Press Releases

Thursday 8th July 2010

NSAG are feeding the media with red herrings in order to scare the general public

Over the 4 days of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal much evidence has been heard. “NSAG has latched onto some evidence that pertains to chemicals that aren’t even on the Adelaide. They were used as examples in the case and NSAG have taken them out of context”. Said Sue Dengate from Central Coast Artificial Reef Project (Ccarp)

“Let’s put the record straight with the following, and you can quote me” Said Sue Dengate

  1. It has not been determined that the red paint on board the Adelaide is ‘red lead’. RAN uses ‘no lead’ primer that has been pigmented red. However, the State will plan a random sampling that will be taken throughout the Adelaide to determine if there is lead content and any subsequent levels and results should be in hand by next Wednesday
  2. The lead in ‘red lead primer’ is tetroxide and has a low solubility (inert) and will NOT leech into the water, nor will it be passed up the food chain (it does not biomagnify). Lead carbonate does that and none of that exists on the Adelaide. Therefore there is no harm to humans!!!
  3. There is general consensus in the conclave of experts (2 for NSAG and 3 for NSW) that copper and zinc chromate, if present, will NOT contaminate and even 1 NSAG expert considers antifouling contamination to be “negligible”  
  4.  One NSAG expert even states that the estimated upper amount of lead that might be on the Adelaide “is unlikely to exceed harmful levels” and that regarding copper “the risk to humans is negligible”
  5. The Adelaide MORE THAN MEETS ALL guidelines for artificial reefs of military vessels. These guidelines are laid down by protocols of the London Convention for Dumping, British Columbia (Canada) Convention and the United States Environmental Protection Act and the Australian Commonwealth always seeks to meet or exceed these protocols.
  6.  All literature regarding case studies of military vessel artificial reefs, both in Australia and overseas, indicate no excess levels of lead and the Adelaide is a FAR CLEANER ship than any of these (eg the ex Swan, Perth and Hobart reefs) as it is younger and when built contained less contaminates.
  7. A NSAG expert admitted under oath that his research for the case was done by simply reading articles and trying to extract relevance  and he admitted that much of his evidence was mere speculation!
  8. As far as the PCB issue is concerned, NSAG had to drop this, their MAIN claim, as the results of 80 samples taken concluded that 77 were ZERO and 3 were a low positive due to capacitors and the like touching 3 surfaces during removal in the initial phase of stripping the Adelaide.
  9. NSAG have been attempting to ‘ambush’ the State’s case by bringing up issues at the last minute (that they had previously dropped) in yet another attempt to prolong the case and make it difficult for the State to focus their attentions on the matters at hand. THIS IS COSTING US ALL MONEY!!
  10. It is clear that NSAG are not interested in what happens to benthic organisms (those beneath the sand), but we, as marine environmentalists do care and we are of the firm belief that there is no risk of harm. NSAG just don’t want the Adelaide off their beach
  11. Why is it that the Environmental Defenders Office is assisting NSAG when clearly they are not interested in the science of contamination verses pollution, they just don’t want the ship! 

  
“The Tribunal hearing will reconvene next Friday 16th July as there is still evidence to be heard. It has run overtime because NSAG has reintroduced issues that they previously had dropped” Said Sue Dengate

“We are confident that the Tribunal will come to a decision that will favour the scuttling of the Adelaide and the people of the State of NSW can finally enjoy this wonderful artificial reef” Sue Dengate said

 

For further information please call Sue Dengate on: Ph. 0417 028286

← Previous | Next →