1st June 2009 I read with dismay the article in Saturday's Advertiser "Disaster on a Global Scale". Particularly worrying was the statement by Environment and Heritage CEO, Allan Holmes: "The science says it may be best to bioremediate than let in seawater. It could do more damage if we let in seawater". What "science" is he referring to? Could it be that promulgated by the well-meaning, but ill-informed groups who advocate a fresh water solution at all costs? As a retired aquatic biology scientist, I am aware of quite a few other reputable scientists who believe that the solution to the present crisis is to open the barrages to the sea, and let the system return to an estuarine condition, the natural state before the barrages were built. Far from causing damage, this would stop the further development of acid sulphate soils which are now reaching crisis levels. As well, a new, fluctuating marine/freshwater system would develop to include seagrass meadows supporting fish nurseries, and migratory birds etc. Our Ramsar obligations would then be modified to accommodate the changed wetland ecology (www.ramsar.org). This is a far cry from the total destruction of virtually all living things in the system if the lakes continue to acidify. There is not enough fresh water to mitigate this, and it is irresponsible to allow the little that we do have to spread over the lakes surface and evaporate (www.lakesneedwater.org). Bioremediation and liming of the vast lakes area is slow and expensive, and would likely not work in the longer term, since it would only treat the top few cm of soil. The sediments containing sulphides are metres deep, just waiting to oxidise to sulphuric acid should the plants die from salinity, high temperatures, lack of rainfall, or even the acid itself. The production of lime is very greenhouse unfriendly, since it involves the heating of limestone to release carbon dioxide, leaving the calcium oxide (lime). Your own editorial in the same edition mentioned CSIRO work indicating that the seawater solution is the only practical one available; however, I disagree that it would be a disaster for freshwater plants and animals. These would migrate or decrease naturally, and be replaced by salt-tolerant species, of which there are numerous examples existing right now around the lakes. Just think of the Gippsland lakes as examples of what could happen. To be so heavily influenced by certain groups which are particularly vocal, this government could be shooting itself in the foot if the present trends continue. I ask them to consider what will happen to the vines in places like Langhorne Creek when they are covered with toxic, acidic dust blown in from the surface of the dry lake beds? Yours sincerely, Elizabeth Gordon-Mills |
Latest News >