by Carol Sawyer
Where are the missing reports, DoC?
The reports the Dept of Conservation have provided are in this link
“Maanaki Whenua Landcare Research tested eight dead rats and one weka. None of these animals had any residue of 1080 toxin. Two other rats were too decomposed to test.
“Massey University School of Veterinary Science undertook post-mortem examinations of five of the dead rats but could not determine their cause of death. The weka was also examined with cause of death unknown.”
“The reports produced are for 4 dead rats and one weka and one rat too decomposed to test.”
Well my arithmetic says that 8 dead rats (plus 2 decomposed ones) comes to 10.
Some questions requiring answers:
1. Where are the reports on the other 4 rats that were not too decomposed to test?
2. Why was only fluoroacetate (1080) tested for ? As the carcasses were already at least 16 days old at time of testing, they needed to test for a range of chemical markers – metabolic products of 1080 poisoning, such as fluorocitrate. Biosynthesis had taken place. (See the attached paragraph from Spurr and Powlesland: “Dead Birds”)
3. Why did the testing take so long ? Were they waiting for more degradation to take place? (Remember the poisoned Indian family… no urine tests for 1080 poison were done for 18 days, despite that being recommended by a doctor at the time!)
4. Why did the scientists use gas chromatography? Another scientist has said : ‘Gas chromatography won’t find 1080. They should have used 19F NMR and looked for metabolic products. They have deliberately used the wrong tests.’
4. Where did the Weka’s head disappear to?
5. Why didn’t the labs test any bone marrow? Spinal is the best source apparently. (Even if the Weka’s head fell off and got lost en route, they could have tested its spine.)
6. What happened to the crayfish DoC took away for testing?
These are just a few of the questions that need to be asked. There will be more!
Comment by Karen Hore