Jump to content

Desalination Plant found to be linked to fish kills


Recommended Posts

Usually id be cringing at the inept journalism of Today Tonight....nevertheless very intersting and enirely plausable.Alas the mere plebs that we are will have the over politisised :c pulled over our eyes and we will never know or be able to trust what's going on.Chemical free backwash is complete :c , just not how desal is done! Discharger during the dodge tide? Would be rather dissapointing if this was indeed true but sadly unsuprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how what you say or how that link is industry news but anyway, whatever gets u off.First off all, anything linked to TT has to be taken with a grain of salt :P . Even after all the editing, the intelligent person stooping low enough to watch such rubbish (let alone believe the jist of the story) will quickly hear all the maybe's, could'ves, would'ves that the professor states. He makes it quite clear its his opinion going off the limited data that is made public.This data can be found here, the graphs show the salinty levels 100m from the defuser.http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/water_quality/adelaide_desalination_plant_monitoring/monitoring_reportsYou will also notice that the scale is in particles /1000. Download the graphs Brett, try and understand some data for a change and you will see that the variance from day to day when related to the scale is quite small.Just to clarify, he is saying that this "back flushing" of the intakes could have actually DROPPED the salinity levels in the adjacent area , and when combined with higher temps, this FRESHER water could promote Algal blooms, that then killed the fish.So if the professor is right, it was an algal bloom that has killed the fish, just that it was made worse due to LOWER salinity levels in the area during 2 days, not HIGHER, Nor some exotic chemicals used to clean the membranes. Pretty close to what the EPA and government are running with don't you think?Add a bit of today tonite editing, some internet foil crew , and voila, as you titled this thread "Desalination plant found to be linked to fish kill"This professors credentials can be found here: http://www.flinders.edu.au/people/jochen.kaempfby all means a smart man, much smarter than most, but you will also see that like most of us, he has a passion:"He is also renowned as a scientific activist promoting protection of South Australia's precious marine habitat"This could explain why he joined you guys at Porties jetty during your facebook "we want answers" march.He may be "independent" but I'm sure he would love nothing more than to prove that the white elephant killed all the bait steeling leatheries. If he can use his qualifications to do so, good luck to him, but out of all this debacle, he is the only one amongst all the other qualified people to even remotely say the desal COULD have played a part.Ive never heard of a legit whistle blower blowing the cover on such a scam by going onto current affair or Today tonite.His opinion, may be more educated than all of us on the forum, but at this stage still an opinion, by no means official and as per usual, the Tin foil crew will grasp at any semi reliable source to back up their claims, at least he is much smarter and backs his theories with facts and data not hearsayhappy to be proven wrong, would love nothing more than seeing that plant never work again, but this last piece of evidence is far from conclusive

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the story as seen on Today tonight by Professor Jochen Kaempf' date=' showing evidence that the DESAL was the cause of localised fish kills.http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=1651[/quote']I guess it needs to be put into perspective. It's simply the opinion of one person. Yeah, Kaempf has qualifications as an oceanographer and clearly is a smart guy, but just because one smart guy has an opinion doesn't mean his opinion is a dead set certainty to be right - that's not how science works. It will be interesting to hear what other equally or more qualified experts have to say, and whether they support or reject his claims. I'm surprised anyway that the cynics on this website haven't disregarded Kaempf's opinions some time ago. Usually people like Kaempf are labelled overpaid, over qualified academics that have no idea and are out of touch with the real world..... but I guess whilst his opinions continue to support some peoples views, he will be seen as some sort of moral crusader battling against a darker force. I digress....One thing that I noted when I briefly watched that report on TV, was a comment he made in the last minute or so of his interview. He said something about this "soup" would have been hanging around the Port Noarlunga reef, hence why so many dead leather jackets were affected and found washed ashore. That comment didn't seem right IMO. I get the feeling Kaempf has never snorkelled that reef. I've snorkelled it dozens and dozens of times and never seen schools of pigmy leatherjackets around there, or around the general vicinity for that matter. I did recently come across some massive schools of pigmy leather jackets 7km offshore from O'sullies, in the middle of nowhere, not sitting over any type of structure. So in my opinion, his correlation that the pigmy leather jackets killed were from the Noarlunga reef, just down the road from the desal plant, is probably a little too convenient, and not correct.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh guys were do we start on that last lot of tripe.Yes I am fully aware that Jochen is implying/saying that the influx of freshwater has in effect caused an algal bloom. The possibility of the Desal being a major part of causing the algal bloom was always on the radar. That is not a new concept. I believe Tacklebags also was wondering if the desal may have helped to trigger the bloom.Jochen was employed by the council to give his opinion on wether the desal was going to cause any problems with the marine environment when the EIS was being released back in 2008. Isnt it strange that back then he believed there was going to be fish kills and here we are some years down the track and not too far into the desals operations we have the predicted fish kills.Now he didnt use Mayan prediction methods (not that I know how they work) to predict the kills. He knew that the increase from 50GL to 100GL was going to cause problems. He was clearly correct.Just to point out. Its not just one or two people that know that the desal is responsible, there is in fact hundreds. Now true to your style, no doubt you will have a crack at how many supposed conspiricy theorists there can be in a population, and I expect this from you now, and in relation to Jochens comments about leatherjackets on the reef. I can assure you that wether they were from on the reef or not on the reef. The leatherjacket schools are in fact close enough and transient enough to be effected. I myself have encountered large schools not far from the exit pipe.Feel free to on one hand acknowled Jochens credentials and then follow it up quickly by trying to discredit his work with no facts or points that discredit the EPA's data. To this point even after emailing the EPA I have not had them explain the sudden drop in salinity levels after the shut off. Ive even had the EPA reply to me " no unusual discharges from single point sources have been reported or identified". Now this is all fine and dandy, but something caused the shut down of the desal from the 12-16march and we can rule out routine maintenance around a dodge tide. I find it hard to believe that the EPA would not of analised there own data and said hold on how did SALINITY drop that severley? Isnt this the EPA's job to investigate all avenues of what could have caused the fish kills, and to most this would stand out massivley and raise questions

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Tacklebags also was wondering if the desal may have helped to trigger the bloom.

Not entirely correct urh.I believe that there was an algal bloom created by natural factors in the main. This is backed up by the warm water temps and other triggers we have seen.However' date=' do I think that nutrification from global land use and global aquaculture increase the severity of these events to some extent? Yes.Do I think the desal has the ability to cause a 'localised' increase in the severity of this wider spread algal bloom? Yes.Especially on a dodge tide and especially considering that both algal blooms and desalination outflow reduce dissolved oxygen. Remember both these influences result in the same cause of death to marine life so how could any scientist proove one theory against the other if both contributed?However, I [b']do not[/b] think the desal caused the algal bloom.I will show this conflicting data to what we saw last night on today tonight from the EPA. It was posted on another website. Reference page 7 graph.http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Water/Report/salinity_ph_do_mar13.pdfIf reduced dissolved oxygen did cause a fish kill in the PT Stanvac region, then the desal censors would of portrayed this information on those graphs I linked without any desal outflow influence.Those graphs would suggest if accurate, that the reported algal bloom/fish kill took place elsewhere in state waters and the fish just unluckily happened to wash up en mass around PT Stanvac due to the prevailing winds, tides and swell.So here we have conflicting sets of data from the same organisation. Make of it what you will!At the end of the day I am not an expert, just an interested stakeholder who has an opinion on what I read.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jochen was employed by the council to give his opinion on wether the desal was going to cause any problems with the marine environment when the EIS was being released back in 2008. Isnt it strange that back then he believed there was going to be fish kills and here we are some years down the track and not too far into the desals operations we have the predicted fish kills.

With rational like that, how can one argue :laugh::laugh: So 5 years ago he said that the plant could be responsible for bad things, then a bad thing happens and he turns around with little fact , just an opinion and a graph, and says "I told you so!!"With a graph every other scientist and stakeholder has access to view freely may I add.Thats without taking into account Today tonite airing the story, his invested intrest nor the flakey logic and lecturing behind it all.By his logic, very simply, does it mean every time the torrens or the Onk releases a freshwater soup into the ocean after some heavy rains we may get algal blooms?After all, both these rivers are cathcment for all our uncontrolled human filth.yet a siimple controlled back flush of a system as small as the deal plant (in comparision to both these rivers) is the reason these fish have died....um ok brett you win :laugh: Im done on this subject with you Brett, its like argueing with the village idiot.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh guys were do we start on that last lot of tripe.Yes I am fully aware that Jochen is implying/saying that the influx of freshwater has in effect caused an algal bloom. The possibility of the Desal being a major part of causing the algal bloom was always on the radar. That is not a new concept. I believe Tacklebags also was wondering if the desal may have helped to trigger the bloom.Jochen was employed by the council to give his opinion on wether the desal was going to cause any problems with the marine environment when the EIS was being released back in 2008. Isnt it strange that back then he believed there was going to be fish kills and here we are some years down the track and not too far into the desals operations we have the predicted fish kills.Now he didnt use Mayan prediction methods (not that I know how they work) to predict the kills. He knew that the increase from 50GL to 100GL was going to cause problems. He was clearly correct.Just to point out. Its not just one or two people that know that the desal is responsible' date=' there is in fact hundreds. Now true to your style, no doubt you will have a crack at how many supposed conspiricy theorists there can be in a population, and I expect this from you now, and in relation to Jochens comments about leatherjackets on the reef. I can assure you that wether they were from on the reef or not on the reef. The leatherjacket schools are in fact close enough and transient enough to be effected. I myself have encountered large schools not far from the exit pipe.Feel free to on one hand acknowled Jochens credentials and then follow it up quickly by trying to discredit his work with no facts or points that discredit the EPA's data. To this point even after emailing the EPA I have not had them explain the sudden drop in salinity levels after the shut off. Ive even had the EPA reply to me " no unusual discharges from single point sources have been reported or identified". Now this is all fine and dandy, but something caused the shut down of the desal from the 12-16march and we can rule out routine maintenance around a dodge tide. I find it hard to believe that the EPA would not of analised there own data and said hold on how did SALINITY drop that severley? Isnt this the EPA's job to investigate all avenues of what could have caused the fish kills, and to most this would stand out massivley and raise questions[/quote']Urhookedfish,For all I know Kaempf could be well and truly on the right track here, and indeed the fish kills may have been the result of the operations of the desal plant. I still don't know what killed the fish, and indeed no-one does.... because the investigation on the deaths as I'm aware has not yet been completed. All I've proposed to you within these threads on this topic is be objective, think of the other possibilities and don't rule anything out. But I don't think this is how you've approached this. It would seem from day one you have been totally polarised with the idea it was somehow the desal plant, whether it was through increased salinity, chemicals being back washed to sea or fish being sucked up into the intake pipe. One academic appears on TV with his proposal of what happened, and all of a sudden according to you the culprit has been identified and it's case closed. As I said prior, that's not how science works urhookedfish. What are his peers saying? What are the other experts saying? Do they support his claims, or do they think he's on the wrong path? And as tacklebags has pointed out, Kaempf has come to one conclusion, but his conclusion seems to conflict with the published data from the EPA....Again, the objective approach would be to wait until the results of the testing is posted, so we can all make an educated assessment...In another thread you asked people to apologise to you based on Kaempfs explanation. This puzzles me considering you have been so resolute with your position on this topic, and haven't accepted any other possibilities, or the preliminary expert opinion that it wasn't linked to the desal plant - yet you still expect others now to accept the word of Kaempf and apologise to you? Likewise, if the government's final assessment, or any other expert opinion for that matter, on this is it's not the desal plant, will you accept that verdict and openly apologise to everyone (as you expect others to do), or will you simply dismiss their findings and continue with your own agenda?Cheers :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rotare speaks the truth. We can rule nothing out as there are many variables out there that may have influenced the fish kill. I had my opinion based solely on one person's opinion but all of our opinions are based on other opinions from another person who made their judgement from someone else, etc. The only way we can truly find out is when this saga finally closes and the Gov releases the true results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rightly so' date=' the operative word being "TRUE".[/quote'] :cheer: :cheer: Okay Ale then you just continue to sit on the sidelines, continue to take no action and enjoy the results in 10-15years time when your kids can't catch a fish in the Pt Stanvac area. Yes its your choice to accept the government's explanations of it being entirley natural with no mention of man made pollution and don't bother to question their agenda either. ;) And if it wasnn't man made pollution that triggered or contributed to the algal bloom, why was Port Stanvac the lucky location to receive most of the fish deaths? I doubt they all drifted across the gulf and arrived at the same time after dying from upwellings. :( Their are too many factors involved such as localisation of the kill zones within proximity to the desal that coincidentally had its highest month of production during Feb 2013, then with recorded shut downs for various reasons in Mar including the plant leeking water severley, foam ups and the close proximity of Christies Beach Waste Water plant to think that this is entirley natural. :ohmy: And if anyone struggles to see this, they need to take their blindfolds off. :)945290_10151401502197546_936485362_n.jpgBy the way you can attempt to belittle me as much as you like, unless you both have scientific backgrounds, you are no more qualified than I am. B) I do howver think your previous digs and personal attacks on me are bordering on breaching site rules. I have no agenda other than to keep our fish in this gulf alive, so myself and future populations can enjoy the sport and recreation of fishing.Rotare, I only asked for an apology as I was sick of being labelled a conspiracy theorist by both yourself and Ale. The same way as you suggest that I am not open to exploring other possible explanations you yourself seemed not open to it having anything to do with man made pollutants prior to your last post. Its good to see you are in fact opening your mind. My mind has been open from the start, but I was also trying to cover all bases.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see your passion UR, never be afraid to speak out when you "know" you have a good handle on things and are confidently right. But be humble in defeat, that's the mark of a true god fearing member of our global community.See..... told you I was a Student of Bertrand Russell.The other side of the coin is that if your passion brings about change then it doesn't matter much if in the end it wasn't based entirely on truth, that's how pollies get away with things !

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is right and who is wrong is just a sideshow.
Isn't that the truth of just about everything these days wisdom? Just saying because of this question of 'truth' being emphasized here.Hard to ever achieve in this day and age on many things marine when you have groups like PEW pulling statements like this....
Mr. Joshua Reichert' date=' Managing Director of the Pew Environment Group, exemplifies the attitude of the Pew monument campaign: "I don't want someone who knows the facts, or can articulate them persuasively; I want someone who wants to win and knows how."[/quote'] Personally, I prefer the Marianas Island conservation motto towards the conservation of our marine life.
We believe the sustainable use of our natural resources is an achievable goal when (1) the science-based decision making process becomes the foundation for resource management programs (2) meaningful community input is not only pursued, but encouraged, and (3) we embrace our strong Pacific Island culture and traditions.
Which motto does our nation act on physically because this is where truth becomes reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if it wasnn't man made pollution that triggered or contributed to the algal bloom, why was Port Stanvac the lucky location to receive most of the fish deaths? I doubt they all drifted across the gulf and arrived at the same time after dying from upwellings

Is this a confirmed fact that the majority of fish washed up at Port Stanvac? Do you have the stats that clearly show the majority of fish were washed up in this area?

Their are too many factors involved such as localisation of the kill zones within proximity to the desal that coincidentally had its highest month of production during Feb 2013, then with recorded shut downs for various reasons in Mar including the plant leeking water

Again, your research appears to be polarised around what happened at the desal plant around the time of the fish deaths. Have you bothered to even consider, or research any other significant events that may have occurred at the same time, like shipping movements (dropping ballast out at sea), sea temps, wind movement etc? By focussing purely on what happened at the desal plant, and disregarding any other possible cause, of course you can only come to one conclusion....And the photo that you posted..... what exactly can anyone make of that? It just looks like a pile of foam overflowing from an underground tank to me. What does that mean? Where is it? When did it happen? What is the significance of the foam and the fish kills?.... Without having the answer to any of these questions I can't see how it has any bearing or relevance to either side of the argument.

By the way you can attempt to belittle me as much as you like, unless you both have scientific backgrounds, you are no more qualified than I am.

My background is in engineering and science. I work with and manage a team of engineers and scientists, some of which are environmental scientists. However, I do not profess to be an expert on this issue - I never have. My interest really with this issue has been how people, like yourself, have gone about coming up with their conclusions. Most of it hasn't been based on science, nor has there been an objective, rational approach taken. Instead people made their mind up weeks ago, before any official results were out, before any lengthy testing was done, before any data was released. You made up your mind back then it had to be the desal plant and have held strong ever since, regardless....

Rotare, I only asked for an apology as I was sick of being labelled a conspiracy theorist by both yourself and Ale

.I specifically labelled you a conspiracy theorist, did I? I don't recall where, but I'll happily stand corrected if I'm wrong. I may have mentioned conspiracy theory, only because this issues resembles the typical hallmarks of a textbook conspiracy theory!

The same way as you suggest that I am not open to exploring other possible explanations you yourself seemed not open to it having anything to do with man made pollutants prior to your last post. Its good to see you are in fact opening your mind. My mind has been open from the start, but I was also trying to cover all bases

I'm not sure how you have come to your conclusion on my stance with this issue - because I'm not sure I've ever stated it. I think you've confused my constant "encouragment" for you to be objective on this issue, and not focus only on the desal plant, as some sign that I'm pro-desal plant and totally dismissing it as a possible cause. Until the testing is finished, analysed and the results published, I'm not sure how any rational person could come to the conclusion it was definately one thing over another.I'm sure the rest of the members on this forum don't want to read the constant to and froing betwen you and I, so can I suggest we take this to a PM if you wish to address me directly on this issue?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Good to see your passion UR' date=' never be afraid to speak out when you "know" you have a good handle on things and are confidently right. But be humble in defeat, that's the mark of a true god fearing member of our global community.See..... told you I was a Student of Bertrand Russell.The other side of the coin is that if your passion brings about change then it doesn't matter much if in the end it wasn't based entirely on truth, that's how pollies get away with things ![/quote']This passion (when constructive) is exactly what we need more of from Aussies. I am proud to see such debate as it shows people care despite their views on the cause of this issue.Sometimes we make mistakes for our own good! Plenty have called me up on my mistakes on here in the past. ;)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a confirmed fact that the majority of fish washed up at Port Stanvac? Do you have the stats that clearly show the majority of fish were washed up in this area?.

Yes' date=' the Majority of the fish were in an around the Pt Stanvac area, but at this point in time im not prepared to go back and provide numbers and specific locations as this would be quite time consuming, and I suspect that you really are aware that the majority were north and south of the Desal along the Southern coastline, with smaller numbers around Brighton. This brings up an important point though, why hasn't the Government publicised a map of recorded points at which fish and other animals have been located dead? This has been requested for some time by by Dan Manceux but as yet nothing has been forthcoming. Stats appear yet to be released! But this doesn't mean that its not possible to calculate where the majority of reported fish deaths were located. Again the non publicising of fish and marine life death stats also raises further questions and suspicions IMO.

And the photo that you posted..... what exactly can anyone make of that? It just looks like a pile of foam overflowing from an underground tank to me. What does that mean? Where is it? When did it happen? What is the significance of the foam and the fish kills?.... Without having the answer to any of these questions I can't see how it has any bearing or relevance to either side of the argument. .

This picture is of a recent foam up at the Desal plant. Tugs were also seen spraying some sort of spray into the ocean around the Desal outlet pipe area around the time of the foam up. What does this say, well although not providing proof of the shutdown, it does show that the plant was experiencing problems around Feb/Mar when production of fresh water was in full swing.

I'm sure the rest of the members on this forum don't want to read the constant to and froing betwen you and I, so can I suggest we take this to a PM if you wish to address me directly on this issue?

Taking this to a PM wont benefit anybody.This to and froing is whats going to give people a better understanding of what is going on in our gulf. Regardless of wether the Desal is proven to have played any part in this, there is no denying it is going to have long term negative effects on the marine habbitat and with that being the case further action is required IMO. I am a little dissapointed that I wasnt aware of the damage that the now built DESAL was going to cause when it was being proposed and am also dissapointed at some of the engineering outcomes specifically pumping the brine back out in the current location.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a confirmed fact that the majority of fish washed up at Port Stanvac? Do you have the stats that clearly show the majority of fish were washed up in this area?.

I'm sure the rest of the members on this forum don't want to read the constant to and froing betwen you and I' date=' so can I suggest we take this to a PM if you wish to address me directly on this issue?[/quote'] .
By all means keep the too- ing & fro- ing going, just let me top up my cuppa and poof up the cushions some wat to get comfy :P That's my two cents worth Cheers 4THA
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personnaly i think the garfish did it ,they mixed up a concoction and handed it out to the other fish because they didnt like them.In all seriousness ROTARE may have a handle on something with the thought about ships ballast water ,now we know ships use water as ballast before they pick up cargo discharging it to make way for whatever they are taking on board .we seem to be concerned about the fish kills but have forgotton about the dolphins that have been washing up on our metro coast.From what i have seen on tv they have said that the six dolphins they have examined have a virus related to measels that has never been seen in our waters which makes me wonder if this is connected to the fish kills,what i am trying to get at here is if it has never been seen in our waters before then where did it come from ?I truly doubt if the powers to be will ever tell us the truth if it is that bad ,wether it be the desal plant or algal blooms or ship ballast water .i had a friend who new a person who worked for the csiro they were working on a project of some sort that wasnt quite ready but were told to release it anyway to save the minister losing face or lose there jobs ,beleive me or not and this is why i doubt if you will ever hear the real findings .It is a political hot potato at the moment ,money spent on a desal plant and now to be mothballed after all the doomsday story tellers said it would never rain again ,no minister in there right mind wants anything showing up bad about this as they are coping enough flack already over this white elephant ,perhaps we could get julian assange to look into this for us i am sure he has a bit of time on his hands but he is probably getting his electoral party sorted out ,now theres a man id vote for someone who is not afraid to stick it to a government with facts not fiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

taken from here:http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.htmlanybody see some similarities?Conspiracy theoristsAKA 'conspiraloons', 'tinfoil hatters', 'loonspuds', 'fruit'n'nut jobs' etc.Updated 29th April 2009.Note from editor: because of the high profile nature of the urban75 bulletin boards, we often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site. We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards. 10 characteristics of conspiracy theoristsA useful guide by Donna Ferentes1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc. 2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length. 3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make. 4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. 5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account. 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. 8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely. 10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question. A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. To this day, Id still give skully 10mins shed never forgetPosted Image

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the spirit of your post Ale, but just to keep things real, legally defined, if two or more persons are involved in the planning and or execution of a criminal act that is a "conspiracy". After that you have the "official" conspiracy theory that can be tested in the courts and then you have the non official conspiracy theory espoused by anyone else.Now, history shows us some "conspiracy theories" the one your post alludes to have in fact been proven or some atleast have been, after official hearings been defined as probable.I have a pretty good feeling you're not a naive fellow and you know what you see on the evening news or everything our Government tells us isn't always the truth.Cui bono - who benefits

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i have seen on tv they have said that the six dolphins they have examined have a virus related to measels that has never been seen in our waters which makes me wonder if this is connected to the fish kills' date='what i am trying to get at here is if it has never been seen in our waters before then [b']where did it come from [/b]?

Maybe this shortbill spearfish had some mates. Wonder if it was tested for morbillivirus? http://www.redmap.org.au/region/sa/sightings/705/Cheers,RJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i have seen on tv they have said that the six dolphins they have examined have a virus related to measels that has never been seen in our waters which makes me wonder if this is connected to the fish kills' date='what i am trying to get at here is if it has never been seen in our waters before then [b']where did it come from [/b]?

Maybe this shortbill spearfish had some mates. Wonder if it was tested for morbillivirus? http://www.redmap.org.au/region/sa/sightings/705/Cheers,RJ
Spotted by Keith Rowling from PIRSA and who contributes on here. Unless there is another Keith Rowling around?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually read all of the posts on both these threads, so who owes ME an apology ;) :PI've seen the official algae story and it's plausible. But I find it very strange that;-Fish have washed up dead for no clear reason.(except loose explanation of algae bloom - I've seen them temp.spikes).-Dolphins and penguins have washed up in the similar timeframe with demonstrable injuries. (clearly not algae related).WHY IS IT, that PIRSA haven't been able to tell us 100% what's happened? Or any other appropriate formal govt. Response.HAS this ever happened before here in SA??? Or interstate?? Very strange!The desalination plant is guilty of a lot of things - like giving my tax dollar to DODGIE JOE and his contractors - it's like.a Sopranos episode with all the shenanigans - but im sorry UHF, it unlikely to be the solution to our dead fish. UNLIKELY.... But my tinfoil hat is firmly in place because some crazy/wild event might have taken place requiring cover-up!!!! :ohmy:Yeah, im.a bit fascinated with the fish kill saga... But because it was on TodayTonight, the desal plant is probably the only cause we can safely rule out :)Keep on diggin UHF, if you go missing we will know you were onto something :cheer:

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I was believing that everything bad that ever happened in the gulf was the fault of the damn commercial fishermen. What the hell was I thinking. :sick: :sick: :blush::blush::unsure::unsure:

Great timing for a prod there Jaffa. :clap: Wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to link fishermen to this fish kill however. As someone once quoted.....you may win the battle, but you will never win the war!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...