Sunday, April 14, 2013

Sweeping definition of "pollutant" used by EPA to attack small gold miners in Idaho

As many of you are already aware, the EPA has made notice they will be enforcing their NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [AKA waste or discharge]) permit here in Idaho specifically targeting gold miners who use small suction dredges. This permit has been on the books since 1972.

This permit was originally drawn to regulate "Those who would introduce a pollutant into a river". It was drawn specifically for sewer treatment plants, fish cannery and such.

A few years back a conservation group argued sediment is a pollutant and although it is still being argued in courts whether a small dredge "introduces anything" (we dredgers pick it up and put it down), legally, the EPA is assuming we introduce a pollutant because, "There is no law which says we don't". (This was one of the opening introductory lines by Tracy DeGerring [EPA Permit Authorizations]) while reading the introductory overview during the recent EPA webcast April, 9 2013).

So here we are. Several streams closed and/or reduced for dredging including the Lovely Salmon River from Long Tom Bar (end of the road) to Hammer Creek near Whitebird. The rest of the Salmon and its tributaries have been closed for years due to Wilderness and other worthy reasons.

What's the problem? The problem is it is a bad idea and is not legal. Yes the EPA can and will legally enforce this. But to do so for one "violator" and not another (potentially worse) violator falls into discrimination, nepotism, and favoritism. How?? Because it would be illegal to enforce upon one group while ignoring other violators. I guarantee, this likely means you if you use the Salmon. I spoke with Tracy DeGering about the accuracy of my interpretation and she confirmed the following to be true.

On some rivers maximums for sediment and/or pollution discharge have been legally defined. On the Salmon there is NONE allowed without a EPA NPDES permit.

Do you own or operate a jet boat? The sediment your wake washes from the beach as you pass is regulated by this permit and if you do not have one you are not legal. Not only are you required to have it, it is not available to you, but the fines are.

Do you fish? Have you ever lost a piece of lead in the Salmon? As a scuba diver I must say there is an alarming amount of lead on the floor of the river! I deter. You are a violator. You have just INTRODUCED A POLLUTANT (LEAD) into the Salmon which is well outlined by the EPA as not legal on the ENTIRE length of the Salmon from its source to its mouth.

And the biggest violator! All of us for peeing in the river! Urine is Sewage, a pollutant. FYI it is NOT sterile and IS full of pharmaceuticals, phosphates, hormones, nitrogen, bacteria's and sometimes disease. The USFS policy stating dilution is the solution is a large violation of EPA policy. (Boy, isn't overlapping government fun!) About 10,000 users float the Middle Fork of the Salmon and another 10,000 the Salmon through the Frank Church Wilderness. They typically average 6 day trips. This is 60,000 user days on these two sections alone mostly in four months (the lowest, clearest water which does matter to the EPA, it is the most difficult period to meet compliance). A busy Saturday in August will host 1,500 great people floating the one day section at Riggins. These folks all introduce urine into the Salmon which is defined as a pollutant and therefore requires a permit (which is not available) Penalty for non compliance $16,000.00/day minimum to $37,500.00 maximum. .  And the best part, not just EPA can enforce. Any citizen can sue any violator. 'Ain't that great!

If you rinse the sand off your feet before entering your raft, or rinse the boat at the end of the day....Violation!

We (small suction dredgers) must, and do, comply with regulations written by Idaho Department of Water Resources, Marine Fisheries, Army Corp of Engineers, Idaho Dept of Lands, United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, The Idaho Fish and game, and more. Then, IF, we comply with ALL of the over lapping government, only then, can we dredge in specifically defined areas. And that's OK by me! But by introducing the enforcement of this EPA permit, it is the end of my livelihood, and dredging on the Salmon, and the end of an era where free thinkers and risk takers had a shot at a better life, literally a pot of gold.

I Love Riggins and Support Commerce AND ENVIRONMENT. I hate condescending hypocrisy, and multi-layer over lapping bureaucracy. I am not asking for crazy regulations on the groups mentioned. I AM the groups mentioned! I am asking PLEASE, EVERYONE, consider what the impact of this permit has on every river user including you.

Travis Hollon stated it well. "The Indians would have survived had they banded together. But when the Calvary overthrew one tribe, the neighboring tribe said, "Good riddance, we've been fighting with those guys for a hundred years"". They simply didn't realize they were next...and so on, and so it goes.

Via email


The Leftist need for attention really is a pain

From living in trees for months on end to lying in front of bulldozers, eco-activists are notorious for finding attention-grabbing ways of getting their message across.

But members of the environmentalist group F*** For Forest have taken green campaigning to new - and obscene - extremes, by using porn to raise money for the world's threatened rainforests.

The Norwegian non-profit organisation charges subscribers £10 per month to view footage of staff members and volunteers having sex on its website, then puts the proceeds towards rainforest conservation projects in South America.

The group say the money they make goes directly to eco-projects and cuts out middle-men

Founded in 2004 by Tommy Hol Ellingsen and his Swedish partner Leona Johansson, FFF is the subject of a new documentary by Michal Marczak, who followed the group's exhibitionist members as they journey to the Amazon rainforest to work with a threatened Peruvian tribe.

Hol Ellingsen told the Guardian he saw no reason why sex and sexual imagery should not be used to promote good causes.

'The human body is considered more offensive and threatening than most other things in the industrial world, like cars, but I don't see the naked body as a threat to the morals or values of modern society,' he said.

The group's founder said he saw no reason why sex and sexual imagery should not be used to promote good causes

'Why we are destroying the planet may be somehow connected to the values modern humans have created for themselves.'

Mr Marczak's documentary, also named F*** For Forest, documents the group's day to day existence in Berlin, where they can be seen inviting strangers to contribute to the website - as well as producing some of their own material.

It then follows them as they meet the Peruvian tribe - an encounter that is understood to yield less than successful results.

FFF are said to be disappointed at their portrayal in the documentary, arguing that the film-makers 'manipulated' the situation by faciliating the meeting with that particular tribe.

FFF estimates it has raised approximately 100,000 euro, or £85,000, per year since it was established in 2004

Mr Marczak has admitted he set up the expedition captured in his film, but insists he did not set out to prejudice viewers against the group.

FFF estimates it has raised approximately 100,000 euro, or £85,000, per year since it was established in 2004 - cash it has ploughed into buying land and promoting indigenous lifestyles in South America.

Mr Marczak told the Guardian that the group's methods, while bizarre, were in fact relatively effective compared to some other large-scale NGOs who arrive in the Amazon with western money, the bulk of which gets lost to middle-men.

He said FFF - in the sense that they give money directly to small scale eco projects - are 'doing it the right way'.

The documentary F*** For Forest will be in UK cinemas from April 19.


EPA nominee promoted questionable coolant made by company with Obama ties

Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, faces some tough questions Thursday morning at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. One of those is why she championed an “ozone-friendly” refrigerant that has proved to be less than friendly to both the environment and humans.

In 2011, McCarthy, then assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, approved the use of HFO-1234yf, hailing it as a life-saving and environmentally sound chemical for use in cars’ air conditioning systems. The EPA also offered incentives for automakers using the refrigerant, which was developed by Honeywell and DuPont.

“This new chemical helps fight climate change and ozone depletion,” said McCarthy at the time. “It is homegrown innovative solutions like this that save lives and strengthen our economy.”

But tests by Mercedes-Benz engineers last year found that when HFO-1234yf came in contact with a car’s hot engine, it burst into flames. As it burned, it emitted hydrogen fluoride, “a chemical far more deadly to humans than hydrogen cyanide, emitted in such amounts that it turned the windshield white as it began to eat into the glass,” according to Americans for Limited Government.

When vented into the air the substance also degrades to trifluoroacetic acid, which can be harmful to plants.

Mercedes-Benz subsequently banned the refrigerant and recalled the cars that already had it installed. BMW followed, And in March, Volkswagen also said it will stop using it, according to AutoBlog Green.

Not only is the refrigerant flammable and toxic when burned, it doesn’t strengthen the U.S. economy, ALG said. The compound is produced in China and Japan, and U.S. plants that produce the current industry standard refrigerant can’t be retrofitted to make it.

Honeywell CEO Dave Cote lobbied Congress on hydrofluorocarbons for two years, according to ALG, until the EPA approved his company’s refrigerant. He has also been an outspoken supporter of President Obama and his 2009 stimulus package.

As Obama’s nominee for EPA administrator, McCarthy’s role in approving an apparently unsafe and unprofitable refrigerant deserves a closer look.


EU's chief science advisor gives shale gas go-ahead

The EU’s chief scientific advisor has said that evidence allows the go-ahead for extracting shale gas, the energy source at the centre of a European policy tug-of-war.

The EU executive launched a green paper on 27 March, setting out Europe's energy and climate aims for 2030, with Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger taking a favourable position on shale gas.

"I am in favour of producing shale gas, particularly for safety reasons, and to reduce gas prices," he said. "In the United States, which is a big producer of shale gas, the price of gas is four times less than in Europe."

Shale gas has triggered an industrial revival in the United States, which the International Energy Agency expects to become almost self-sufficient in oil and gas by 2035.

But crippling production costs, exploration closures, and government-level environmental concerns have seen the industry’s expansion in Europe waver.

EU climate chief circumspect on shale

Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard has adopted a less favourable tone on shale gas, believing its extraction in Europe bears little comparison with the United States.

“We do not expect that it will be so easy in Europe: geological conditions are different, and so are environmental rules and the activity of soils,” she told reporters at the launch of the Commission green paper last month.

But Anne Glover, the chief scientific adviser to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, contradicted this view and gave a scientific green light to shale.

Speaking at a debate on science and policy-making in Brussels on 9 April, she said: “As with all energy production, there will be risks involved whether that is wind or coal power,” Glover told the audience at the debate, organised by the European Policy Centre, a think tank.

“We should not go into a denial phase. From my point of view the evidence will allow us to go ahead [with shale production]. But in terms of extraction and production there are non-scientific issues to be debated,” Glover said.

Europe 'in the denial phase'

António Fernando Correia de Campos, the Portuguese MEP who chairs the Parliament’s science and technology options assessment panel, also endorsed shale during the debate. Although he said he was not speaking on behalf of any parliamentary group or committee, Correia de Campos said Europe was “in the denial phase” on shale gas.

He said it was clear that within five years Europe would be importing shale gas from the US because it cost a quarter to a fifth of current European gas imports. “We are basing our opinion on the denial paradigm, which is one step behind the precautionary principle,” Correia de Campos said.

Member states remain divided on their approach to shale. Last October, British Chancellor George Osborne announced potential tax breaks for domestic shale. The same month Poland declared its push for the gas, saying it would invest some €12.5 million to develop exploration by 2020.

But large-scale production has proved difficult, with European governments and major energy companies recently suspending or halting exploration, and France has imposed a moratorium on shale gas drilling.


"It's for the children"

A classic Leftist claim.  Invoking children is supposed to turn off all your critical facilties

A corporate coalition that includes big clothing and food companies says in a new joint statement that confronting global warming is “one of America's greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century.”

They're also offering a warning to climate skeptics.

“We cannot risk our kids’ futures on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong. But just as America rose to the great challenges of the past and came out stronger than ever, we have to confront this challenge, and we have to win,” states a joint declaration from more than 30 companies.

Companies that signed the new “climate declaration” include Nike, Starbucks, Timberland, L’Oreal, Levi Strauss & Co., Ben & Jerry’s, Eileen Fisher, computer giant Intel, and the Portland Trailblazers basketball team.

The declaration, organized by the sustainable business and investment group Ceres, broadly makes the case that policymakers should take bolder action on climate, arguing, “what made America great was taking a stand” and “seizing opportunities.”

“[I]n doing this right, by saving money when we use less electricity, by saving money to drive a more efficient car, by choosing clean energy, by inventing new technologies that other countries buy, and creating jobs here at home, we will maintain our way of life and remain a true superpower in a competitive world,” it states.

The declaration itself steers clear of policy specifics, but the coalition is calling on Congress to pass climate legislation.

“From droughts that affect cotton crops to Hurricane Sandy, which caused extensive damage to our operations, climate affects all aspects of our business,” said Eileen Fisher, CEO of the apparel company that bears her name. “As a socially and environmentally responsible company, we are trying to affect positive change, but business can't do it alone. We need the support of strong climate legislation.”

A press release accompanying the declaration states, “The signatories ... are calling for Congress to address climate change by promoting clean energy, boosting efficiency and limiting carbon emissions.”

Major climate bills face grim prospects in the current Congress, but President Obama is planning new measures using executive actions, although the White House has not laid out a detailed agenda.



Three reports below about crookedness at  Australia's largest scientific research organization, the CSIRO.   The Green/Left have no committment to truth and honesty.  "There is no such thing as right and wrong" is their gospel.  So they eventually destroy anything they get control of.  And given their support for global warming and persecution of any kind of dissent, it is clear that the Green/Left now run the CSIRO.  See here and here and here and here and here

CSIRO faked documents, whistleblower tells court

A senior CSIRO manager who blew the whistle on the alleged illegal use of intellectual property by CSIRO was forced out of the country's peak scientific body after senior staff convened "sham" job selection panels and faked an official document in an attempt to mislead him, a court has heard.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal made a damning assessment of the internal workings of the national science institute and criticised two senior executives for giving unreliable evidence in court. One of those men is group executive Calum Drummond, whose position sits one rung below CSIRO's chief executive.

But despite the tribunal's dramatic castigation, the boss of CSIRO, Megan Clark, told a Senate estimates committee in February there would be no internal investigation of the matter, nor any disciplinary action taken against the two senior staff.

CSIRO's treatment of Martin Williams, a highly successful former business manager, may not have been unique. An investigation by the Herald has found that in some sections of the organisation, bullying is rife. In February, the CSIRO announced an independent inquiry would review claims of bullying and harassment, chaired by the former Commonwealth ombudsman Dennis Pearce.

In the case of Mr Williams, whose job "was to keep scientists out of jail" by ensuring contracts were legally vetted, things began to unravel in mid 2008 when the CSIRO division he worked for merged with two others and he found himself without a position.

But instead of following normal procedures to redeploy Mr Williams - a deputy of the former Textile and Fibre Technology division who brought in more than $53 million of research funding over a decade - senior staff gave him conflicting advice, disregarded company policy and convened "sham" selection panels, the tribunal heard.

In one instance, a senior manager, Damien Thomas, sent an email to Mr Williams that the tribunal's Deputy President James Constance concluded was "deliberately false".

The affair left Mr Williams with a severe mental illness and unable to work: "The bullying completely destroyed my health," Mr Williams said.

In a 10-day hearing last year, his case against the Commonwealth's workplace insurer, Comcare, exposed CSIRO's woeful redundancy process.

Deputy President Constance found the "inconsistent and at times ill-considered" advice given to Mr Williams by senior staff a significant contributor to his illness. He made no findings on the panel selection process.

"I am satisfied that the conflicting advice was a result of insufficient care being taken in the management of Mr Williams' situation or of a deliberate intention to mislead Mr Williams," he said.

He also found Dr Drummond, the former head of the merged division, now group executive of manufacturing, materials and minerals, an unreliable witness.

A spokesman for the CSIRO, Huw Morgan, said the tribunal's findings related to the witnesses' poor memory of the events and were not a reflection of their professional conduct.

Mr Williams' duty to authorise CSIRO partnerships could put him at odds with the organisation's scientists, including several researchers he alleges "fell into contract" with the Victorian government using intellectual property not owned by CSIRO.

Mr Morgan said while a funding proposal was submitted to the government, a partnership was never approved or agreed to.

Mr Williams, who has not been able to work since September 2008, said the CSIRO had transformed from a benevolent organisation into a ruthlessly competitive workplace, that was burdened by pressure to generate income.

"I got nothing. I got worse than nothing."


CSIRO accused of more shabby tactics

In late 2004, Sylwester Chyb was teaching at the prestigious Imperial College in England when the award-winning entomologist was presented with an exciting opportunity - becoming a molecular cell biologist at Australia's peak scientific body.

Urged by CSIRO to accept the position and promised he would lead a team working towards discoveries in the area of his specialty - insect neurobiology - Dr Chyb saw a bright future in Australia.

But within days of uprooting his family in 2005 and moving to Canberra, things began to fall apart. Now the eminent scientist is taking the CSIRO to court, accusing it of bullying, deception and breach of contract.  "It was the biggest mistake of my life," Dr Chyb said.

His experience is the latest revelation in a Fairfax Media investigation into the workings of Australia's peak science organisation, which has revealed evidence of serious mismanagement and questionable practices.

There were clear warning signs even as Dr Chyb negotiated his contract. According to his statement of claim, shortly after his final interview, Dr Stephen Trowell, an official in the same division, invited him for a coffee at the CSIRO Discovery Centre at Black Mountain.

"I had never heard of Stephen Trowell, but he claimed to be working in my area," Dr Chyb recalled. "He said, 'Don't worry, if you're unsuccessful, then you can work for me."'

It was only years later Dr Chyb discovered that his appointment had been recommended by external reviewers to the CSIRO to overcome Dr Trowell's perceived shortcomings.

Dr Trowell's comment was troubling because it would have been a significant demotion for the Oxford and Cambridge-educated scientist. After he raised his concerns, the contract Dr Chyb signed had another scientist identified as his line manager. Despite this, Dr Chyb's statement of claim in the Federal Court says that on his first day of work he discovered that Dr Trowell was indeed his boss and would remain so until midway through the following year.

It was a portent of what was to come. He became increasingly upset at what he perceived to be a campaign against him and he contributed to the tension with what he acknowledges was direct language. The funding promised for long-term research into insect chemoreception he says largely never materialised.

In mid-2009 his division bosses refused him permission to accept a publishing deal for a groundbreaking book on the Drosophila, or fruit fly, which is a widely used laboratory model organism. He was not allowed to work on it even in his own time.

In the end it was the breakdown of Dr Chyb's relationship with Dr Trowell that led to his departure. It was only years later that he discovered an external review by international science leaders had made a frank assessment of Dr Trowell's scientific standing.

"The committee considers that although the leader has a track record of patenting and as a CEO of a start-up company … he does not have as much credibility as the committee feels necessary," the document said.

"The addition to this group of Dr S. Chyb, a researcher with a good publication record and interest in insect gustatory receptors is seen as a positive development."

In April 2009 Dr Trowell accused Dr Chyb of intimidating a younger scientist; he was forced to formally apologise a few days later for an email he circulated containing the allegation.

At the end of the year a misconduct investigation was sparked, which led to Dr Chyb's departure. He had been accused of trying to profit from the accommodation allowance CSIRO gave a recruit - he had moved into a studio flat Dr Chyb and his wife owned - but Dr Chyb had expressly sought permission for the transaction. Now CSIRO is relying on this allegation as part of its defence against Dr Chyb's legal claim.

While he was defending that accusation Dr Chyb discovered a discrepancy in the money budgeted for his researcher's relocation on a document which carried his signature. Dr Chyb was sure he had never signed it.

And he was right. An external investigation commissioned by CSIRO found his signature had been electronically forged on to the page.

The investigation against Dr Chyb over the researcher's stay never eventuated. Instead, CSIRO made Dr Chyb's position redundant.

"They painted a picture of no-compromise, blue-sky science," he said. "But [I] ended up working … on very applied projects. There would be no way I would give up my permanent job for that."

Dr Chyb's court hearing is set down for later this year.


Straight out swindle by CSIRO

The CSIRO has duped one of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies into buying anti-counterfeit technology which could be easily compromised - passing off cheap chemicals it had bought from China as a "trade secret" formula.

The Swiss-based multinational Novartis signed up two years ago to use a CSIRO invention it was told would protect its vials of injectible Voltaren from being copied, filled with a placebo and sold by crime syndicates.

Police and drug companies are battling counterfeiters who are selling fake medicines that have killed hundreds of people. Last year Interpol seized 3.75 million units of fake drugs and arrested 80 people.

The invention sold to Novartis to protect against such counterfeit attacks - a microscopic chemical powder painted on the neck of its Voltaren ampoules - was being marketed by DataTrace DNA, a joint venture of CSIRO and DataDot Technology, a publicly listed company.

But a Fairfax investigation has established that CSIRO officials and Datadot executives misled Novartis about the technology in order to close the deal, after receiving explicit internal warnings the Novartis code could be easily duplicated.

Now, hundreds of millions of Voltaren ampoules across the world could carry the easily compromised DataTrace product. The injectible version of the drug is not approved for use in Australia.

Three months before the deal was signed, the scientist working on the technology, Gerry Swiegers, issued a last caution against proceeding. "The code which has been offered to Novartis may not be fit for purpose … because the code material is commercially available from a variety of vendors," Dr Swiegers wrote to DataTrace in March 2010. "If there is a serious counterfeiting threat to the Novartis ampoules, then this code risks being quickly and easily cracked in a counterfeiting attack. Serious questions could then be raised, especially if the successful counterfeiting attack resulted in injury or death."

But the deal went ahead anyway in July 2010. And despite having promised to supply a unique tracer code, DataTrace issued Novartis cheap tracer it had bought in bulk from a Chinese distributor.

The bulk tracer had been earmarked for low-risk applications with no real security concerns. But when DataTrace sold it to Novartis, it said the formula was a trade secret, and Novartis is believed to have been contractually forbidden from trying to identify its make-up.

Asked in general about industry practice, Jeff Conroy, the chief technology officer of Authentix, a rival company, said it was common "to require either a non-disclosure agreement and/or a non-reverse engineering clause when supplying a security material". It would be "very typical" to not disclose the precise material used in the tracer.

Had Novartis reverse-engineered the tracer potentially in breach of its contract, it would have been able to identify its components and check whether the phosphor formula was available elsewhere. In fact, at least two firms were selling the identical material to hundreds of firms around the world.

Damning internal documents seen by Fairfax show DataTrace and some of the most senior officials at the CSIRO knew that Novartis was being misled in a deal believed to be worth $2.5 million.

On August 7, 2009, Greg Twemlow, the DataTrace manager who engineered the deal with Novartis, emailed CSIRO managers Peter Osvath and Geoff Houston with this subject line: "Proposed answer to the question, 'is our Tracer code commercially available'."

"This is how we propose to answer the question if it's posed. We want everyone answering consistently. Answer: The CSIRO will make your Novartis codes using their Trade Secret methods and I'm sure you'll appreciate the importance of secrecy for Novartis and all of our clients. Having said that there may well be a possibility that aspects of the code could be simulated with commercially available products."

But it was much more than a possibility. Mr Twemlow himself confirmed this was the case in a "highly confidential" paper he prepared for a January 2010 DataTrace meeting attended by CSIRO officials. "We currently source end-product, ie we deploy the product as purchased by us for our clients," it said.

A leaked email list from one of the potential suppliers of the phosphor, a British company called Phosphor Tech, "indicates that many hundreds of companies could be buying the same materials we use for Tracers".

"The key question from our clients has generally been, 'Do we make our own Tracers?' Our answer has always been that CSIRO handles this."

Mr Twemlow himself understood the risks, according to internal company correspondence. "Greg, when we talked just before Xmas [2009] you indicated that if we used Chinese lamp phosphors in high security applications, then it would be 'only a matter of time' (your words, not mine) before the system would be copied and compromised," Dr Swiegers wrote in January 2010.

"The lamp phosphors were meant for bulk applications, not high security ones. This is especially significant in pharmaceutical applications where counterfeit pharmaceuticals could have serious safety implications (life-and-death implications)."

Mr Twemlow said on Wednesday he was bound by confidentiality agreements but that "it was a detailed and complex proposal to a large company … I was the sales guy." He said the final decision on the transaction was taken by others." Dr Swiegers, who was retrenched from CSIRO after a bitter falling-out, has since been agitating for reform of the peak scientific body.

Counterfeiting was such a serious commercial and public health risk that Novartis went to extraordinary lengths to ensure DataTrace and CSIRO had security measures in place to prevent the code from being cracked.

In April 2010, Dr Osvath completed a Novartis questionnaire guaranteeing the "protocols" CSIRO would employ "for secure freight logistics … with appropriate security measures".

The next month he sent an email to Mr Twemlow and others regarding an $8000 quote to create a "secure lab" at the organisation's Clayton campus in Melbourne. The money was spent installing a wall and security access readers on the lab doors - features which may have assisted in convincing Novartis that its tracer code could not be compromised.

"I was wondering whether it would also suit DataTrace's purposes, to have signage on the door, identifying the area as a 'DataTrace Lab'," he wrote. "While it will be used for other purposes … it might be useful for you, and not stretching the reality too far."

In fact, a team of auditors from Novartis had already visited Australia to check on the company's claims. In August 2009, the team visited CSIRO's Clayton campus and was given a series of presentations by the company, including one by Dr Osvath on "CSIRO: secure supply and support for DataTrace DNA/Novartis project".

In July 2010 DataTrace announced a five-year deal with an unnamed pharmaceutical company to the stock exchange.

Just three months after the deal was announced to the market, CSIRO sold its 50 per cent stake of the company, worth $1.3 million, for 8.93 per cent of DataTrace's parent company, DataDot Technology.




Preserving the graphics:  Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here and here


1 comment:

John A said...

"questionable coolant"

OK, I do not care for much of what the EPA does or how it is done, dating back to its establishment under PotUS Nixon and the DDT foolishness.

But when the coolant was cleared, tests had shown it only "mildly" and acceptably flsmmable. I daresay the same is true of the oil for the moving parts of the air conditioner. The fire when BOTH were leaked onto a hot engine was a "surprise" to the testers: probably, the two in combination react together, as well as with air/oxygen, in a way not anticipated.

Charcoal burns, steadily and fairly hot. Sulfur burns slowly. Saltpeter too. All known for centuries, if not millenia. It is only when mixed that the burning is accelerated to the point of "explosion" - fireworks aka gunpowder.

In retrospect it seems obvious that a leak into the engine compartment would involve both chemicals and testing should have been done, but then hindsight is often more accurate than scrying the future.