you wont post my question?
ReplyDeleteWho are my 'backers', that you talk about?
Please name them. I'm quite keen to find out :))
The role possums play in spreading bovine TB here in New Zealand is an internationally-accepted fact.
ReplyDeleteFor example, a recent article in the UK Farmers' Weekly says "(The Australian brush-tail possum) maintains TB in its population and spreads the disease to farmed cattle and deer. Infected possums were found to inhabit around 38% (10m hectares) of New Zealand and analysis indicated they were responsible for up to 70% of new cattle and deer herd TB outbreaks in these areas.
The (National Pest Management) strategy was revised to include more wildlife control and the approach proved a huge success. While a small number of New Zealanders oppose using toxins to control introduced pests, the reality is that these imported predators not only spread TB, they also destroyed native plants and birds."
Source: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2011/07/19/127893/Bovine-TB-control-what-are-other-countries-doing.htm
Whatever your personal views of the use of 1080 to control them, please either accept the fact that possums are a major source of TB infection or do your followers the courtesy of providing them with evidence to the contrary.
"About 4% of tested water from 1080 drops has had measurable residues."
ReplyDeleteAnd said traces disappeared within days.
Yet hundreds of thousands of people drink the same stuff every day in this country Clyde, in their cup of tea. Why aren't you concerned about that?
Surely you know that's a lot of nonsense Aaron! We expect to be conducting that test for our new doco - just to demonstrate the lengths that those who push 1080 in NZ will go to to try to allay people's concerns.
ReplyDeleteI'll put a $1000 on the results - undertaken in America, not NZ - that there is not measurable amount of 1080 in a cup of tea. And by the way, we'll have it tested straight away, after the tea is added to the water, not weeks later when any residues may have dissipated.
However, this issue is about putting 1080 poison into New Zealand's mountain streams, where it's not meant to be - not about arguing where it may appear naturally - but like the misleading comments by those that say 1080 occurs in Puha, it's not likely to be in drinking tea, either.
Bad news Clyde: the tests have been done, the results are in, and it has been found in tea in NZ :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.box.net/shared/4nudn1yvy9s5uocmojgn
Sorry about that. Keep your money :)
Ha ha ha, I'm more keen to risk losing my money than accept these advertorial words!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see the actual study. I see that it was funded by the AHB, the main user of 1080.
I'll tell you what, when an authentic test is undertaken - and it will be - and if it is found that 1080 doesn't occur in our most consumed tea brands in NZ, we'll talk more about those so called studies that have been used to propagandarise the NZ public that 1080 is safe to consume.
And to add to that, how about we only test to the levels that are used when testing for poison residues in our native birds!
I think the main issue is, the poison is killing off our endemic species, and to add to that, it is an unethical "tool" for a civilised country to be using.
There's still not a credible study that demonstrates a population benefit to any of our native species through the use of 1080 poison.
There may be benefits to controlling pests, but using an indiscriminate killer to do it, negates any benefits that may be realised.
Even if 1080 did manage to assist with survival for a single species, its overwhelming negative effects on all the other species makes it pointless.
There is only one answer - target the individual pest.
By the way, it is still not known if 1080 persists in some NZ soil types. Another unknown about a deadly poison we're so keen in this country to distribute across our entire ecosystems.
Cheers, and thanks for showing us those documents.
Always an excuse Clyde :) Are you going to publish your results in an international peer-reviewed Journal? Hope you're not planning on using an EVA machine!
ReplyDeleteDo you think we should always weigh evidence based on the funding source?
"There's still not a credible study that demonstrates a population benefit to any of our native species through the use of 1080 poison."
You keep repeating that phrase like it actually means something. When will it be tested in an international peer-reviewed Journal?
Clyde, you seem to keep missing this question too:
ReplyDeleteWho are my 'backers', that you refer to?
I'd really like to know.
Will you answer this question, or was it just an empty accusation, to try and avoid dealing with information?
Sorry Aaron, I must admit, it was a careless comment. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteNo worries then :)
ReplyDeleteI think the argument about tea is misleading. Aaron and others are trying to say that because it's in tea, it must be safe to consume, and we shouldn't worry about it.
ReplyDeleteBut an article called 'Sodium fluoroacetate (1080): assessment of occupational exposures and selection of a provisional biological exposure index' by Michael Beasley et al in the NZ Medical Journal, says at the beginning "Little is known about chronic effects in humans, but animal studies demonstrate potential for adverse fetal, male fertility, and cardiac effects." It goes on to give the following examples:
From experiments with mink "It is clear both the testis and heart are sensitive target organs; indeed adverse cardiac effects were recognised in livestock from plant sources of fluoroacetate prior to its usage as a pesticide, and later studies provided further evidence. The mechanism underlying these chronic effects are not well established. However it is likely its impairment of aerobic metabolism (due to inhibition of the citric acid or Kreb’s cycle), largely responsible for acute 1080 poisoning, is a significant factor. Cellular hypoxia is a recognised cause of adverse cardiac, fetal, and testicular effects. Some fluoroacetate is converted in vivo to fluorocitrate, which plays a major role in disrupting the citric acid cycle,as well as risking hypocalcaemia. Given clear laboratory evidence of sublethal effects of oral exposure, there is obvious concern regarding risks of similar effects from human exposures.
Pest control industry workers engaged in the preparation and distribution of 1080 baits are the group most likely to be repeatedly exposed, and this paper outlines the initiation of protocols for monitoring such workers in NZ."
"There is little human data shedding light on what an appropriate biological exposure index would be. One report outlines an incident of excessive exposure from misapplication of 1080 as rat poison in a steel mill, with the generated dusts causing relatively high acute exposures, with several workers becoming seriously ill.
There is also a report of salivation, visual disturbance, paresthesiae, convulsions, and coma after a wind gust blew concentrated powder into one worker’s face. However no data were found on chronic, low level human exposures which could indicate minimum daily toxic doses, or the corresponding urine concentrations. Therefore, animal data were utilised to derive an estimated acceptable daily exposure to 1080."
I'm glad I'm not the one claiming it's ingestion is so insignificant. I agree with the article when it says "Given clear laboratory evidence of sublethal effects of oral exposure, there is obvious concern regarding risks of similar effects from human exposures."
Clear laboratory evidence ... obvious concern ... you drink as much tea as you like. This stuff is dangerous.
"I think the argument about tea is misleading. Aaron and others are trying to say that because it's in tea, it must be safe to consume, and we shouldn't worry about it."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry "Anonymous", but that is just sophistry.
I have no doubt that at a sufficient dose, 1080 will be harmful to humans, and those applying it may be at particular risk. That is a real concern.
The key issue here though is the risk to humans from drinking water sourced from 1080 poisoned areas. And that risk is minimal, if it even exists. If the trace and short term amounts found after a drop were a risk, the chronic ingestion of monofluoroacetate in tea would show effects. It doesn't.
This quote sums up the evidence well, I think:
"Compound 1080 is a highly toxic chemical that will certainly kill humans if they are exposed to even minute amounts, but this is true of many substances. It is fairly clear from the literature the aerial 1080 in the concentrations in which it is usually applied does not constitute a major risk to humans from water contamination, providing it is used and applied as it is supposed to be. So the risk comes down to that from accidents, errors and malice"
Would you agree with that statement, Clyde?
In regard to toxic substances, sure. Too much alcohol will kill you, for example. Although, the amount of pure 1080 it takes to kill a human, as apposed to DDT or Agent Orange, for example, is vastly different. 1080 is extremely toxic, and without antidote.
ReplyDeleteThe thing with 1080 is, it's forced into peoples lives without their consent.
In regard to waterways, in low doses, we don't know. 1080 is a suspected hormone disruptor. Research has still not been done to establish what those effects may be. To rely on an AHB paper, to dismiss this concern, is dangerous. Who knows what the low dose effects are, no-one is looking, and we certainly cannot rely on the biggest user of 1080 poison, to supply it for us.
In December 2009, I think it was, the Ministry of Health admitted no research has been done into the low dose impact on humans. The info is included on the Poisoning Paradise doco.
New Zealand is renown for its use of toxins, and its willingness for forget.
You accept this statement then, Clyde?
ReplyDelete"It is fairly clear from the literature the aerial 1080 in the concentrations in which it is usually applied does not constitute a major risk to humans from water contamination, providing it is used and applied as it is supposed to be."
Well, I certainly don't agree with that statement, Aaron. There hasn't been enough research done to be able to definitively claim that. There is evidence showing that cattle have cardiac effects from eating plants that contain fluoroacetate. I'm not going to accept that a system that leaves carcasses exposed on the ground and that drops and washes baits into waterways, is acceptable, when all other sources say that carcasses need to be buried and waterways avoided. I don't think our science is advanced enough yet to prove that sublethal exposure to 1080 causes harm. That doesn't mean it doesn't.
ReplyDelete“Well, I certainly don't agree with that statement, Aaron. There hasn't been enough research done to be able to definitively claim that.”
ReplyDeleteIt surely sounds credible, "Anonymous" (why not share your name with us?). What do you reckon, Clyde?
Here's a couple of other papers (non-AHB funded :)) that found there is 1080 in tea:
Twigg, L.E.; King, D.R.; Bowen, L.H.; Wright, G.R.; Eason, C.T. 1996. Fluoroacetate content of some species of toxic Australian plant genus, Gastrolobium, and its environmental persistence. Natural Toxins 4: 122–127
And
Vartiainen, T.; Kauranen, P. 1984. The determination of traces of fluoroacetic acid by extraction alkylation, pentafluorobenzylation, and capillary gas chromatography mass spectrometer. Mass Spectrometry Analytica Chemica Acta 157: 91–97.
If chronic ingestion of trace amounts were going to cause problems, we’d see it in tea drinkers.
Clyde - are you saying if your tests dont find it in tea, then it definitely isnt there? ;)
Clyde - couple of questions you may have missed in the back and forth:
ReplyDelete1)Are you saying possums only get bovine TB from farmed cattle and deer, and the disease is not sustained within a possum population?
2) "By 2026 the AHB will have eradicated most the native wildlife living in the areas where it uses aerial 1080."
Where is your proof of this?
And another report finding 1080 in tea:
ReplyDelete"[L]evels of 1080 seen in common brands of tea
leaves, i.e. Bell Tea, Tiger Tea, PG Tea etc., where the concentration of 1080 detected ranged
from 0.2 – 1.2 ppb" (Eason et al, 1995. Fluoroacetate concentration in tea leaves and
guar gum powder. Landcare Research Contract Report LC9495/64.)
Save your money Clyde :) Or are NZDA going to provide you with some more funding for this too?