Better ways to get message across

THE unions and activist groups pleading to legislative councillors wanting them to throw out the anti-protest laws should take a hard look at themselves (July 24).

Protesting is an infantile pasttime. It’s like children spitting their dummies. Intelligent adults make a case expressing their concerns, articulate their arguments and provide supporting evidence.

Thanks to social media you can now get your message out, and if credible and persuasive, positively influence our decision makers.

This is without gluing your hands to the road or muddying up the parliamentary gardens.

David Hurburgh

Opossum Bay

RISE OF INDEPENDENTS

MINISTER Nic Street says he won’t be standing there telling people what transport they should be taking to hospital (“Boy stops breathing in taxi on way to hospital”).

No ambulances available which are equipped for these emergencies. Well, hopefully he along with the rest of his Liberal Party won’t be standing there after the next election.

Independents are taking over with no people in the background playing party politics.

Ian Batchelor

Margate

IN IRVING’S DEFENCE

I READ the article about Andrew Irving in the Sunday Tasmanian and am appalled by the behaviour of the police department towards him.

I knew Marilyn, Andrew’s wife and saw first-hand the miraculous change she underwent when she started on medicinal cannabis. She went from a scared woman afraid of having seizures to someone I would do needlework with.

Andrew should be made Australian of the Year for all the good he has done for numerous people who would be suffering needlessly without the cannabis oil he helped provide.

Andrew is a wonderful man who tried to help people, not a pothead who used the product for himself.

Margie Little Old Beach

PEER REVIEW NEEDED

IF Jennifer Sanger is so confident in her insistence that native forestry is Tasmania’s biggest carbon emitter (Letters, July 23), she should submit it for formal peer review by forest scientists who know far more about timber production than the 15 non-forestry ‘experts’ who supposedly reviewed it before its release.

Just a cursory glance at her report raises concerns about claims that only 1 per cent of harvested wood becomes sawn timber and that 60 per cent of the harvested biomass is left on-site.

Other claims about supposed historical emissions from past harvesting also need to be explained, as well as her advocacy of a swift transition to plantations that are yet to be planted.

Past critiques of ecology papers which advocate the closure of forestry, have typically unearthed major flaws based on wrong assumptions that can be traced back to a reluctance to engage with the scientists who plan and manage timber production.

These flaws are compounded when cited in subsequent papers, as appears to be the case here. Mark Poynter

Port Huon

GREEN IN NAME ONLY

I REFER to an article in the Mercury (July 23) under the heading “Defunct panels pile up.”

The article refers to the millions

of solar panels that could be dumped in landfill sites in California as they reach the end of their life cycle.

The article quotes a solar industry expert who elaborated on the problem as follows. “Only one in 10 panels was recycled because the process is expensive and time consuming.

“Recycling a panel costs about $20 to $30, but $1 to $2 to send to landfill. The industry is supposed to be green, but in reality its all about money.”

The article went on to highlight the fact that solar panels have a lifespan of 25 to 30 years and defunct panels are starting to pile up at landfill sites raising fears they will contaminate groundwater with toxic metals such as lead, selenium and cadmium.

This article makes no reference to defunct wind turbines which will similarly have to be disposed of. No

doubt the advocates for the extensive rollout of these forms of energy generation in this country have plans in place to prevent what appears to be a major issue for the future and are we creating one problem to solve another.

I am yet to hear of or read about strategies to address this looming problem, perhaps one of your readers who are more disposed towards these alternative energy solutions can provide the answer.

Alan Turner

Bellerive

FALSE PROPHET

IN Charles Wooley’s article on Scott Morrison (Talking Point, July 23), Morrison, a member of a Pentecostal church, is portrayed as someone slightly unhinged for not believing in government or the UN, but relying on God alone. That in itself is unbiblical. Wooley refers to Pentecostalism as an extreme sect of Christianity. While it has elements which promote the leader rather than the servant, as shown by Hillsong, it does not deny we live in a world created and sustained by God, which is the Biblical view.

However, the Bible would classify Morrison as a false prophet or even like the chief priest of the Jews, who was responsible for persuading the Romans to crucify Jesus. The message Jesus gave to us was to believe in him as saviour and lord and to live like him as a servant, by caring for others.

In my view, Scott Morrison was never a servant to Australians while he was a member of the federal government and rarely told the truth.

Antony Ault Rose Bay