Blue Wedges is the main culprit in the campaign against dredging, but despite all the free publicity, they make no sense whatsoever. Take this example: The President of Blue Wedges, Jenny Warfe (HA HA warfe...), was told that a buoy that was independently monitored by Monash University has recorded a drop in the turbidity (the murkiness) of the water off St. Kilda, from 10 to three, 72 hours AFTER dredging began. She responded by saying "Well I supposed that depends where the buoy is doesn't it?". *cough* *cough*. Excuse me Mrs. Warfe, you claim that the entire bay will be devastated by the dredging so if your claims are true, then it wouldn't matter where the buoy was would it? Don't believe the statistics? http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23331434-2862,00.html
And there's more to come...
Monday, May 26, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
To begin with...
I would like to start off this blog with an article from the community newspaper 'The Sutton'. It is one of the few articles that actually support the dredging of Port Phillip Bay, much in keeping with the recent statistics that stated that 39% of Victorian supported dredging whereas only 43% of Victorians were against it. Here is the article:
"Whatever happened to the slight minority of Melbournians who actually support the dredging of Port Phillip Bay? The Sutton has found that roughly 75% of newspaper articles, news bulletins and similar forms of public media addressing the issue of dredging Port Phillip Bay were opposed to it. If you were to believe exclusively what the media told you and the number of anti-dredging articles, bulletins, etc, you would assume that Melbournians were overwhelmingly against dredging. Unfortunately for these people, that is not the case. A recent survey showed that only 43% of Victorians opposed dredging and 39% approved of it. This is far out of proportion to the 75% of media bulletins, articles, etc being negative. There are many examples of court rulings, environmental findings and the like not being reported or placed in obscure corners of newspapers. One of these examples is a court hearing on March 3rd where a judge told Blue Wedges to ‘find a law against dredging’. He also said that he was prepared to overturn a decision from the government, as his record shows, but he stated that ‘You have to show me where there is a legal basis to do so’ and generally rebutted all the arguments that Blue Wedges brought forward. Did you read about this hearing in a newspaper? Was it mentioned on the 6 o’clock news? Did you hear it being discussed on a radio station? Of course not! Another example is from March 7th and concerns the turbidity and sediment levels in Port Phillip Bay. Ten NTUs -- a measurement of suspended sediment -- were recorded at a buoy at St. Kilda the day before dredging moved north. This fell to just three NTUs 84 hours after dredging began. A safe limit of 70 units has been set for that area. Blue Wedges president, Jenny Warfe, said that the results were not consistent with reports from members of the organisation. She said “I suppose it depends where the buoy is, doesn't it? ”. She also dismissed plans for Monash University and the Australian Conservation Foundation to conduct their own monitoring. "Monitoring isn't necessarily going to stop this project and this project needs to be stopped for environmental reasons and also because of its pretty shoddy economic credentials,". The only shoddy credentials around here are her environmental (and perhaps take away ‘environ’ away from that word) credentials if she dismisses an opportunity for an independent university and foundation to conduct their own independent monitoring. It seems that they can’t handle the truth. Did you hear anything at all about this? I could go on for pages and pages about the many court hearings and findings that have gone ‘unnoticed’ by the media."
"Whatever happened to the slight minority of Melbournians who actually support the dredging of Port Phillip Bay? The Sutton has found that roughly 75% of newspaper articles, news bulletins and similar forms of public media addressing the issue of dredging Port Phillip Bay were opposed to it. If you were to believe exclusively what the media told you and the number of anti-dredging articles, bulletins, etc, you would assume that Melbournians were overwhelmingly against dredging. Unfortunately for these people, that is not the case. A recent survey showed that only 43% of Victorians opposed dredging and 39% approved of it. This is far out of proportion to the 75% of media bulletins, articles, etc being negative. There are many examples of court rulings, environmental findings and the like not being reported or placed in obscure corners of newspapers. One of these examples is a court hearing on March 3rd where a judge told Blue Wedges to ‘find a law against dredging’. He also said that he was prepared to overturn a decision from the government, as his record shows, but he stated that ‘You have to show me where there is a legal basis to do so’ and generally rebutted all the arguments that Blue Wedges brought forward. Did you read about this hearing in a newspaper? Was it mentioned on the 6 o’clock news? Did you hear it being discussed on a radio station? Of course not! Another example is from March 7th and concerns the turbidity and sediment levels in Port Phillip Bay. Ten NTUs -- a measurement of suspended sediment -- were recorded at a buoy at St. Kilda the day before dredging moved north. This fell to just three NTUs 84 hours after dredging began. A safe limit of 70 units has been set for that area. Blue Wedges president, Jenny Warfe, said that the results were not consistent with reports from members of the organisation. She said “I suppose it depends where the buoy is, doesn't it? ”. She also dismissed plans for Monash University and the Australian Conservation Foundation to conduct their own monitoring. "Monitoring isn't necessarily going to stop this project and this project needs to be stopped for environmental reasons and also because of its pretty shoddy economic credentials,". The only shoddy credentials around here are her environmental (and perhaps take away ‘environ’ away from that word) credentials if she dismisses an opportunity for an independent university and foundation to conduct their own independent monitoring. It seems that they can’t handle the truth. Did you hear anything at all about this? I could go on for pages and pages about the many court hearings and findings that have gone ‘unnoticed’ by the media."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
