Ben Vidgen

“New media release on Ratgate from ‘Clean Green New Zealand’ and ‘Flora and Fauna Aotearoa’ ask us to speak to the “facts” concerning their whistle blower….” full release at the bottom of this article.

Sadly this press report, on the Westport mass rat deaths, is missing the most important fact of all. You can not issue a forensic report or expect to have any kind of academic level report published and expect it to be taken seriously, or treated as a serious source of authenticated information if it does not name its author.

Well actually you can. When you have at less two other source verifying the orginal data, each from a proven accepted authenticated and independently verified source in turn. Which in this case is not the case. So it remains an independent test with nothing to back up it up. It thus has no authorty no substance by defintion of what constitutes an authorative source.

Without an author (or verification by multiple sources whose authority can be verfied inturn) it simply can not be taken seriously until such time as that situation changes. Because if they do this the anti 1080 movement open itself up to damaging broadside attack. And one in which they have no one to blame but themselves.

Dont get me wrong the Doc reporting methods don’t have much credibility either. At this point in that it claims to be a necropsy stating their is no evidence of 1080 presence. There are three things wrong with that claim (withstanding any claims made in the below press release) .

1. I would want to see allthe paper work first hand, to date not made avalible to the public via corporate media sources (only rleased selectively). Further a remarkably small sample of test subjects were examined; 10 rats out 700?? With only one sample of sealife being tested a crayfish and that specific report went walk about. Thats a red flag instantly, especially as DOC have a reputation for spin doctoring and a considerable marketing budget with vested corporate interest their reputation for tweaking the facts proceeds them.

2. The word “toxicology” is used by the media and by the Department of Conservation or Landcare https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/oia-responses/tiakina-nga-manu/

My concern on (albeit a quick glance ) of the “toxicology” report are

A. They only tested one listed substance they tested for Fluoroacetate, (as stated in the pathology reports) which in light of;

i) A rubbish tip full of toxic material washed into the West coast ocean in May 2019 and in August 2019 locals appealed to the government to help clean up a “state owned” dump near Hector which risked being washed away. Hector’s rat infest dump a product of state owned solid energy is less than 30 minutes drive from Westport’s north beach. The estimated cost of a clean up is in the million which The West Coast Regional Council had worked with the Buller council to apply for $660,000 from the Ministry for the Environment’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund, but was refused. It was also told it did not meet the criteria for funds to clean up former Solid Energy mining sites.

Its believed the total number of documented dumps that risk being victims of erosion in New Zealand could number in the hundreds. The cost to the government would be in the hundreds of millions if it accepted liability for the dumps full of toxic materials and hazardous waste dumped over decades.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/114750318/erosion-continues-to-expose-west-coast-landfill

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coast/fox-landfill-rubbish-coming-back-get-us
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/111861446/west-coast-landfill-cleanup-too-toxic-for-volunteers
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018707006/toxic-dump-fears-as-strong-swells-expected-to-lash-west-coast

ii That hoards of rats dont just commit suicide and mass death seems a mighty odd in any one book but Doc who going out of their way not to look to closely.

Surely the purpose of the tests on ‘four rats’ was not just to prove 1080 was not the cause but establish what did cause the death of hundreds of rats and sea life.

This is a repeat of the 2016 MV Rena disaster where testing was selective and no testing was done for Corexit, the higly toxic subtances used to help clean up the Rena spill, or radioactive material or any other substance on a vessel known to carry numerous hazardous goods.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/ben-vidgen/the-mv-rena-what-was-her-cargo/270571046312247/
https://www.scribd.com/document/83027362/Deadline-2921

Other substances that are known to be in use in the region include brodiafacoum or pesticides used on farms. The selectively released pages make no mention of such testing.

B. 10 rats were tested so why do we only have results for 4 rats and why was no testing done on any of the sealife which washed up at the same time. The Weka had “pink frothy” material exuding from its lungs asides from the fact that sound not good there is the more signifgant fact thats is a sympton consitent with 1080 poisoning.

C. They tested for Fluoroacetate but not Sodium fluoroacetate. One is a naturally occuring acid the other is what we call 1080. Now to be fair this author is now going beyond his skill set. Yet that seems a bit of an ommission an opens up the question what types of fluoracetate were tested and which ones were not .

3. Carol Sawyer’s a veteran 1080 activist article digs deeper and as the title indicates she raise further excellent questions (the whole blogs full of a lot info the corporate media for got to mention) and issues. It demonstrates if nothing else that DOC ran a how not to do necropsy concerning the rats and sea life that washed up at Westport. That were all in agreement on.
https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/category/doc/WHERE ARE THE MISSING REPORTS DOC? SOME PERTINENT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NORTH BEACH, WESTPORT, INCIDENT (9 NOV, 2019)

4. As an opinon I have dealt with DOC visa necropsy on three occasions now and I have being less than impressed.

Once: in regards to Mutton Birds tested for possiable radiation from Fukashima were they only tested a small amount of chicks from birds that had not migrated. Twice: where after an article I wrote highlighting the bogus nature of their testing, they then enlarged subject numbers (nature of chicks unknown) but did not check organs, such as liver or spleen and only examined wing tips (were contaminant are hardest to detect).

Thrice: in relation to a so call bludgeoning of birds on parliaments steps where they selectively released the content of the report and assumed those asking for copies had no experience in forensics or ballistics (see my qualifications below). They talked of trauma but did not give specifics in the selected text they offered. Wide spread trauma and brusing damage would for example indicate the bird was not struck by club or hand held object (where bruising would more likely be focused in a smaller area) but had being hit by a fast moving vehicle and fallen to the road side as protesters who collected them had claimed from the outset (there were other birds which the protester thought were killed by 1080 but those dont seem to have being tested or were mention in the selected excerpts provided).

DOC DOGEY SO ARE UNAUTHORED REPORTS

Doc as usal are playing fast and loose but in this case so is the unnamed independent tester and his advocates.

The claim the author is not named due to security angles is a total cop out. And I say that as some one who has published and attached my name to everything I have written about be it police corruption, gangs, intelligence services, polticians, ect for thirty years now. I have faced to date three threats of defamation (including one from the former National Security Adviser to President Ronald Regan Richard V Allen delivered by Russel McVeagh the country largest and most powerful law firm – the legal memorandum on that suit is documented in my book Satet Secrets II), one provable death threat (State Secret I as witnessed by my publisher who took the call ) and numerous hints of beatings or worse over the years. Am I going to stop putting my name to what I write. Hell no. The rules are the rules and they dictate you dont get in the kitchen unless you can stand the heat. Will not if you want to be taken seriously at any rate.

Dont publish if you wont put your name to the story/report.

Why?

Because other wise you risk making a fool of not just you but every one one else who has put so much effort and energy into the cause. Sorry but dems the rules and they are not open for debate or exception, EVER!!

I hope the science behind the independent test are verified ( or more importantly the source of the deaths identified) but until the author come forward (or other sources confirm the reports validity) I for one will not take the claims any more serious than a story which goes a ‘man at the pub told me…

Politics is as Toxic as 1080

By legal definition its just hearsay without authentication. By common sense it just a really dumb thing to do.

Worse right now their is move by those involved in activist based parties, steered by those with less than peachy credential seeking your anti 1080 vote in the 2020 election. These folk will tell you it is okay to accept pseudo credentials.

Its ok to treat snake oil salesmen, those impersonating the staus quo (by using status quo sounding names and meaningless titles), as the real deal because they say its okay to do so. Will its not and never will be.

But hey if it helps them get votes and bugger what the cause or truth may actually be.

Chocks away and let loose the verdict even though they only have one source and that person wont go on the record and put his name to his report. To bad if the reason that person wont go on the record is because his facts are not as solid as we have being led to believe. To bad that such ambitious haste may do the anti 1080 cause no favours if the sure thing turns out to be not so sure.

That these foks are encouraging you to accept the unacceptable is one more reason I say they most certainly will not get my vote come 2020.

And its why the individuals behind those parties and the media sympathetic to them (which includes folk I have in the past worked closely with) have now lost my entire respect and will have to work very hard if they ever expect to get it back.

Money greed but mostly ego are leading people astray.

PRESS RELEASE NO to 1080 use in NZ Yesterday at 11:06 AM

The poisoners’ well-known strategy is to try to contol the conversation. Let’s ignore gossip and keep to the facts. Here they are clearly stated and we all deserve to know the answers. #waterislife #ban1080 #foodsafety #publichealth

Media Release: 2 December 2019
For Immediate Release: New Zealand Government 1080 Poison Tests Flawed

Clean Green New Zealand and Flora and Fauna of Aotearoa are not affiliated in any way with any political parties, commercial sponsors or ‘anti-1080’ groups. Our objectives in raising awareness of the potential harm from widespread use of poisons in Aotearoa New Zealand are clear, and motivated by concern for the health and well-being of our environment and compassion for all life within it.

There has been speculation on social media regarding the identity of the independent laboratory(1) which has found positive traces of 1080 poison in the dead wildlife collected on November 9th, from Westport beach in the South Island. Deliberate attempts to bully, intimidate and discredit whistleblowers are known strategies of entities determined to hide evidence of the ongoing contamination of New Zealand’s air, land and water supplies. The reason whistleblowers need to remain protected is due to serious threats made to them which agitators have recently stirred-up once again. The case-law in New Zealand is underdeveloped, so whistleblowers are understandably sometimes reluctant to speak out. However, because of the seriousness of the situation, further whistleblowers have already come forward to talk to us. We have a secure confidentiality policy in place.

THE FACTS:

1. The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DoC) instructs its laboratories (e.g. Landcare) to use a testing method which is outdated and inadequate when addressing cases of wildlife or domestic animal poisoning, and food and drinking-water safety. Decades of documented evidence of incidents of potential contamination, as well as occupational monitoring, are now called into question.

2. It is now apparent that New Zealand citizens have been deceived by the Dept of Conservation, in relation to the testing regime and outcomes from the Westport disaster and hundreds of other such events over 65 years of aerial poisoning operations. Official Information Act responses in January 2019 reveal that Landcare was developing a modern test for 1080 poison metabolites. A functional test was also developed for New Zealand milk products, following the industry-insider threat to baby formula.

3. Public safety has been put at serious risk by these aerial poisoning operations, because:
a. risk-assessment documents are not fit for purpose
b. adherence to safety precautions are repeatedly ignored; e.g. there has been no proper disposal of the toxic carcasses which are classified as hazardous waste.

These two non-profit NGOs ask again; why is an outdated testing method being used, when there are modern methods available? Clean Green New Zealand and Flora and Fauna of Aotearoa want an open and transparent dialogue around these Government poison testing policies. We call for aerial 1080 poison operations to be stopped as a valid precaution in the interests of public health and to prevent further harm to wildlife.

(1:This case is currently in the hands of lawyers)

ENDS