F**K off Gabrielle

[Gumboot]

It’s dusty around here reading about the wee 2 year old.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/13125553 ... -gabrielle

Heartbreaking.

Very.

I know a family member. Gutting.

I hope you guys are ok. Its bad enough without having a connection like that.

Thanks for posting the givealittle link.

Yep, thanks for the link.

[Fat Old Git]

8 dead now. :(

Man, the amout of forestry slag and the amount of damage it's caused.

[Ted.]

It’s dusty around here reading about the wee 2 year old.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/13125553 ... -gabrielle

Heartbreaking.

Very.

I know a family member. Gutting.

I hope you guys are ok. Its bad enough without having a connection like that.

Thanks for posting the givealittle link.

Cheers for your kind thoughts. In Welly though, so fine. But felling for my colleague and his.

[Sandstorm]

Tragedy. Sorry for the loss and damage down there, everyone.

[Jambanja]

8 dead now. :(

Man, the amout of forestry slag and the amount of damage it's caused.

It amazes me that the forestry industry is allowed to get away with it and the fact they don’t seem to help with the clean up.
Could you imagine any other industry dumping shit into our river systems and being allowed to get away with it, it’s a strange one. They must have a hell of a good lobby group.

[Guy Smiley]

8 dead now. :(

Man, the amout of forestry slag and the amount of damage it's caused.

It amazes me that the forestry industry is allowed to get away with it and the fact they don’t seem to help with the clean up.
Could you imagine any other industry dumping shit into our river systems and being allowed to get away with it, it’s a strange one. They must have a hell of a good lobby group.

Tried to swim in a Canterbury river lately?

[Jambanja]

8 dead now. :(

Man, the amout of forestry slag and the amount of damage it's caused.

It amazes me that the forestry industry is allowed to get away with it and the fact they don’t seem to help with the clean up.
Could you imagine any other industry dumping shit into our river systems and being allowed to get away with it, it’s a strange one. They must have a hell of a good lobby group.

Tried to swim in a Canterbury river lately?

No, Twizel was the last place I swam in a river down there, but that was a couple of years ago, haven’t been recently, why do they have lots of slash in their rivers too?

[Slick]

We are staying in a little cottage in the Cairngorms and had quite a decent storm last night. Tree came down out the back and missed our bedroom by about 2m. All a little shaken up

[Sandstorm]

We are staying in a little cottage in the Cairngorms and had quite a decent storm last night. Tree came down out the back and missed our bedroom by about 2m. All a little shaken up

Fuck off Otto

[Slick]

We are staying in a little cottage in the Cairngorms and had quite a decent storm last night. Tree came down out the back and missed our bedroom by about 2m. All a little shaken up

Fuck off Otto

Lost me

[Sandstorm]

We are staying in a little cottage in the Cairngorms and had quite a decent storm last night. Tree came down out the back and missed our bedroom by about 2m. All a little shaken up

Fuck off Otto

Lost me

Your storm is called Otto

[Guy Smiley]

It amazes me that the forestry industry is allowed to get away with it and the fact they don’t seem to help with the clean up.
Could you imagine any other industry dumping shit into our river systems and being allowed to get away with it, it’s a strange one. They must have a hell of a good lobby group.

Tried to swim in a Canterbury river lately?

No, Twizel was the last place I swam in a river down there, but that was a couple of years ago, haven’t been recently, why do they have lots of slash in their rivers too?

Ok... you're talking about the forest industry getting away with environmental destruction, which is fair and valid. But they're not alone... when I was a kid, Canterbury was all wheat and sheep. Dryland farming. Over the last 20 years or more, that has completely given way to intensive dairy farming with massive irrigation required. The waterways across the Canterbury region that we could swim in as kids, are now so heavily polluted with nitrates that they are too dangerous to even wade in, in some cases. Water flow is badly degraded. Waimate district council has been trucking drinking water in because their town supply is affected and our national testing standard for nitrate levels really should be reviewed because it's currently too lax and allows higher levels that international standards deem too dangerous.

Intensive farming practises are completely fucking the environment locally and it should be a national crisis. No-one talks about it.

[Gumboot]

Intensive farming practises are completely fucking the environment locally and it should be a national crisis. No-one talks about it.

But, but...

[Guy Smiley]

Yeah. Those fuckwits. They've been a bit quiet this week, after the reports of a pivot from VFF away from Covid conspiracies to Climate Change conspiracies.

Talking at break time last night and it turns out a sizeable slice of the workforce where I'm at are fully subscribed nutters. Several attended the Wellington protest camp, apparently. Glad to say my crew seem pretty much scornful, although we do have one Left Hand Drive giant ute driver among us. I'm watching him...


back on topic. Sea temperatures around NZ this summer are on average something like 2C up on the norm*. I wonder why that is.

*warm seas, fierce storms.

*https://niwa.co.nz/climate/sea-surface- ... april-2023

[Slick]

Fuck off Otto

Lost me

Your storm is called Otto

So it is!

[Guy Smiley]

Scenes of devastation...

[Guy Smiley]

Intensive farming practises are completely fucking the environment locally and it should be a national crisis. No-one talks about it.

But, but...

In case Jammy pops back in, I just found an article reporting on nitrate levels in NZ water that supports my uncomfortable statement about this. The country needs to wake up a bit regarding environmental degradation and perhaps the impact of this tragic event can somehow fuel the political will needed to effect change.

Maybe.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nitrate-p ... TPI3ZZ7EE/


Paywalled, so I'll quote it.

Spoiler

Show

Nearly 60 per cent of New Zealand’s freshwater sources assessed in a first-of-its-kind study were shown to have nitrate concentrations above a threshold considered to pose higher health risks.

The new study, led by GNS Science, adds to mounting evidence of worrying levels of nitrate contamination in our drinking water supplies – something researchers say may be raising the danger of bowel cancer and other health problems.

It’s also cast fresh questions over whether current drinking water standards – which include a short-term maximum accepted value (MAV) of 11.3 milligrams of nitrate-nitrogen per litre (mg/l) – are set far too high for health risk.

While recent studies have assessed nitrate concentrations in waterways, wells and groundwater, the latest investigation was the first to focus on stable isotopes - naturally occurring atoms of chemicals often used to explore environmental change over time.

In this case, isotopes from samples gathered over 10 years contained rich information about where the nitrate contamination came from, with urine and urea fertiliser from farms unsurprisingly found to be a major source.

The study’s leader, GNS senior scientist Dr Karyne Rogers, said a key question was whether some regions had higher nitrate-nitrogen levels in their freshwater sources than others.

“We also wanted to know if nitrate contamination was more of a surface water problem or a groundwater problem,” she said.

“As our drinking water comes mostly from groundwater, we needed to survey where the nitrate problems were and what was causing it.”

The analysis showed higher nitrate levels in areas with intensive dairy farming – including Waikato, Taupō, Taranaki, Wairarapa, Canterbury and Southland - but also in rural regions centred around horticulture and cropping.

In all, they found that 58 per cent of freshwater analysed had concentrations higher than 0.9mg/l, while 33 per cent of sites had levels that exceeded half the MAV of 5.6 mg/L.

Rogers noted that overseas studies have suggested drinking water standards for nitrates be set at 1.0mg/l, given levels above that have been linked to colorectal cancers, along with impacts on biodiversity.

“Overall, in some regions in New Zealand, groundwater is already quite impacted by nitrates,” she said.

“The key drivers of this nitrate contamination are horticulture and high intensity farming operations.”

More surprising was the fact the surface water samples they assessed were less contaminated than groundwater, which carried median values of 2.9 mg/l.

“It is concerning to know that groundwater has much higher median and maximum nitrate-N values than surface water, as groundwater is harder to remediate than surface water,” Rogers said.

“Once groundwater becomes contaminated with nitrates, it can take years or decades for it to decline, depending on the age of the groundwater.”

Rogers said her team now wanted to investigate whether the same level of nitrates were present in rural drinking water wells.

Another recent analysis by Lawa researchers found many groundwater pockets were continuing to return high levels of nitrate contamination.

Groundwater from about two-thirds of the wells they assessed had a five-year median concentrations greater than 1mg/l - something largely tied to human activities.

Around a quarter had concentrations higher than half the MAV – and six per cent exceeded it altogether.

Again, those higher levels were generally found in areas of intensive agriculture, either grazing – as seen in results from Canterbury, Southland and Waikato – or vegetable farming, as observed in Pukekohe and Horowhenua.

At the time it was published, Otago University public health researcher Dr Tim Chambers said it was at those sites where levels were over half that MAV that likely required the most attention.

There was also particular a risk for levels to be higher on private supplies that weren’t covered by national monitoring, he said.

In 2021, Chambers led a study that suggested up to 100 cases of bowel cancer, and 41 deaths, may be caused by nitrate-contaminated drinking water each year - with around 800,000 Kiwis exposed to levels that international studies deemed a risk.

Aside from infrastructure improvements, he felt the bigger priority for those areas with worsening or high nitrate concentrations was to review land use practices.

The Ministry of Health continued to review new research about nitrates in drinking-water to understand links to adverse health, but have referred to nitrate levels lower than 50mg/l - or equivalent to a nitrate-nitrogen level of 11.3mg/l - being safe, according to current evidence.

While that value for short-term nitrate has been kept in recently-updated legislation, the sum of concentrations of nitrate and nitrite to each of their respective MAVs was not allowed to exceed one.

After taking over as our drinking water regulator, Taumata Arowai required all water supplies to monitor for nitrate and other chemicals in their first year of operation.

[Jambanja]

Intensive farming practises are completely fucking the environment locally and it should be a national crisis. No-one talks about it.

But, but...

In case Jammy pops back in, I just found an article reporting on nitrate levels in NZ water that supports my uncomfortable statement about this. The country needs to wake up a bit regarding environmental degradation and perhaps the impact of this tragic event can somehow fuel the political will needed to effect change.

Maybe.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nitrate-p ... TPI3ZZ7EE/


Paywalled, so I'll quote it.

Spoiler

Show

Nearly 60 per cent of New Zealand’s freshwater sources assessed in a first-of-its-kind study were shown to have nitrate concentrations above a threshold considered to pose higher health risks.

The new study, led by GNS Science, adds to mounting evidence of worrying levels of nitrate contamination in our drinking water supplies – something researchers say may be raising the danger of bowel cancer and other health problems.

It’s also cast fresh questions over whether current drinking water standards – which include a short-term maximum accepted value (MAV) of 11.3 milligrams of nitrate-nitrogen per litre (mg/l) – are set far too high for health risk.

While recent studies have assessed nitrate concentrations in waterways, wells and groundwater, the latest investigation was the first to focus on stable isotopes - naturally occurring atoms of chemicals often used to explore environmental change over time.

In this case, isotopes from samples gathered over 10 years contained rich information about where the nitrate contamination came from, with urine and urea fertiliser from farms unsurprisingly found to be a major source.

The study’s leader, GNS senior scientist Dr Karyne Rogers, said a key question was whether some regions had higher nitrate-nitrogen levels in their freshwater sources than others.

“We also wanted to know if nitrate contamination was more of a surface water problem or a groundwater problem,” she said.

“As our drinking water comes mostly from groundwater, we needed to survey where the nitrate problems were and what was causing it.”

The analysis showed higher nitrate levels in areas with intensive dairy farming – including Waikato, Taupō, Taranaki, Wairarapa, Canterbury and Southland - but also in rural regions centred around horticulture and cropping.

In all, they found that 58 per cent of freshwater analysed had concentrations higher than 0.9mg/l, while 33 per cent of sites had levels that exceeded half the MAV of 5.6 mg/L.

Rogers noted that overseas studies have suggested drinking water standards for nitrates be set at 1.0mg/l, given levels above that have been linked to colorectal cancers, along with impacts on biodiversity.

“Overall, in some regions in New Zealand, groundwater is already quite impacted by nitrates,” she said.

“The key drivers of this nitrate contamination are horticulture and high intensity farming operations.”

More surprising was the fact the surface water samples they assessed were less contaminated than groundwater, which carried median values of 2.9 mg/l.

“It is concerning to know that groundwater has much higher median and maximum nitrate-N values than surface water, as groundwater is harder to remediate than surface water,” Rogers said.

“Once groundwater becomes contaminated with nitrates, it can take years or decades for it to decline, depending on the age of the groundwater.”

Rogers said her team now wanted to investigate whether the same level of nitrates were present in rural drinking water wells.

Another recent analysis by Lawa researchers found many groundwater pockets were continuing to return high levels of nitrate contamination.

Groundwater from about two-thirds of the wells they assessed had a five-year median concentrations greater than 1mg/l - something largely tied to human activities.

Around a quarter had concentrations higher than half the MAV – and six per cent exceeded it altogether.

Again, those higher levels were generally found in areas of intensive agriculture, either grazing – as seen in results from Canterbury, Southland and Waikato – or vegetable farming, as observed in Pukekohe and Horowhenua.

At the time it was published, Otago University public health researcher Dr Tim Chambers said it was at those sites where levels were over half that MAV that likely required the most attention.

There was also particular a risk for levels to be higher on private supplies that weren’t covered by national monitoring, he said.

In 2021, Chambers led a study that suggested up to 100 cases of bowel cancer, and 41 deaths, may be caused by nitrate-contaminated drinking water each year - with around 800,000 Kiwis exposed to levels that international studies deemed a risk.

Aside from infrastructure improvements, he felt the bigger priority for those areas with worsening or high nitrate concentrations was to review land use practices.

The Ministry of Health continued to review new research about nitrates in drinking-water to understand links to adverse health, but have referred to nitrate levels lower than 50mg/l - or equivalent to a nitrate-nitrogen level of 11.3mg/l - being safe, according to current evidence.

While that value for short-term nitrate has been kept in recently-updated legislation, the sum of concentrations of nitrate and nitrite to each of their respective MAVs was not allowed to exceed one.

After taking over as our drinking water regulator, Taumata Arowai required all water supplies to monitor for nitrate and other chemicals in their first year of operation.

There has been absolutely no link to nitrates causing bowel cancer in anyone, this is based on work done in Denmark, where this issue was first raised, now I don’t have the exact facts and figures at hand but it has been refuted and there is no link to causation.
My question to you is, how many rivers in the Canterbury region are closed to swimming, I had a quick google but nothing jumped out and I didn’t really have the time to dig deeper, which is why I haven’t replied to you yet, it may very well be that we have a sleeping giant with regards to this but what we don’t need is alarmism driving our decisions.
Example of this has been around the use of hydrogen cyanamide as a bud breaker for kiwifruit and apples, we were told it was carcinogenic and that it killed wildlife etc etc etc, it was due to be banned on the back of these claims, so extensive studies have now been done on this product and not only is it not carcinogenic but there is no evidence that it does any harm to the wildlife or the soil.
Banning this product could have cost these industries billions, all based on nothing but hearsay and misinformation.

The difference to this and the issue of slash is very very visible, in the post above this your pictures highlight this quite dramatically, I have seen some horrific examples of the damage slash causes and whether or not someone can swim in a river is insignificant by comparison…at the moment…more work can be done on the issue of nitrates and what harm they can cause, along with improving farming practices that change the dependence on unfettered use of nitrogen in farming, there is already a great deal of work being done in this area, but I agree more needs to be done.

[Jambanja]

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?se ... 136&type=3
This is a link to Shellie Evans photography and will help highlight the issue of slash.

[JM2K6]

Example of this has been around the use of hydrogen cyanamide as a bud breaker for kiwifruit and apples, we were told it was carcinogenic and that it killed wildlife etc etc etc, it was due to be banned on the back of these claims, so extensive studies have now been done on this product and not only is it not carcinogenic but there is no evidence that it does any harm to the wildlife or the soil.
Banning this product could have cost these industries billions, all based on nothing but hearsay and misinformation.

This doesn't appear to be true at all?

https://www.epa.govt.nz/public-consulta ... ssessment/ - ongoing re-assessment of hydrogen cyanamide.

We recommend making the following changes to the hazard classifications:

classify the soluble concentrate as skin and eye corrosive, rather than an irritant
change the specific target organ toxicity classification (from Category 1 to 2)
classify as hazardous to soil organisms.

From the report published in December:

Based on its revised evaluation and the need for a precautionary approach, the EPA considers that the benefits do not adequately outweigh the residual risks
...
In view of the identified risks to human health and the environment from the use of hydrogen cyanamide substances, the EPA recommends additional controls as identified throughout this report be set to minimise those risks
...
The following additional label controls are proposed to implement the buffer zones and highlight risks to non-target plants for users.
• A label statement indicating: “WARNING, very toxic to some plant species. Certain plants may be damaged or killed from contact with this product. The substance should not be applied within a specified distance of a downwind area containing any non-target plants, the distance varies per use pattern (see buffer zone information)”
• A label statement indicating: “Before application users should be aware of any wetlands, indigenous vegetation habitat areas or reserves which may contain threatened plants adjacent to the application area”

as well as high risk for earthworms and collembola (which I guess are super important to soil health)

The data on wildlife seems low quality, but

The evidence was weighed using expert judgement, taking into consideration all aspects, including the uncertainty and data gaps. Based on the currently available information, the EPA concludes:
• there is a low to medium risk to birds from application of hydrogen cyanamide at 25.0 kg ai/ha to kiwifruit orchards in the acute/short-term
• there is a medium to high risk to birds from application of hydrogen cyanamide at 25.0 kg ai/ha to kiwifruit orchards in the long-term (reproduction toxicity).
..
No modified or additional controls that are considered workable have been identified that can mitigate the acute or chronic (reproductive) risks to birds to a negligible level. Consequently, the residual risk to birds is considered to be non-negligible

"hearsay and misinformation" seems way off tbh

[Jambanja]

Example of this has been around the use of hydrogen cyanamide as a bud breaker for kiwifruit and apples, we were told it was carcinogenic and that it killed wildlife etc etc etc, it was due to be banned on the back of these claims, so extensive studies have now been done on this product and not only is it not carcinogenic but there is no evidence that it does any harm to the wildlife or the soil.
Banning this product could have cost these industries billions, all based on nothing but hearsay and misinformation.

This doesn't appear to be true at all?

https://www.epa.govt.nz/public-consulta ... ssessment/ - ongoing re-assessment of hydrogen cyanamide.

We recommend making the following changes to the hazard classifications:

classify the soluble concentrate as skin and eye corrosive, rather than an irritant
change the specific target organ toxicity classification (from Category 1 to 2)
classify as hazardous to soil organisms.

From the report published in December:

Based on its revised evaluation and the need for a precautionary approach, the EPA considers that the benefits do not adequately outweigh the residual risks
...
In view of the identified risks to human health and the environment from the use of hydrogen cyanamide substances, the EPA recommends additional controls as identified throughout this report be set to minimise those risks
...
The following additional label controls are proposed to implement the buffer zones and highlight risks to non-target plants for users.
• A label statement indicating: “WARNING, very toxic to some plant species. Certain plants may be damaged or killed from contact with this product. The substance should not be applied within a specified distance of a downwind area containing any non-target plants, the distance varies per use pattern (see buffer zone information)”
• A label statement indicating: “Before application users should be aware of any wetlands, indigenous vegetation habitat areas or reserves which may contain threatened plants adjacent to the application area”

as well as high risk for earthworms and collembola (which I guess are super important to soil health)

The data on wildlife seems low quality, but

The evidence was weighed using expert judgement, taking into consideration all aspects, including the uncertainty and data gaps. Based on the currently available information, the EPA concludes:
• there is a low to medium risk to birds from application of hydrogen cyanamide at 25.0 kg ai/ha to kiwifruit orchards in the acute/short-term
• there is a medium to high risk to birds from application of hydrogen cyanamide at 25.0 kg ai/ha to kiwifruit orchards in the long-term (reproduction toxicity).
..
No modified or additional controls that are considered workable have been identified that can mitigate the acute or chronic (reproductive) risks to birds to a negligible level. Consequently, the residual risk to birds is considered to be non-negligible

"hearsay and misinformation" seems way off tbh

So labelling something as carcinogenic when it's clearly not (scientifically proven), that's not misinformation, or alarmism?

Furthermore, all the claims above re birds and earthworms are based on statistically insignificant data, they have been as yet unable to prove any of their claims, which is why they have made recommendations rather than actual requirements.
The EPA has been after this product for quite some time now, not because of science but because of politics, nothing else. I have a feeling that it will be around for many years to come because, despite claims, it's not the evil killer it has been portrayed to be, you probably have more dangerous stuff under your sink.
It's a bit like the beat up around Roundup, which is at least mildly carcinogenic, well on the same level as bacon, or working in a hair dressing salon, perception vs reality.

[JM2K6]

Example of this has been around the use of hydrogen cyanamide as a bud breaker for kiwifruit and apples, we were told it was carcinogenic and that it killed wildlife etc etc etc, it was due to be banned on the back of these claims, so extensive studies have now been done on this product and not only is it not carcinogenic but there is no evidence that it does any harm to the wildlife or the soil.
Banning this product could have cost these industries billions, all based on nothing but hearsay and misinformation.

This doesn't appear to be true at all?

https://www.epa.govt.nz/public-consulta ... ssessment/ - ongoing re-assessment of hydrogen cyanamide.

We recommend making the following changes to the hazard classifications:

classify the soluble concentrate as skin and eye corrosive, rather than an irritant
change the specific target organ toxicity classification (from Category 1 to 2)
classify as hazardous to soil organisms.

From the report published in December:

Based on its revised evaluation and the need for a precautionary approach, the EPA considers that the benefits do not adequately outweigh the residual risks
...
In view of the identified risks to human health and the environment from the use of hydrogen cyanamide substances, the EPA recommends additional controls as identified throughout this report be set to minimise those risks
...
The following additional label controls are proposed to implement the buffer zones and highlight risks to non-target plants for users.
• A label statement indicating: “WARNING, very toxic to some plant species. Certain plants may be damaged or killed from contact with this product. The substance should not be applied within a specified distance of a downwind area containing any non-target plants, the distance varies per use pattern (see buffer zone information)”
• A label statement indicating: “Before application users should be aware of any wetlands, indigenous vegetation habitat areas or reserves which may contain threatened plants adjacent to the application area”

as well as high risk for earthworms and collembola (which I guess are super important to soil health)

The data on wildlife seems low quality, but

The evidence was weighed using expert judgement, taking into consideration all aspects, including the uncertainty and data gaps. Based on the currently available information, the EPA concludes:
• there is a low to medium risk to birds from application of hydrogen cyanamide at 25.0 kg ai/ha to kiwifruit orchards in the acute/short-term
• there is a medium to high risk to birds from application of hydrogen cyanamide at 25.0 kg ai/ha to kiwifruit orchards in the long-term (reproduction toxicity).
..
No modified or additional controls that are considered workable have been identified that can mitigate the acute or chronic (reproductive) risks to birds to a negligible level. Consequently, the residual risk to birds is considered to be non-negligible

"hearsay and misinformation" seems way off tbh

So labelling something as carcinogenic when it's clearly not (scientifically proven), that's not misinformation, or alarmism?

Furthermore, all the claims above re birds and earthworms are based on statistically insignificant data, they have been as yet unable to prove any of their claims, which is why they have made recommendations rather than actual requirements.
The EPA has been after this product for quite some time now, not because of science but because of politics, nothing else. I have a feeling that it will be around for many years to come because, despite claims, it's not the evil killer it has been portrayed to be, you probably have more dangerous stuff under your sink.
It's a bit like the beat up around Roundup, which is at least mildly carcinogenic, well on the same level as bacon, or working in a hair dressing salon, perception vs reality.

What's your basis for the claim that it's statistically insignificant?

These are recommendations because that's all that specific report can do - the committee will turn them into requirements or otherwise based on everything the consultation comes up with.

I'm not sure this is a good faith discussion tbh

[Jambanja]

This doesn't appear to be true at all?

https://www.epa.govt.nz/public-consulta ... ssessment/ - ongoing re-assessment of hydrogen cyanamide.



From the report published in December:



as well as high risk for earthworms and collembola (which I guess are super important to soil health)

The data on wildlife seems low quality, but



"hearsay and misinformation" seems way off tbh

So labelling something as carcinogenic when it's clearly not (scientifically proven), that's not misinformation, or alarmism?

Furthermore, all the claims above re birds and earthworms are based on statistically insignificant data, they have been as yet unable to prove any of their claims, which is why they have made recommendations rather than actual requirements.
The EPA has been after this product for quite some time now, not because of science but because of politics, nothing else. I have a feeling that it will be around for many years to come because, despite claims, it's not the evil killer it has been portrayed to be, you probably have more dangerous stuff under your sink.
It's a bit like the beat up around Roundup, which is at least mildly carcinogenic, well on the same level as bacon, or working in a hair dressing salon, perception vs reality.

What's your basis for the claim that it's statistically insignificant?

These are recommendations because that's all that specific report can do - the committee will turn them into requirements or otherwise based on everything the consultation comes up with.

I'm not sure this is a good faith discussion tbh

I'm not sure what you mean by a good faith discussion.

I'm not sure what you involvement in the use and continued use of Hi-Cane is, but I'm involved in the industry in which it is used, I am aware of the type of research that has been done on Hydrogen Cyanimide and it's effects on wildlife etc and it is as you mentioned earlier, weak at best.
When we do research on a product to assess its efficacy and whether or not there are crop safety issues we do randomised replicated trials, the data is then gathered and run through a stats program to see whether or not there is a difference between the various products trialled and their efficacy, now there will always be some differences but what the stats program does is sperate the significant from the insignificant.
The trials done by the EPA were not conducted in this manner, they were done from a purely observational point of view, they sent people out into the orchards that had been sprayed with this product to see if they could notice an excess of dead birds post spraying-they didn't find any, I know this because a number of my clients were part of the sample group.
As for the earthworms, they have no data one way or the other and are taking, as mentioned in the report you quoted, a precautionary approach, which is EPA speak for "we have to be seen to be doing something because people don't like it"

The product has been used a very long time now and the productivity of the orchard and soil quality has been completely unaffected, plenty of earthworms everywhere, they have been planning on banning it within the next five years, for about the last twenty, the extensions up til now have been because the industry hasn't been able to come up with a viable alternative, once they realised they most likely weren't going to they decided to focus on what the actual problem with the product was, and this is when it was discovered after verifiable research, that it wasn't carcinogenic at all, once this discovery was made, the EPA, still under pressure to get rid of it, started making noise about earthworms and birds, like I said, it's political.

[JM2K6]

So labelling something as carcinogenic when it's clearly not (scientifically proven), that's not misinformation, or alarmism?

Furthermore, all the claims above re birds and earthworms are based on statistically insignificant data, they have been as yet unable to prove any of their claims, which is why they have made recommendations rather than actual requirements.
The EPA has been after this product for quite some time now, not because of science but because of politics, nothing else. I have a feeling that it will be around for many years to come because, despite claims, it's not the evil killer it has been portrayed to be, you probably have more dangerous stuff under your sink.
It's a bit like the beat up around Roundup, which is at least mildly carcinogenic, well on the same level as bacon, or working in a hair dressing salon, perception vs reality.

What's your basis for the claim that it's statistically insignificant?

These are recommendations because that's all that specific report can do - the committee will turn them into requirements or otherwise based on everything the consultation comes up with.

I'm not sure this is a good faith discussion tbh

I'm not sure what you mean by a good faith discussion.

I'm not sure what you involvement in the use and continued use of Hi-Cane is, but I'm involved in the industry in which it is used, I am aware of the type of research that has been done on Hydrogen Cyanimide and it's effects on wildlife etc and it is as you mentioned earlier, weak at best.
When we do research on a product to assess its efficacy and whether or not there are crop safety issues we do randomised replicated trials, the data is then gathered and run through a stats program to see whether or not there is a difference between the various products trialled and their efficacy, now there will always be some differences but what the stats program does is sperate the significant from the insignificant.
The trials done by the EPA were not conducted in this manner, they were done from a purely observational point of view, they sent people out into the orchards that had been sprayed with this product to see if they could notice an excess of dead birds post spraying-they didn't find any, I know this because a number of my clients were part of the sample group.
As for the earthworms, they have no data one way or the other and are taking, as mentioned in the report you quoted, a precautionary approach, which is EPA speak for "we have to be seen to be doing something because people don't like it"

The product has been used a very long time now and the productivity of the orchard and soil quality has been completely unaffected, plenty of earthworms everywhere, they have been planning on banning it within the next five years, for about the last twenty, the extensions up til now have been because the industry hasn't been able to come up with a viable alternative, once they realised they most likely weren't going to they decided to focus on what the actual problem with the product was, and this is when it was discovered after verifiable research, that it wasn't carcinogenic at all, once this discovery was made, the EPA, still under pressure to get rid of it, started making noise about earthworms and birds, like I said, it's political.

Cheers - I asked because I am always wary of people using statistical terms, most of the time they have no idea what they mean. I am not related to the industry - but I do deal with a NZ govt agency, testing methodology (for a different industry) is something I am professionally concerned with on a day to day basis, and I was genuinely "huh?" over the comment about the document that was designed to only give recommendations being criticised for only giving recommendations! :)

I had a look the other day at the testing methodology but it's split across multiple (dense) documents for each of the factors, and in there split further into tiers based on various factors, and at that point it's far too much like doing my own work to determine exactly how they were supposed to do it. Having a look this morning at some of the linked documents specifically regarding the soil organisms, and... well, that is pretty strange. It looks to me like they base the risk on various models but are having to say "the risk is probably lower because we've not actually seen any reproductive effects at the highest concentration tested" which rings alarm bells and is the sort of thing that really should lead to some questions regarding the model and the methodology. I'd say the collembola data is supposedly more robust and an actual concern. I do not have the expertise to say how much that actually matters...

[Jambanja]

What's your basis for the claim that it's statistically insignificant?

These are recommendations because that's all that specific report can do - the committee will turn them into requirements or otherwise based on everything the consultation comes up with.

I'm not sure this is a good faith discussion tbh

I'm not sure what you mean by a good faith discussion.

I'm not sure what you involvement in the use and continued use of Hi-Cane is, but I'm involved in the industry in which it is used, I am aware of the type of research that has been done on Hydrogen Cyanimide and it's effects on wildlife etc and it is as you mentioned earlier, weak at best.
When we do research on a product to assess its efficacy and whether or not there are crop safety issues we do randomised replicated trials, the data is then gathered and run through a stats program to see whether or not there is a difference between the various products trialled and their efficacy, now there will always be some differences but what the stats program does is sperate the significant from the insignificant.
The trials done by the EPA were not conducted in this manner, they were done from a purely observational point of view, they sent people out into the orchards that had been sprayed with this product to see if they could notice an excess of dead birds post spraying-they didn't find any, I know this because a number of my clients were part of the sample group.
As for the earthworms, they have no data one way or the other and are taking, as mentioned in the report you quoted, a precautionary approach, which is EPA speak for "we have to be seen to be doing something because people don't like it"

The product has been used a very long time now and the productivity of the orchard and soil quality has been completely unaffected, plenty of earthworms everywhere, they have been planning on banning it within the next five years, for about the last twenty, the extensions up til now have been because the industry hasn't been able to come up with a viable alternative, once they realised they most likely weren't going to they decided to focus on what the actual problem with the product was, and this is when it was discovered after verifiable research, that it wasn't carcinogenic at all, once this discovery was made, the EPA, still under pressure to get rid of it, started making noise about earthworms and birds, like I said, it's political.

Cheers - I asked because I am always wary of people using statistical terms, most of the time they have no idea what they mean. I am not related to the industry - but I do deal with a NZ govt agency, testing methodology (for a different industry) is something I am professionally concerned with on a day to day basis, and I was genuinely "huh?" over the comment about the document that was designed to only give recommendations being criticised for only giving recommendations! :)

I had a look the other day at the testing methodology but it's split across multiple (dense) documents for each of the factors, and in there split further into tiers based on various factors, and at that point it's far too much like doing my own work to determine exactly how they were supposed to do it. Having a look this morning at some of the linked documents specifically regarding the soil organisms, and... well, that is pretty strange. It looks to me like they base the risk on various models but are having to say "the risk is probably lower because we've not actually seen any reproductive effects at the highest concentration tested" which rings alarm bells and is the sort of thing that really should lead to some questions regarding the model and the methodology. I'd say the collembola data is supposedly more robust and an actual concern. I do not have the expertise to say how much that actually matters...

[JM2K6]

Is that stony silence? I feel judged

[Grandpa]

Is that stony silence? I feel judged

It's cutting... or a software error...

[Ymx]

Is that stony silence? I feel judged

It's cutting... or a software error...

It’s usually where someone has typed their response in to the wrong part of the message (ie not the bottom). Or if the post failed to send, and it comes back as the template and hit send.

Or …….. he’s archiving you !!!!!

[Snooze]

More fucking flooding up North. Mangawhai awash. Fuck me. The golf course being used as a shelter for the night. Some that are trapped are being put up by locals.

Anyone heard from FOG? Was it him holidaying around there?

[Grandpa]

More fucking flooding up North. Mangawhai awash. Fuck me. The golf course being used as a shelter for the night. Some that are trapped are being put up by locals.

Anyone heard from FOG? Was it him holidaying around there?

He's posting on PR today and seems ok

[Snooze]

More fucking flooding up North. Mangawhai awash. Fuck me. The golf course being used as a shelter for the night. Some that are trapped are being put up by locals.

Anyone heard from FOG? Was it him holidaying around there?

He's posting on PR today and seems ok

Good news. Thinks he's further south now actually. I get to Mangawhai in a week - suspect my holiday will be helping clean up the town. But, needs must and all that. And we must make sure the kegs of Guinness get thru to the tavern.

[Guy Smiley]

A workmate lives in Waihi Beach. He was out fishing early this morning and captured a bit of video showing several waterspouts off the coast there. News reports a tornado has damaged several houses and cut power to the town.

I reckon you'll arrive for the Pestilence Snooze. We're working through the list.

[Snooze]

A workmate lives in Waihi Beach. He was out fishing early this morning and captured a bit of video showing several waterspouts off the coast there. News reports a tornado has damaged several houses and cut power to the town.

I reckon you'll arrive for the Pestilence Snooze. We're working through the list.

Cheers mate. Can't wait.

Who would have thought the cold we're experiencing here in BC maybe a better option. Not fucking me I can tells ya.

[Guy Smiley]

On the bright side, I think we're well due for a calmer spell and some decent weather. I'm no specialist but a major factor in the summer of shit up north would be the marine heatwave fuelling high ocean surface temps around NZ. As the warmer summer temperatures begin to drop a little, surely we'll see some sort of return to.... whatever normal is now.

[Grandpa]

A workmate lives in Waihi Beach. He was out fishing early this morning and captured a bit of video showing several waterspouts off the coast there. News reports a tornado has damaged several houses and cut power to the town.

I reckon you'll arrive for the Pestilence Snooze. We're working through the list.

A couple of videos of the tornado in Waihi here...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/w ... -off-roofs

[Grandpa]

More fucking flooding up North. Mangawhai awash. Fuck me. The golf course being used as a shelter for the night. Some that are trapped are being put up by locals.

Anyone heard from FOG? Was it him holidaying around there?

He's posting on PR today and seems ok

Good news. Thinks he's further south now actually. I get to Mangawhai in a week - suspect my holiday will be helping clean up the town. But, needs must and all that. And we must make sure the kegs of Guinness get thru to the tavern.

Never been that far north... I need to explore north of Auckland more when I next return... looks gorgeous around that area...

[Fat Old Git]

Thanks for the concern fellas. Left Mangawhai on Wednesday so missed the flooding. Seemed to be the story of our trip. Missed the worst of it even during the middle of the cyclone.

Now back in Christchurch and have just had the joyous experience of turning my alarm back on for tomorrow morning. Grrrrrrr...

[Jambanja]

Is that stony silence? I feel judged

Sorry not stony silence, call it technical difficulties, I tried to post this smiley and I got error messages, tried several times and thought that because of the update there were issues
It was a good response

[Gumboot]

Good to hear you came through everything unscathed, FOG. The sprog and I have pretty much given up on our plans to visit the far north this summer.

[Fat Old Git]

That's a shame, but the weather seems to be threatening again so I don't blame you. Poor buggers have had a hell of a time.

We had a fantastic trip, even with 2 days of forced relaxation during the worst of it. Which was the only bad weather we had really, and didn’t really feel cyclonic apart from the storm surges. And that was in a wonderful sheltered spot with fantastic views of everything. Never really lost services apart from some power fluctuations that didn't last more than a few seconds. We had plenty of emergency rations (wine, cheese and beer etc), so realy didn't go through any hardship.