Here

Tonight I want to talk about the future.

I know that it’s not a novel thing to do; not even a new thing to do. Indeed, Hansard records that the word “future” was used 848 times in the Australian Parliament just last June; a number that appears to be the highest monthly count on record.

I will use the word “future” a lot, too, tonight. Not 848 times – but often enough to emphasise the point that we can choose the sort of future we get: we can take what comes and muddle along; or we can work out what we want and earn it by planning, prioritising and persistence.

I am not one of those who thinks that good things will just happen because we expect them to.

I think we need to organise, evaluate and cohere – to make sure that we align our efforts and our investment with our national interests; that we focus on areas that are of particular importance or where there is a particular need; and that we build to a scale that will make a difference both to ourselves and to a changing world.

I am comfortable saying that here because I think Jack Beale would say the same. He was a scientist and a statesman, an innovator and a man of business. He was a politician who thought about the future.

In many ways, he put the future of our planet – particularly its water resources – on the map. He was ahead of his time.

He was Australia’s first environment minister – and among the first to think that such a role might have a place in our politics.

He made his motivation very clear when he said:

Australia is the lowest, flattest, hottest and driest continent on the earth and we have to manage it accordingly.

Of course, in Jack Beale’s day, in his political life, some things were probably a little less complicated (even less complex) than they appear to be now.

More…

>Hansard records that the word “future” was used 848 times in the Australian Parliament just last June

Perhaps if they used ‘going forward’, the results would be even more startling…

Boris said:

Of course, in Jack Beale’s day, in his political life, some things were probably a little less complicated (even less complex) than they appear to be now.

Gina probably used to be a babe in the old days, not just the perished and bloated old condom she looks like now

wookiemeister said:

Boris said:

Of course, in Jack Beale’s day, in his political life, some things were probably a little less complicated (even less complex) than they appear to be now.

Gina probably used to be a babe in the old days, not just the perished and bloated old condom she looks like now

at least one of her daughters looks ok,,

I used to be cruel at school

wookiemeister said:

I used to be cruel at school

yes, I remember YOU :)(

it doesn’t matter what anyone here thinks about global warming or the environment, it isn’t within the scope of our job hence we are ignored whatever we think.

I’m surprised anyone is even arguing about the environment anymore, exactly what can anyone do now SFA. get used to it put your sunnies on, sit back and enjoy the ride

wookiemeister said:

it doesn’t matter what anyone here thinks about global warming or the environment, it isn’t within the scope of our job hence we are ignored whatever we think.

I’m surprised anyone is even arguing about the environment anymore, exactly what can anyone do now SFA. get used to it put your sunnies on, sit back and enjoy the ride

and enjoy the interglacial and the 2 x co2 reality

maybe if you read it you would see it isn’t about the environment. but the teaching of science environment.

wookiemeister said:

it doesn’t matter what anyone here thinks about global warming or the environment, it isn’t within the scope of our job hence we are ignored whatever we think.

I’m surprised anyone is even arguing about the environment anymore, exactly what can anyone do now SFA. get used to it put your sunnies on, sit back and enjoy the ride

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY

mankind fucks the environment – period

wookiemeister said:

mankind fucks the environment – period

no, mankind is very mush part of the situation

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

mankind fucks the environment – period

no, mankind is very mush part of the situation

like a weed

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

mankind fucks the environment – period

no, mankind is very mush part of the situation

like a weed

like oxygen

not much hope for science in this country if the level of ignorance, can’t even be bothered actually reading the lecture, so far in this thread is anything to go by.

Boris said:

not much hope for science in this country if the level of ignorance, can’t even be bothered actually reading the lecture, so far in this thread is anything to go by.

Might be disinterest, ignorance is a strong word.

Boris said:

not much hope for science in this country if the level of ignorance, can’t even be bothered actually reading the lecture, so far in this thread is anything to go by.

links in most threads are barely ever read in this political holiday forum

geez just read the op then to see where it was going. too lazy for that even. and yes it is ignorance.

still get better response on facebook.

:-)

The_observer said:

Boris said:

not much hope for science in this country if the level of ignorance, can’t even be bothered actually reading the lecture, so far in this thread is anything to go by.

links in most threads are barely ever read in this political holiday forum

Yes, lets face it, that’s true.
Its more of a social, or perhaps anti-social forum where people talk about their daily events, crises, food, drink and political opinions.

Boris said:

geez just read the op then to see where it was going. too lazy for that even. and yes it is ignorance.

well you could do better yourself

morrie said:

The_observer said:

Boris said:

not much hope for science in this country if the level of ignorance, can’t even be bothered actually reading the lecture, so far in this thread is anything to go by.

links in most threads are barely ever read in this political holiday forum

Yes, lets face it, that’s true.
Its more of a social, or perhaps anti-social forum where people talk about their daily events, crises, food, drink and political opinions.

lots of people here use this site as a social platform.

It’s also a somewhat exclusive club

morrie said:

The_observer said:

Boris said:

not much hope for science in this country if the level of ignorance, can’t even be bothered actually reading the lecture, so far in this thread is anything to go by.

links in most threads are barely ever read in this political holiday forum

Yes, lets face it, that’s true.
Its more of a social, or perhaps anti-social forum where people talk about their daily events, crises, food, drink and political opinions.

I try and read everything but the petty fighting often obscures the facts.

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

The_observer said:

links in most threads are barely ever read in this political holiday forum

Yes, lets face it, that’s true.
Its more of a social, or perhaps anti-social forum where people talk about their daily events, crises, food, drink and political opinions.

I try and read everything but the petty fighting often obscures the facts.

so true

The_observer said:

morrie said:

The_observer said:

links in most threads are barely ever read in this political holiday forum

Yes, lets face it, that’s true.
Its more of a social, or perhaps anti-social forum where people talk about their daily events, crises, food, drink and political opinions.

lots of people here use this site as a social platform.

It’s also a somewhat exclusive club

Aytone who thinks this place is a science forum must believe in fairies.

It has always been a chat room.

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

morrie said:

Yes, lets face it, that’s true.
Its more of a social, or perhaps anti-social forum where people talk about their daily events, crises, food, drink and political opinions.

lots of people here use this site as a social platform.

It’s also a somewhat exclusive club

Aytone who thinks this place is a science forum must believe in fairies.

It has always been a chat room.

a chat octagon even …. ;)

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

morrie said:

Yes, lets face it, that’s true.
Its more of a social, or perhaps anti-social forum where people talk about their daily events, crises, food, drink and political opinions.

lots of people here use this site as a social platform.

It’s also a somewhat exclusive club

Aytone who thinks this place is a science forum must believe in fairies.

It has always been a chat room.

A chat room where science more often is argued than religion.

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

The_observer said:

lots of people here use this site as a social platform.

It’s also a somewhat exclusive club

Aytone who thinks this place is a science forum must believe in fairies.

It has always been a chat room.

A chat room where science more often is argued than religion.

That’s because most people have enough sense not to argue about religion.

Science is open slather.

jjjust moi said:

roughbarked said:

jjjust moi said:

Aytone who thinks this place is a science forum must believe in fairies.

It has always been a chat room.

A chat room where science more often is argued than religion.

That’s because most people have enough sense not to argue about religion.

Science is open slather.

So by that you are inferring that we all have enough sense.

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

no, mankind is very mush part of the situation

like a weed

like oxygen

mankind is like a natural disaster, snowball earth, the asteroid, the great dying

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

like a weed

like oxygen

mankind is like a natural disaster, snowball earth, the asteroid, the great dying

stop it wookie, you’re better than that

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

like oxygen

mankind is like a natural disaster, snowball earth, the asteroid, the great dying

stop it wookie, you’re better than that

mankind makes oil slicks – in the grand scheme of things they don’t happen very often in nature

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

mankind is like a natural disaster, snowball earth, the asteroid, the great dying

stop it wookie, you’re better than that

mankind makes oil slicks – in the grand scheme of things they don’t happen very often in nature

oil slicks made the world a better place

wookiemeister said:

The_observer said:

wookiemeister said:

mankind is like a natural disaster, snowball earth, the asteroid, the great dying

stop it wookie, you’re better than that

mankind makes oil slicks – in the grand scheme of things they don’t happen very often in nature

They drilled for oil near here back in the early 1900s on the basis of an oil slick. First oil well in the country IIRC. Didn’t turn up anything.

I was talking to a weed sprayer recently lamenting them banning DDT!!

he reckons its great stuff

too many hours exposed to weed killer methinks

Thanks for the link Boris.

(and don’t be dispirited by the crap merchants).

nah. i know some still like science around here.

wookiemeister said:

I was talking to a weed sprayer recently lamenting them banning DDT!!

he reckons its great stuff

too many hours exposed to weed killer methinks

it is great stuff,,, used for the right purposes & the right reasons.

As Bjorn Lomborg put it; ““Our intake of coffee is about 50 times more carcinogenic than our intake of DDT before it was banned…the cancer risk for DDT is about 0.00008 per cent.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks for the link Boris.

(and don’t be dispirited by the crap merchants).

you so , oh, I don’t know, up there rev

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks for the link Boris.

(and don’t be dispirited by the crap merchants).

So if we don’t read every link that is put up here we’re crap merchants?

I called you an arrogant prick some years ago. I see nothing to change my opinion.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks for the link Boris.

(and don’t be dispirited by the crap merchants).

So if we don’t read every link that is put up here we’re crap merchants?

I called you an arrogant prick some years ago. I see nothing to change my opinion.

You’re so vain, I bet you think this post is about you.

Interesting read, but sadly I’ve heard it all before.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks for the link Boris.

(and don’t be dispirited by the crap merchants).

So if we don’t read every link that is put up here we’re crap merchants?

I called you an arrogant prick some years ago. I see nothing to change my opinion.

Rev’s a stand out bloke jm, just ask him!

does seem to be a recurring theme p_p. still might get through one day.

ABC

Norwegians become crown millionaires as sovereign wealth fund hits benchmark

Everyone in Norway became a theoretical millionaire on Wednesday, in a milestone for the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund that has ballooned thanks to high oil and gas prices.

Set up in 1990, the fund owns around 1 per cent of the world’s stocks, as well as bonds and real estate from London to Boston, making the Nordic nation an exception when others are struggling under a mountain of debts.

A preliminary counter on the website of the central bank, which manages the fund, rose to 5.11 trillion crowns ($931.87 billion), fractionally more than a million times Norway’s most recent official population estimate of 5,096,300.

It was the first time it reached the equivalent of a million crowns each, central bank spokesman Thomas Sevang said.

Not that Norwegians will be able to access or spend the money, which is being saved for future generations or times of national hardship.

Norway has resisted the temptation to splurge all the windfall since striking oil in the North Sea in 1969.

Finance minister Siv Jensen says the fund, called the Government Pension Fund Global, had helped iron out big, unpredictable swings in oil and gas prices.

Norway is the world’s number seven oil exporter.

“Many countries have found that temporary large revenues from natural resource exploitation produce relatively short-lived booms that are followed by difficult adjustments,” she said.

The fund, equivalent to 183 per cent of 2013 gross domestic product, is expected to peak at 220 per cent around 2030.

“The fund is a success in the sense that parliament has managed to put aside money for the future. There are many examples of countries that have not managed that,” said Oeystein Doerum, chief economist at DNB Markets.

Norway has sought to avoid the boom and bust cycle by investing the cash abroad, rather than at home.

Governments can spend 4 per cent of the fund in Norway each year, slightly more than the annual return on investment.

Still, in Norway, oil wealth may have made the state reluctant to make reforms or cut subsidies unthinkable elsewhere.

Farm subsidies allow farmers, for instance, to keep dairy cows in heated barns in the Arctic.

It may also have made some Norwegians reluctant to work.

“One in five people of working age receives some kind of social insurance instead of working,” Mr Doerum said, despite an official unemployment rate of 3.3 per cent.

>Norway has sought to avoid the boom and bust cycle by investing the cash abroad, rather than at home.

Hopefully not in Iceland.

morrie said:

>Norway has sought to avoid the boom and bust cycle by investing the cash abroad, rather than at home.

Hopefully not in Iceland.

Boris said:

does seem to be a recurring theme p_p. still might get through one day.

One can only hope.

Norway own on average 2.5% of every listed company in Europe.

party_pants said:

Norway own on average 2.5% of every listed company in Europe.

Why so low?

dv said:

party_pants said:

Norway own on average 2.5% of every listed company in Europe.

Why so low?

The European economy is so big.

Boris said:

ABC

Norwegians become crown millionaires as sovereign wealth fund hits benchmark

Everyone in Norway became a theoretical millionaire on Wednesday, in a milestone for the world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund that has ballooned thanks to high oil and gas prices.

Set up in 1990, the fund owns around 1 per cent of the world’s stocks, as well as bonds and real estate from London to Boston, making the Nordic nation an exception when others are struggling under a mountain of debts.

A preliminary counter on the website of the central bank, which manages the fund, rose to 5.11 trillion crowns ($931.87 billion), fractionally more than a million times Norway’s most recent official population estimate of 5,096,300.

It was the first time it reached the equivalent of a million crowns each, central bank spokesman Thomas Sevang said.

Not that Norwegians will be able to access or spend the money, which is being saved for future generations or times of national hardship.

Norway has resisted the temptation to splurge all the windfall since striking oil in the North Sea in 1969.

Finance minister Siv Jensen says the fund, called the Government Pension Fund Global, had helped iron out big, unpredictable swings in oil and gas prices.

Norway is the world’s number seven oil exporter.

“Many countries have found that temporary large revenues from natural resource exploitation produce relatively short-lived booms that are followed by difficult adjustments,” she said.

The fund, equivalent to 183 per cent of 2013 gross domestic product, is expected to peak at 220 per cent around 2030.

“The fund is a success in the sense that parliament has managed to put aside money for the future. There are many examples of countries that have not managed that,” said Oeystein Doerum, chief economist at DNB Markets.

Norway has sought to avoid the boom and bust cycle by investing the cash abroad, rather than at home.

Governments can spend 4 per cent of the fund in Norway each year, slightly more than the annual return on investment.

Still, in Norway, oil wealth may have made the state reluctant to make reforms or cut subsidies unthinkable elsewhere.

Farm subsidies allow farmers, for instance, to keep dairy cows in heated barns in the Arctic.

It may also have made some Norwegians reluctant to work.

“One in five people of working age receives some kind of social insurance instead of working,” Mr Doerum said, despite an official unemployment rate of 3.3 per cent.

Imagine if every country did that

CrazyNeutrino said:

Imagine if every country did that

Well if every country did that that would mean that there is a shitload of oil and it would be worth SFA.

:)

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Imagine if every country did that

People thought that Japan might do this during the 1980s with how well its economy was doing with exports. However after a bubble burst, poor economic management since then has left Japan with the highest debt levels of any country in the developed world.

sibeen said:

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

Dubai is betting its oil money on being a regional economic hub. Be interesting to see how it turns out.

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Imagine if every country did that

Well if every country did that that would mean that there is a shitload of oil and it would be worth SFA.

:)

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

Norway is a large country by European standards. One of the largest.

Australia has a large population and great mineral wealth but has basically pissed that against the wall.

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Imagine if every country did that

Well if every country did that that would mean that there is a shitload of oil and it would be worth SFA.

:)

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

Norway is a large country by European standards. One of the largest.

Australia has a SMALL population and great mineral wealth but has basically pissed that against the wall.

I’ve never pissed any great mineral wealth against a wall in my life.

A million Norwegian krone ain’t that much…

dv said:

A million Norwegian krone ain’t that much…

There’s a fair chance that every Rwandan is a millionaire.

dv said:

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Imagine if every country did that

Well if every country did that that would mean that there is a shitload of oil and it would be worth SFA.

:)

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

Norway is a large country by European standards. One of the largest.

Australia has a SMALL population and great mineral wealth but has basically pissed that against the wall.

yeah, kinda sorta.

We have a particular model of mining that only private companies are allowed to do the actual mining if they pay a royalty to the state government. It’s the old issue of do we need state governments, and also can we do things better through publicly-owned enterprises.

dv said:

sibeen said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Imagine if every country did that

Well if every country did that that would mean that there is a shitload of oil and it would be worth SFA.

:)

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

Norway is a large country by European standards. One of the largest.

Yeah, right up there at number 28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population

morrie said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Well if every country did that that would mean that there is a shitload of oil and it would be worth SFA.

:)

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

Norway is a large country by European standards. One of the largest.

Yeah, right up there at number 28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population

DV probably meant by area, but who can really ever tell what that man thinks.

He’s an enigma.

:)

morrie said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Well if every country did that that would mean that there is a shitload of oil and it would be worth SFA.

:)

Norway has a small population, a small landmass and huge oil reserves. That makes for easy decisions.

Norway is a large country by European standards. One of the largest.

Yeah, right up there at number 28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population

What the fuck… that’s a list by population, not area. 8-/

It is the fifth largest European country (not counting the partly European Russia)

dv said:

morrie said:

dv said:

Norway is a large country by European standards. One of the largest.

Yeah, right up there at number 28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population

What the fuck… that’s a list by population, not area. 8-/

It is the fifth largest European country (not counting the partly European Russia)

wtf has area got to do with anything?

morrie said:

dv said:

morrie said:

Yeah, right up there at number 28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population

What the fuck… that’s a list by population, not area. 8-/

It is the fifth largest European country (not counting the partly European Russia)

wtf has area got to do with anything?

The millionaires are counted by population, not land area.

morrie said:

dv said:

morrie said:

Yeah, right up there at number 28.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population

What the fuck… that’s a list by population, not area. 8-/

It is the fifth largest European country (not counting the partly European Russia)

wtf has area got to do with anything?

What has area got to do with landmass? Quite a lot. Someone else said Norway has a small landmass. I said it was large by European standards. Try to follow the ball…

dv said:

morrie said:

dv said:

What the fuck… that’s a list by population, not area. 8-/

It is the fifth largest European country (not counting the partly European Russia)

wtf has area got to do with anything?

What has area got to do with landmass? Quite a lot. Someone else said Norway has a small landmass. I said it was large by European standards. Try to follow the ball…

Its bouncing too much. I think sibeen is dizzy too.

Actually it was not someone else. It was sibeen. Sibeen said Norway had a small landmass. I don’t know why he raised the topic of landmass: i’m not a psychologist. But, that topic having been raised, I chipped in that Norway is a large country by European standards.

dv said:

Actually it was not someone else. It was sibeen. Sibeen said Norway had a small landmass. I don’t know why he raised the topic of landmass: i’m not a psychologist. But, that topic having been raised, I chipped in that Norway is a large country by European standards.

Ah, but your comment was ambiguous. He mentioned both population and landmass.

sibeen is a well known trouble maker

dv said:

Actually it was not someone else. It was sibeen. Sibeen said Norway had a small landmass. I don’t know why he raised the topic of landmass: i’m not a psychologist. But, that topic having been raised, I chipped in that Norway is a large country by European standards.

I raised it as infrastructure spending is easier when you have a reasonably dense population. If Australia had the same population density as Norway, and yet still had the same mineral wealth, it would be far easier to squirrel money away. Notwithstanding the point that Party already raised about the mineral wealth being a State and not Commonwealth right.

morrie said:

dv said:

Actually it was not someone else. It was sibeen. Sibeen said Norway had a small landmass. I don’t know why he raised the topic of landmass: i’m not a psychologist. But, that topic having been raised, I chipped in that Norway is a large country by European standards.

Ah, but your comment was ambiguous. He mentioned both population and landmass.

Well okay true enough but given that a) it has a small population and b) a relatively large area and c) I am kind of a geography nerd and not likely to be unaware of these…

dv said:

morrie said:

dv said:

Actually it was not someone else. It was sibeen. Sibeen said Norway had a small landmass. I don’t know why he raised the topic of landmass: i’m not a psychologist. But, that topic having been raised, I chipped in that Norway is a large country by European standards.

Ah, but your comment was ambiguous. He mentioned both population and landmass.

Well okay true enough but given that a) it has a small population and b) a relatively large area and c) I am kind of a geography nerd and not likely to be unaware of these…

From what I saw, much of Norway was icy bloody mountains.

morrie said:

dv said:

morrie said:

Ah, but your comment was ambiguous. He mentioned both population and landmass.

Well okay true enough but given that a) it has a small population and b) a relatively large area and c) I am kind of a geography nerd and not likely to be unaware of these…

From what I saw, much of Norway was icy bloody mountains.

Well the hot dusty plains were a freezing surprise for my Norwegian grandkids.

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

dv said:

Well okay true enough but given that a) it has a small population and b) a relatively large area and c) I am kind of a geography nerd and not likely to be unaware of these…

From what I saw, much of Norway was icy bloody mountains.

Well the hot dusty plains were a freezing surprise for my Norwegian grandkids.

If they had stayed a little longer they might have been surprised that the relatively constant day length too.

morrie said:

roughbarked said:

morrie said:

From what I saw, much of Norway was icy bloody mountains.

Well the hot dusty plains were a freezing surprise for my Norwegian grandkids.

If they had stayed a little longer they might have been surprised that the relatively constant day length too.

Their body clocks were so far out it wasn’t fun at all.

The_observer said:

As Bjorn Lomborg put it; ““Our intake of coffee is about 50 times more carcinogenic than our intake of DDT before it was banned…the cancer risk for DDT is about 0.00008 per cent.”

As I understand it, DDT was not banned because it was dangerous to humans.

“The book claimed that DDT and other pesticides had been shown to cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

As Bjorn Lomborg put it; ““Our intake of coffee is about 50 times more carcinogenic than our intake of DDT before it was banned…the cancer risk for DDT is about 0.00008 per cent.”

As I understand it, DDT was not banned because it was dangerous to humans.

“The book claimed that DDT and other pesticides had been shown to cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

A lot of books. Not only Silent Spring.. It was more about the cumulative effect in the ecosystems it entered. We talk about stuff like half life of nuclear isotopes. DDT is still to reach peak in the environment. If we hadn’t stopped we could really have created the silent spring. I recommend a film which can be borrowed from the national film library. Broccoli, Celery, Pelicans and Seals.

It is a real eye opener.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

As Bjorn Lomborg put it; ““Our intake of coffee is about 50 times more carcinogenic than our intake of DDT before it was banned…the cancer risk for DDT is about 0.00008 per cent.”

As I understand it, DDT was not banned because it was dangerous to humans.

“The book claimed that DDT and other pesticides had been shown to cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

A lot of books. Not only Silent Spring.. It was more about the cumulative effect in the ecosystems it entered. We talk about stuff like half life of nuclear isotopes. DDT is still to reach peak in the environment. If we hadn’t stopped we could really have created the silent spring. I recommend a film which can be borrowed from the national film library. Broccoli, Celery, Pelicans and Seals.

It is a real eye opener.

ie: when we were using DDT to control bollworm in cotton, it was in the Ord river scheme. Within a decade application rates had soared 1,000 times to nil change in pest attack, yet the wildlife was dying. The farmers purse was drying. Not only too expensive since the life cycles of the target species were too short and the survivors were more immune, their offspring more so. It was more about the concentration of the DDT in fatty tissues of other birds and mammals. Where it is stored and further concentrated until it is released in such circumstances as was graphically displayed in the film mentioned above.