Topsoil loss during 2020 flooding in the Clarence Valley

The Daily Examiner, 9 March 2020:

Anyone travelling around the recent flood-affected areas of the Valley, including along the Clarence River itself, couldn’t fail to notice the chocolate brown colour of those floodwaters.

The Orara River was particularly bad, and after the floodwaters had receded, council needed to use a front end loader to scrape thick layers of deposited mud off some roadways and bridges. The paddocks alongside creeks were likewise buried beneath a thick layer of mud.

This was always to be expected if torrential rain occurred soon after the bushfires, especially with ash washing off the bare ground into waterways.

But these floods brought more than ash. This was topsoil, something that is in short supply across much of the Australian continent. We are told that globally, some 24 billion tonnes of topsoil are lost annually through erosion, and Australia’s contribution is shameful, given we are a supposedly developed country with sufficient resources to protect this precious commodity.

Wind and water are the two main forms of erosion.

Both can be significantly mitigated simply by maintaining a good vegetation ground cover. Without that cover there is nothing to hold the soil, and this past season has highlighted that fact.

Firstly there was drought, and overgrazing to the point where only bare soil remained, resulting in one huge dust storm after another for months on end.

Then the bushfires destroyed what vegetation the livestock had left. Then came the floods, ripping apart fragile unprotected stream banks, and washing them downstream to the ocean.

Even without bushfires we lose far too much soil to erosion, and again, poor livestock management is largely to blame.

Many Australian rivers and creeks have no adequate vegetation to buffer against erosion and fewer still are fenced to exclude cattle.

As a result, these animals congregate along waterways, trampling banks, and browsing any available vegetation, so their impact is even greater than fire.

Landowners have a responsibility to manage erosion on their properties and to consider what they are leaving for future generations. If we are to solve the erosion problem, livestock management must be a focus point.

JOHN EDWARDS, Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition

COVID-19 exposure reaches the NSW Northern Rivers region in March 2020

ABC North Coast, 11 March 2020:

It is possible that another two people are already infected because of being "directly or indirectly associated with attendance at a workshop". NSW Health does not state where the workshop was held. [NSW Health, alert, 10 March 2020].

The Nationals MP for Clarence is predictable - in the first instance he always presumes the electorate is as ignorant as he is and in the second that what his bosses want is inherently right

Well it seems the nuclear lobby has resurrected that hoary chestnut, a nuclear power plant in the Clarence Valley.

This time it is at least a 2.2 gigawatt plant requiring an extensive power grid upgrade and, cooling as a once though from the Clarence River estuary or evaporative towers with off stream storage. One possible siting of the plant is in the Grafton-Koolkhan area.

https://nuclearforclimate.com.au/nsw-regions/

The NSW National Party MP for Page.....

The Daily Examiner, 9 March 2020, p.3:

There was a need for a mature debate before any decision on nuclear energy could be made, member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis has stated. 

But he believes the concept will go nowhere without first obtaining a “social licence” for the technology. 

His comments come in response to NSW Nationals leader and Deputy Premier John Barilaro expressing his, and the Nationals’ support for a bill introduced by One Nation’s Mark Latham to overturn the state’s ban on nuclear energy and uranium mining. 

Mr Gulaptis said there needed to be a clearer picture of the current state of the science as it related to nuclear energy. 

“At the moment the community’s perception of nuclear reactors is based on Fukushima, Chernobyl and Homer Simpson working at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant,” he said. 

“Quite frankly, that’s all I understand about the technology. “I don’t know where we are with nuclear technology — I’m just like the rest of the community, and I need to know more before I can make more of a call.” 
Mr Gulaptis said scientists needed to lead a mature debate based on evidence and not fearmongering so the community could make an informed decision. 

“Whenever the question about the possibility of using nuclear energy comes up, it is always shut down by a minority, and I believe that minority is fearmongers who are just pushing that Chernobyl model down our throats,” he said. 

“Now if that’s where the technology is still at, then I certainly don’t want it. “But I believe that they have advanced significantly, just like all other technology has — people are walking around with this year’s latest iPhone in their pocket, they’re not carrying the bricks of 20 years ago......

Members of the Clarence Valley Community.....

The Daily Examiner, 10 March 2020, p.5:

The success of the recent fight against coal seam gas has reinforced the message to politicians that large scale developments such as nuclear power required a social license according to the Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition. 

Secretary of the group Leonie Blain said it was wise of Clarence MP Chris Gulaptis to realise there would need to be considerable discussion about any nuclear proposal. 

“It is interesting that Mr Gulaptis claims that the closing down of any debate about nuclear power in the past is the result of fearmongering by a minority,” she said. “I would like to know what evidence he has for this belief.” 

Ms Blain said the fact that Grafton was one of the possible sites for a nuclear power station meant there would be interest in the issue. 

“There would be considerable local interest in any debate on whether a nuclear power station should be built and where it would be located,” she said.....

Murdoch-News Corp doing a little editorial lobbying on behalf of the nuclear industry.....

The Daily Examiner, 10 March 2020, p. 11: 

It's true, we need to be able to talk openly and rationally about nuclear energy in Australia. 

Nationally, it must be considered as a low carbon emissions energy source, and a viable replacement for the phase out of coal reliance. 

In NSW, where nuclear energy and uranium mining is currently banned, it must be considered as an alternative industry for regional areas vulnerable to a future of agriculture yields being marginalised by increased desertification. 

Locally, our future depends on thinking differently and accepting new industries to boost our economy, job prospects and population growth. 

Nuclear for Climate Science [*] earmarked Grafton as one of 12 possible sites for a nuclear power station in the future. 

The Nationals’ endorsement of a call from One Nation’s Mark Latham to overturn the NSW ban has put nuclear squarely back on the agenda.....

NOTE:

[*] The correct name for this 'group' is Nuclear for Climate Australia. It has a post office box postal address in Berrima, but does not appear to be incorporated under its trademarked name or have an ABN number. It principally functions as a website.
The individual who seems to organise its social media presence is its founder Rob Parker, who coincidentally is also Vice President of the Australian Nuclear Association. It has one known associate Barrie Hill, who appears to be Managing Director of SMR Nuclear Technology Pty Ltd. 
Nuclear for Climate Australia lobbys to overturn the Australian nuclear power ban and for the adoption of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs), which are alleged to have the same unresolved cost and safety concerns associated with larger plants and there is no consenus in the industry concerning SMRs.
Nuclear for Climate Australia has been riding the 2019-20 bushfire crisis on Twitter as a vehicle to push for nuclear power in this country.

Another perspective.....

The Climate Council, 23 January 2019:

What is a nuclear power station? 

Nuclear power stations run on uranium. When the nucleus of a uranium molecule is split inside a reactor, heat is produced. This process is called nuclear fission. The heat produced from this process is used to create steam from water. The steam drives a turbine that powers a generator. The generator creates electricity. 

Unlike coal and gas, no greenhouse gas pollution is created in the operation of the nuclear reactor. However, all other steps involved in producing nuclear power (from mining, to construction, decommissioning and waste management) result in greenhouse gas pollution. 

But nuclear energy is not “renewable”. Uranium is a finite resource just like coal or gas.... 

Nuclear power stations also present significant community, health, environmental, and cost risks associated with potential impacts from extreme weather events and natural disasters, such as occurred in Fukushima, Japan in 2011. Nuclear power stations leave a long-term and prohibitively expensive legacy of site remediation, fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste storage. 

Australia is one of the sunniest and windiest countries in the world, with enough renewable energy resources to power our country 500 times over. When compared with low risk, clean, reliable and affordable renewable energy and storage technology in Australia, nuclear power makes no sense.

Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build. For example, the Hinkley nuclear power station under construction in the UK will cost 20 billion pounds (AU$36 billion). Nuclear cannot compete on a cost basis with wind and solar, which are the cheapest forms of new generation. The cost of energy from the Hinkley Power station is significantly higher than large-scale solar, wind and offshore wind energy in the UK....

Australia finally gathers its courage and takes Facebook Inc to court over Cambridge Analytica privacy breaches

Office of the Australian Privacy Commissioner, media release, 9 March 2020:

The Australian Information Commissioner has lodged proceedings against Facebook in the Federal Court, alleging the social media platform has committed serious and/or repeated interferences with privacy in contravention of Australian privacy law. 

The Commissioner alleges that the personal information of Australian Facebook users was disclosed to the This is Your Digital Life app for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was collected, in breach of the Privacy Act 1988. The information was exposed to the risk of being disclosed to Cambridge Analytica and used for political profiling purposes, and to other third parties. 

“All entities operating in Australia must be transparent and accountable in the way they handle personal information, in accordance with their obligations under Australian privacy law,” Australian Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk said. 

“We consider the design of the Facebook platform meant that users were unable to exercise reasonable choice and control about how their personal information was disclosed. 

“Facebook’s default settings facilitated the disclosure of personal information, including sensitive information, at the expense of privacy. 

“We claim these actions left the personal data of around 311,127 Australian Facebook users exposed to be sold and used for purposes including political profiling, well outside users’ expectations.” 

The statement of claim lodged in the Federal Court today alleges that, from March 2014 to May 2015, Facebook disclosed the personal information of Australian Facebook users to This Is Your Digital Life, in breach of Australian Privacy Principle 6. Most of those users did not install the app themselves, and their personal information was disclosed via their friends’ use of the app. 

The statement of claim also alleges that Facebook did not take reasonable steps during this period to protect its users’ personal information from unauthorised disclosure, in breach of Australian Privacy Principle 11. 

Commissioner Falk considers that these were systemic failures to comply with Australian privacy laws by one of the world’s largest technology companies. 

Background 

The documents filed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) in the Federal Court are: 

• Concise statement 

• Statement of claim (excluding material asserted to be confidential by Facebook) 

• Originating application 

The OAIC is an independent statutory agency established to promote and uphold privacy and information access rights. It has a range of regulatory responsibilities and powers under the Privacy Act 1988, Freedom of Information Act 1982 and Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010. 

The Privacy Act includes 13 legally binding Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) which apply to agencies and organisations covered by the Privacy Act (APP entities). 

APP 6 provides that ‘if an APP entity holds personal information about an individual that was collected for a particular purpose, the entity must not use or disclose the information for another purpose (the secondary purpose), unless the individual has consented to the use or disclosure’ (or another exception applies). 

APP 11 provides that ‘if an APP entity holds personal information, the entity must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances, to protect the information from misuse, interference and loss, and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure.’ 

The Commissioner may apply to the Federal Court for a civil penalty order alleging that an APP entity has engaged in serious and/or repeated interferences with privacy in contravention of s 13G of the Privacy Act. 

The Federal Court can impose a civil penalty of up to $1,700,000 for each serious and/or repeated interference with privacy (as per the penalty rate applicable in 2014–15).

Losses in the 2019-20 NSW bushfires may exceed 70 per cent of the state's entire koala population

ABC News, 7 March 2020: 

Koala losses from recent NSW bushfires 'One of the most significant biodiversity impacts in our history' 

Authorities may have underestimated the extent of the impact of the bushfires on koalas on the North Coast, a New South Wales ecologist has said. 

Stephen Phillips, managing director and principal research scientist at Biolink ecological consultants, has been revisiting six previously-surveyed koala habitats between Forster and Ballina. 

The company was hired by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to undertake the first on-the-ground surveys in the area since the recent bushfires and is more than halfway through. 

"As part of the broader modelling that we're doing with fire, we're assuming a 70 per cent loss or — 70 per cent mortality rate," Dr Phillips said. "And current information suggests that, based on our field survey work, that the real answer is probably north of that somewhere. 

"So the losses are probably far bigger than what we've been modelling in." They are more than halfway through resurveying the sixth site and Dr Phillips said the story now seems "pretty consistent".

South of Port Macquarie this week they found little evidence of survivors. 

"Part of what we're doing here, we're looking beneath one of the most preferred koala food trees, which is called Tallowwood, and in raking around the bottom of this tree I've picked up a koala scat [faecal pellet]," Dr Phillips said. 

They are, however, still working through the 18 sites at Lake Innes, south of Port Macquarie. 

"One of the good things about this site is that the canopy scorch is mild, so that gives us some hope that there may be some survivors," Dr Phillips said. 

"I guess part of what we're doing now is trying to work out how much of this study area has been impacted and how many survivors there may be, but all evidence indicates its probably not going to be many." 

Area of special significance 

The site in Lake Innes was previously the subject of a successful translocation study. 

"So finding out what's happened to the population that we established and finding out it's future, whether it's going to survive, whether it's going to become part of a broader recovery program, is also what this is about," Dr Phillips said..... 

Read the full article here.

Facebook Inc. reversed its initial decision and removed an unlawful & misleading Trump political advertisement from its Internet platform

IMAGE: BBC News, 5 March 2020

The Washington Post, 6 March 2020: 

Facebook removed Trump campaign ads on Thursday for violating its policy against misleading references to the U.S. census amid criticism that it has given politicians too much leeway to misinform users on its platform. 

The Trump ads urged Facebook users to “take the official 2020 Congressional District Census today,” but despite the look and language of the ad, they were not related to the once-a-decade national count of U.S. citizens happening this year. Instead, the ads linked to a survey on the “Certified Website of President Donald J. Trump,” which collected information and requested a donation. 

Facebook initially said it would permit the ads, ruling that they were clearly not a part of the U.S. census, according to Popular Information, a politically themed online newsletter that first reported on the ads and the company’s refusal to remove them. Facebook announced its policy against misleading references to the census in December.... 

Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh declined to comment about the ads or Facebook’s decision. The ads were paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, which raises money for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee in support of the president’s reelection.... 

Facebook’s handling of the ads frustrated civil rights leaders and Democrats who have warned that the company’s rules against misinformation are too lax. 

“Facebook has demonstrated once again that protecting its users from misinformation is not a priority, and instead that its integrity can be bought by the Trump campaign,” said Rashad Robinson, president of civil rights group Color of Change, in a statement. “While Facebook has now committed to removing the mis-informing post in question, the damage is done.” 

The Trump campaign ads echoed similar surveys the RNC has mailed out that look like census forms but are in fact requests for donations. Congress has passed laws, including one after the 2010 Census, aiming to curb mail that impersonates a federal agency. 

At an Oversight Committee hearing last month, House Democrats pressed Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham on the matter, asking him to request that the RNC stop sending out fundraising mailers that mimic census forms.....

Northern NSW Local Health Area backs down for now - but Lower Clarence communities are closely watching for any move which will effectively reduce available bed space at Maclean District Hospital

The Daily Examiner, 6 March 2020: 

The decision by the Northern NSW Local Health Area to back away from plans to reconfigure the wards of Maclean District Hospital represents a win for the people, and a new opportunity for the community of Maclean to have a greater say in their beloved hospital. 

In an announcement made on Wednesday, NNSWLHD chief executive Wayne Jones said the Maclean Community Advisory Group would be established to help steer future decisions on the hospital, which is what they should have done in the first place, rather than ram through unpopular changes without adequate community and staff consultations. 

I sincerely believe the NNSWLHD Board underestimated just how hard the Maclean community were prepared to fight for their hospital. 

Community meetings, petitions and even a march were all planned and organised in no time to fight against the changes....

BACKGROUND

Click on: Two public meetings revealed that patient comfort & care at Maclean District Hospital is being downgraded and Lower Clarence Valley residents are not happy