‘Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated failures. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Those inspiring words are attributed to Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States (1923-1929).
It’s easy to give up. Particularly when you choose to take-on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. But Bob F-J is no quitter. Following is yet another letter from Bob F-J to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation complaining about their Media Watch program of March 19. As Bob F-J explains in the following letter of complaint: Media Watch misled viewers by withholding critical facts. In particular, Media Watch failed to inform the Australian public about the majority view of scientists on the nature of the Murray River estuary and failed to inform the Australian public of the history of the Lower Murray and its estuary…
'Audience and Consumer Affairs, GPO Box 9994, Sydney 2001
28/June/2012
Dear Ms McLiesh,
Re: “What’s in a name” on Media Watch of March 19, 2012
I made a much broader subject complaint of May 8, and since have found that the ABC failed in its statutory duty in handling it. A&CA also failed to acknowledge the major issues in my original complaint and diverted to lesser points.
This new complaint focuses on the objective statutory issue. The particular breached clause in the ‘ABC Act 1983’ was:
8, Duties of the [ABC] Board:
8.1 (c) To ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism…
This is reflected in the Editorial Policies thus;
2, Accuracy, Principles:
The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate according to the recognised standards of objective journalism...
I submit that the ABC failed in this duty by way of the following examples:
A) Failed to inform the Australian public of the majority view of scientists on the nature of the Murray River’s estuary
Q1 Media Watch [email to Dr Marohasy]: Do you accept that the vast majority of recognised experts on the natural history and hydrology of the Lower Lakes disagree with your conclusion that they were estuarine immediately prior to the erection of the Murray Mouth barrages, or at any time in the past 2000 years?
A1 Jennifer Marohasy: No. The relevant scientific literature, as published in peer-reviewed journals by recognised experts, indicates that the Lower Lakes were estuarine prior to the erection of the Murray Mouth barrages. The following quote from a scientific paper published in the journal Marine Geology by Professors R.P. Bourman, A.P. Belperio, C.V. Murray-Wallace and N. Harvey, citing E. Barnett, seems to sum up the conclusion of these recognised experts:
“Originally a vibrant, highly productive estuarine ecosystem of 75,000 ha, characterised by mixing of brackish and fresh water with highly variable flows, barrage construction has transformed the lakes into freshwater bodies with permanently raised water levels; freshwater discharge has been reduced by 75% and the tidal prism by 90% (Bourman and Barnett, 1995, Marine Geology 170:141-168)
Professor John Cann and co-workers have studied fossil foraminifera – tiny protozoa with shells of calcium carbonate preserved in the sediments of the Lower Lakes – concluding that the changes in the foraminiferal assemblages over the most recent 2,000 years indicate a general trend of increasing marine influence, up until the construction of the barrages that now block the natural ebb and flow between the Lower Lakes and Southern Ocean. ( Cann et al., Quarternary Research 53:378-391)
Professor Peter Gell writing in the recently published The Sage Handbook of Environmental Change has commented that the natural state of the Lower Lakes was tidal, that the lakes have been incorrectly listed as freshwater in the International Ramsar Convention, and that until their natural estuarine character is recognised it will be difficult to reverse the long-term decline in their ecological health. (See Chapter 27. Human Impacts on Lacustrine Ecosystems, page 595)
Geoscience Australia classifies the Lower Lakes as part of a wave dominated barrier estuary with positive annual hydrodynamics. (Ryan et al., Conceptual Models of Australia’s Estuaries and Coastal Waterways: Application for Coastal Resource Management, Geoscience Australia Record 2003/09. See appendix D.)
As stated in my complaint, these references identify eighteen (18) independent scientists in that field that agree that the lakes were estuarine prior to the installation of the barrages, and yet Mr Holmes made absolutely no mention of that. Instead he made bald statements and quotes giving an entirely different inference towards Dr Marohasy’s competence in the matter. For instance he quoted and opined:
"Fairfax Media's The Stock Journal covered the story by posting an AEF media release: The new report [by Dr Marohasy]is supported by other peer-reviewed science papers and the historical record of the Lakes.
That's an extraordinarily contentious claim."
Yet, the consensus science and history is in overwhelming support. (although some other vested/political interests including a few controversial scientists….possibly with a vested interest….do contest it).
B) Failed to inform the Australian public of the history of the Lower Murray and its estuary
Dr Marohasy’s email response to Media Watch gave some brief history of the estuary prior to the barrages. The addendum included three maps and four newspaper articles. In my complaint item No.8 I wrote:
Both Dr Marohasy’s report and her reply to Media Watch advised brief histories recording estuarine conditions in the lakes prior to the barrages. It is baffling that there was zero mention of this in the show to support her and the AEF. Maybe the saline distribution maps and newspaper articles were too complicated for Media Watch staff to understand? Maybe just a couple of photos* below can help to clarify?
But again, there was absolutely no mention of the “inconvenient” history by Media Watch, and neither did it register with A&CA when emphasized with these photos!
In Summary:
Clearly Media Watch was in breach of Editorial Standard 3.1, that is, the program failed to:
3.1 Acknowledge and correct or clarify, in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable: a) significant material errors that are readily apparent or have been demonstrated; or b) information that is likely to significantly and materially mislead.
The Media Watch team erred and misled viewers by withholding critical facts in their possession! Consequently, the ABC should put corrections to air and in writing to Dr Marohasy, Prof Ridd and the AEF.
Also, although the editorial policies surprisingly do not include any considerations of ‘apology’, it would be proper to apologise to them just as was done in the case of Prof Ross Garnaut’s complaint against ‘The 7:30 Report’ over the programme “The Price of Gold”.
Yours sincerely,
Bob Fernley-Jones
*Photos of porpoise and marine Mulloway from the estuary before the barrages were constructed stopping the tide and damming the estuary/converting a once vibrant estuary into an artificial freshwater reservoir.
Bob_FJ,
Any estimated costs
Unfortunately that is beyond my knowledge.
After having a bit of a chit chat with Coorong Mullet to work out how much flow is required to keep the Lakes reasonably fresh during drought periods. It is based on flow/evap values only and does not take into account the hydrodynamics of keeping the Mouth open and how much water that would need. Figures have rounded up or down various values to make calcs quicker, but the resulting table does give an idea of what is needed.
Up to 20,000 hectares of acid sulfate soils were exposed in the Lower Lakes � this is the same acid that’s in car batteries.
Answer :
The acid sulphate soils of the Lower Lakes could have been avoided by the barrage gates being opened and allowing sea water in and would have prevented the Lakes levels dropping below sea level, - 1.00 M AHD. The gates during a drought and those intermediate dry years then only allow enough fresh water to be used to prevent hyper-salinity not water level. i.e. operation changed from maintaining levels to maintaining salinity below a set level.
As a starting point the end of drought year 1 actual conditions of the past drought viz lake at sea level with a volume of 1000GL and EC 4000. The table shows the EC of Lake water at the end of Y2, Y3 etc with variuos scenarios. Have also used 1000GL/y evaporation.
1000GL/y seawater 500sea/500fresh 1000 fresh 1500 fresh
End of Year 1 4000 4000 4000 4000
Year 2 54,000 29,250 4500 2750
Year 3 104,000 54,500 5000 2125
Year4 154,000 79,750 5500 1850
Etc
And that analysis did not take into account fresh water from rain or local runoff.
The conclusions are clear irrespective of the flaws in this sort of analysis. If there was absolutely no river flow then the lakes would become hypersaline.
But it only requires 1500GL/y (say 5GL/d) to keep the lakes fresh although this amount may not keep the mouth open.
This sort of figure to keep the lakes fresh seems to explain the fact that lake salinity has been fairly constant over time up to the drought even though extraction rates have been increasing.
And of course during a drought period the 2 million tonnes of salt is ridiculous and is more likely to be less than 100,000 tonnes to zero depending on the flow.