REGARDING the recent articles in The Ipswich Tribune and the fire ant eradication program, is the impetus behind the recent intensification and expansion of the program economic or political?
On the economic front, the argument is to not attempt eradication will entail greater economic penalty than the foreseeable cost of the program.
This is “supported” by estimates based on modelling, but modelling has proven extraordinarily unreliable in the past, as exemplified by Neil Ferguson’s work at the Imperial College, and is suspect of creating whatever results are desired by manipulation – you can create whatever outcome is preferred.
Given Queensland only contributes 10 percent to the funding model the program is a huge infusion of cash into state coffers from the remainder of the nation allowing employment and infrastructure opportunities galore.
So, the temptations and enticements are certainly evident.
From the political perspective we enter the realm of what many might hazard is “conspiracy theory”.
However, as particularly evidenced since 911, pervasive government has grown, spending and purview considerably and often alarmingly so.
Supra-national organisations do not hide their agendas nor their influence on political leadership, and alarmist hyperbole is pervasive about the many existential threats to the world and humanity if this program or that is not adopted.
The biosecurity platform is just one example that impinges on the citizenry eroding their rights wrapped in the virtues of what is for the greater good, but undeniably further empowering government and in reference to economic considerations, enriching a select few.
I do not think anyone can seriously claim that the environment in any way factors into the equation despite claims to the contrary.
Safety studies cited by program staff are small scale and, in some cases, untenable, as in that addressing the mosquito control program in Brazil.
Repeated requests for liaison with scientific advisors and creators of the program protocol have been ignored.
Requests for studies conducted have similarly gone unanswered.
I summary, the program is being pursued in the “hope” that the ants will be eradicated and the “hope” that no discernible detriments will manifest – all without any substantiation of safety and efficacy claims.
There is no doubt a reliance on the likelihood that serious consequences will not arise until many years have passed.
Chemical and pharmaceutical concerns build into their sales models allowances for future legal action should harm be proven recognising the few cases possible will entail insignificant costs compared to the profits envisioned.
They are not alone – Ford made just such allowances for the Pinto automobile knowing full well its faulty fuel tank positioning in the 1970s.
Chemicals dumped into the environment can take decades to fully realize their pernicious effects and some may never be fully comprehended.
In this way, the burden of proof is foisted onto the individual to prove x-chemical caused his cancer 20 years ago.
This fact is often insurmountable for most and only when clusters of cases arise do legal outcomes occasionally favour the victims.
It is too often the case as well that few legal experts or scientists will take on such cases as it has ramifications for their credentials, incomes and funding, such is the unrestrained power of big corporations and government.
The possibility of fire ant eradication elapsed a long time ago – according to American experts cited by Pam Swepson, former advisor to the program, way back in 2001.
Program pesticides are moderately safe and effective in small scale use where ants are present, but the mass dumping of such over vast tracts of farmland and rural landscapes as a preventative treatment against spread is unconscionable.
There is no way to know the harm invited, from the chemicals themselves, from their metabolites (products of degradation) and from interactions with other chemical present in the environment, of which there are countless.
The most likely scenario is that should such tactics persist, the eradication or weakening of indigenous competitors will facilitate the unrestricted spread of the pest, as posited by Dr Joshua King in Florida.
Is this simply economic opportunism or wilful harm?
I have based my assertions and conclusions on deductive reasoning and the evidence available as government representatives have remained intractable and non-communicative.
The controlling of information is heading to completion with “misinformation” bills being tabled across the West and we cannot rely on mainstream media to deviate from the establishment storyline.
Therefore, we must challenge the narratives and claims of those lording over us and shift the burden of proof onto their shoulders.
Government handouts and literature make many erroneous claims, such as the pesticides S-methoprene and pyriproxyfen are not poisons – an obvious contradiction – and that they only target fire ants.
In a land of countless poisonous creatures, the most dangerous being the European honeybee if one considers manifest hospitalizations and fatalities, the fire ant pales in threat.
A nuisance invasive species, but their impact is largely nesting mounds that impede farm equipment as pointed out by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring (pg.88).
But literature claims that they will close sports arenas and end outdoor life for Australians beggar belief.
This is propaganda at its most ridiculous to instil fear and panic in furtherance of the agenda.
I applaud your courageous willingness to publicise legitimate concerns held by many citizens weary of big government and endless crisis mongering of dubious merit.
D. Hunter Marshall
BSc. Spec. Chem. 1989 UofT
