Jump to content

We need help in protecting Great Barrier Island.


Recommended Posts

If it's so harmless then maybe we should dump it on your front lawn until the tests you seem to require are done Aleena?

 

Are you convinced it's that harmless? 

 

First off, if you're going to resort to mildly threatening behaviour then please spell my name correctly!

 

Secondly, as I've said several times already but I'll say it once more, I am not convinced either way. Nobody has offered proof that it's either harmful or harmless.

 

But most of you here seem happy to decide your position based on assumptions and probabilities not hard evidence.

 

I just don't operate like that.

 

So I am surprised any decision has been made without testing done - or maybe it was done and the results are buried in the ruling somewhere?

 

Regardless, it would be pretty easy to get hold of a lump of the mud and arrange a test - why the reluctance?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the volume is a huge concern regardless of whether it is toxic or not.

 

That's a different point.

 

Again, it might be an issue or not.

 

I just dunno unless someone qualified shares their view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disagree. Going on the Aussie consent. T

You cannot go by some situation somewhere else in the World. Currents are different, water temps are different and the sediment will be different.

 

I think there was a lot of testing of the sediment all over the Harbour. A Maroine Biologist that used to reside here did extensive testing. A side note, it was quite an eye opener how much lead there was near the outflows of pipes over near the Sugar Factory.

 

So here is a question then.

Where would the better place to dump the stuff be? Or,

Should it not be dredged up in the first place?

 

Remember that the cost of dumping the stuff ends up coming back on the rate payer in the end. So a reply of dump it beyond the 200mile limit would be an answer that would only bite you in the pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the resource consent should be testing. IMO.

 

Why isn't it is the question.

 

Agreed. I'm surprised any decision (for or against) has been made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tells the web whether you swim in the harbour, seas, snorkel, surf, fall over board, have children, eat shell fish, crayfish, fish, because it does matter for those people who do and the health of children. Great barrier  NZ is  one day probably will be a setting for a great NZ production film bringing millions in revenue for the Gov't which means that you might not have to pay increase taxes. That should concern you as well as caring about other people not just yourself. Why take the risk? They could use it for land fill, at the rubbish tips etc but they don't. Why Great barrier Island. Why not around the corner up the harbour to the already polluted west Auckland low foreshore to help rising sea levels for that section / area?

 

 

Lots of Qs in here!

 

Yes I'm an avid user & lover of the ocean and do all those things you describe including eating shellfish that I free-dive for myself.

And yes of course I want it protected & preserved for my 2 children.

 

So any decisions need to made carefully not on the back of a highly emotional 'call to arms' internet forum posting that makes some big claims (that might be true) but fails to close the argument with any actual proof.

 

All I'm saying is that I'll agree with you if you show me that proof.

 

And it doesn't sound that hard to find that proof (a simple lab test of the mud). I'm not asking anyone to proof climate change or proof god exists or not. I'm just requesting a simple scientific test to settle the argument! I really don't understand why the protesters haven't arranged this.

 

Last point you say "why take the risk?". I'm not sure what the risk is yet because we don't know what we're dealing with. Depending on the outcome of the all important test that nobody seems to have done, then your different ideas for what to do with the mud might be genius or nuts.

 

But we just don't know do we?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sound like there needs to be an independent board set up to thoroughly investigate this sort of thing.  They could get experts to present factual information and then make informed decisions.  

 https://www.epa.govt.nz/database-search/eez-applications/view/EEZ100015

 

 

I looked at that yesterday but didn't easily spot anything about scientific testing of the mud. Maybe it is in there and I missed it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

KM..MB should or probably will arrange action for  your requests. Yes you are entitled to your opinion just ensuring it does not put others off. I'm surprised too that consent has been given without tests and i'm strongly opposed to the dumping in such a untouched pristine area. The earth / dirt / sand soil removal for the Aussie open cast coal mines were from plain old presumably uncontaminated land. The land was tussock, wild grasses unused land.

 

Likewise you guys are all entitled to your opinions and likewise I want to make sure you are not putting others off (by confusing opinions with facts).

 

If and when some test results are brought forward then let's all reconvene and have a fact-based discussion?

 

Like I said, if the mud you are all suspicious of turns out to be bad I will be the first to stand up and say "You are right and I am now convinced."

 

But until then you cannot justify saying you are right. And importantly, you cannot justify saying that I am wrong. Because none of us has the facts. So don't try to call me to action without the facts because I don't operate like that.

 

But if you guys like making fact-free and opinion-based decision that's fine. True, I do the same in less important matters in life (don't we all)? But when it comes to major life-changing decisions like this, then shouldn't we all park our opinions and replace them with facts before we act?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would of thought that any test results of samples would vary considerably depending on factors like depth of sample and where it was sited in relation to waste flows etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would of thought that any test results of samples would vary considerably depending on factors like depth of sample and where it was sited in relation to waste flows etc

 

Which is probably why it needs to be done properly and my idea of one of us casually dropping down to grab a few handfuls of silt is a pretty bad idea if we want a reliable result!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a plausible risk so the Precautionary Principle should apply (I'm not sure if NZ legislation has caught up with it - it's been written into NSW law since at least 1991). The onus is on those proposing to dump to show it is not bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Queens Wharf extension reports and the reports/Consent for the Shelly Bay interceptor both have detailed environmental reports. Both sets of paperwork should be publicly visible.

 

It takes not much nous to look at the areas they want to dredge and see the crap that must be down there.

 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a plausible risk so the Precautionary Principle should apply (I'm not sure if NZ legislation has caught up with it - it's been written into NSW law since at least 1991). The onus is on those proposing to dump to show it is not bad.

 

That would be good i.e. it would require the dumpers to have tested the stuff and demonstrate it's OK as part of their consent request. But so far nobody here knows for sure if this happened or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and see the crap that must be down there.

 

 

 

Agree it sounds plausible and if you have the evidence to swap 'must be' for 'is proven to be' then I'll get my pen out! :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...