'Independent' report on dredging now complete

So The official report dismissed a very plausible and even in their own words is at least a possibility in pyradine , instead for a “fictitious” disease that they can’t name or even prove.

It’s a bit like being robbed and the police coming over and saying I know who did this… aliens
FFS don't give Ben T. more ideas for excuses :D
 
After reviewing the tapes and studying the evidence it’s clear to me now what cause was and it’s clearly

Suicide
787qq2.jpg
 
Channel 4 News ran a 3 minute story on this today. They have highlighted the issue like Private Eye as evil authorities and businesses in the NE poisioning the environment for large profits. Of course this makes the story much more newsworthy.

The 12 members were mainly specialist marine biologists employed by Universities. They had no vested interest in Teesside Freeports either for/or against, nor are they civil servants. They had not been commissioned and paid by special interest groups.

One point they made was the volume of deadly pollulants required to kill the amount shell fish, crabs and other fish and sea mammals over the distance affected could not have come from the level of dredging taking place.

They dismissed algae as well as pyridine, saying the chances of either causing all the deaths were extremely small. They were not frightened to criticise the Government department that put forward the algae case.

To me more research is required and in the mean time fisherman affected need some financial support.
 
Last edited:
The Report is here.

The membership consisted of:

Gideon Henderson – Defra Chief Scientific Adviser
Eileen Bresnan – Marine Scotland
Jan Brooke – Environmental consultant
Keith Davidson – Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS)
Mike Dearnaley – HR Wallingford
Mark Fitzsimons – University of Plymouth
Alex Ford – University of Portsmouth
Tamara Galloway – University of Exeter
Crispin Halsall – University of Lancaster
Tammy Horton – National Oceanography Centre (NOC)
Mark Inall – Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS)
Marian Scott – University of Glasgow
David Wilcockson – Aberystwyth University

The Panel considered the following possibilities for the cause of crustacean mortality:

Disease or Parasite.
Chemical Toxicity from land sources and including Pyridine.
Harmful Algal Bloom
Capital Dredging - to create a new channel or berth.
Maintenance Dredging - for the continued operation of the port.

They concluded that the most probable cause of mortality was disease or parasite, which was rated as likely as not (33 to 66% probability)

Chemical Toxicity was rated as very unlikely (<10% probability)

HAB was unlikely (<33% probability)

Capital Dredging was exceptionally unlikely (<1% probability) and no capital dredging was carried out before the initial mortality event.

Maintenance Dredging was rated as very unlikely (<10% probability) and no Pyridine was found whatsoever during ongoing monitoring at the time by York University.
 
I say a documentary on PBS recently about members of the Republican Party in the USA claimimg they lost the 2020 election through fraud etc. Even when they brought specialist film crews and theor own observers for re counts of votes in key counties they still said there was fraud by the Democrats. It seems nowadays if you don't get the answer you want you keep saying investigations are rigged.
 
I say a documentary on PBS recently about members of the Republican Party in the USA claimimg they lost the 2020 election through fraud etc. Even when they brought specialist film crews and theor own observers for re counts of votes in key counties they still said there was fraud by the Democrats. It seems nowadays if you don't get the answer you want you keep saying investigations are rigged.
What investigation? This enquiry has seen no evidence of anything.
 
Has the ‘investigation’ addressed how and why pyridine was found in the dead marine life?
Or checked to see if pyridine was in crabs before the die off? There must be sea life samples somewhere in a marine biologists freezer somewhere in NE England?
 
Each category has been risk rated by 12 experts in their differing fields of marine life. If pyridine was found in the dead marine life these experts should have addressed it, that was their job in the context of the report.

They have said they are not 100% certain of the cause of the deaths, but put percentage ranges on possible outcomes in a scientific manner.

As said in my opinion, more research/testing is required to get closer to closer to a 100% certain outcome.

Out of interest

Does anyone think they are way out with their percentages?

Or they are not experts?

Or didn't do their job properly?

Or were not independent?
 
Pyridine was found in samples from all over the UK. It's in the report.
I've obviously not read the report, but I world expect that control samples would have been taken from other sites in the UK, to compare against the sure subject to the report.

I know the terms of reference weren't released by the government, does anyone know if they're included in the report, is assume they are.
 
This still has to be somehow connected to the dredging then. If pyridine is in samples from all over the UK, how come the mass die off is in the only area where they are dredging?!
You clearly have not read the report or even the summary. Twelve experts have concluded that dredging is the least likely cause of the mortality event but you conclude that that means it somehow must. That is pseudoscience at it's best. Also, all working rivers are dredged regularly/continuously to provide safe shipping lanes and keep the ports working.
 
You clearly have not read the report or even the summary. Twelve experts have concluded that dredging is the least likely cause of the mortality event but you conclude that that means it somehow must. That is pseudoscience at it's best. Also, all working rivers are dredged regularly/continuously to provide safe shipping lanes and keep the ports working.
So an unknown pathogen, that has never been identified and is not even proven to exist, is more likely? And hasn't spread beyond the dredging area? Righto.

This is so clearly a cover up.
 
So an unknown pathogen, that has never been identified and is not even proven to exist, is more likely? And hasn't spread beyond the dredging area? Righto.

This is so clearly a cover up.
Why not just read the report summary in the link?
Or look who.took part in the report and ask yourself what would be in it for them all to collude in a cover up?
 
So an unknown pathogen, that has never been identified and is not even proven to exist, is more likely? And hasn't spread beyond the dredging area? Righto.

This is so clearly a cover up.
Unfortunately, the torys have destroyed any trust in themselves or any persons associated with them and their works. So it is no wonder people no longer believe a word any of them or their 'independent' lackies/fall-guys say.
They have corroded democracy in the UK almost to the point of no return.
The torys have always been institutionally corrupt but, in the past, if found out they usually had to pay the price Now they think they can carry out corruption on billion ££ scale openly with impunity.
 
Each category has been risk rated by 12 experts in their differing fields of marine life. If pyridine was found in the dead marine life these experts should have addressed it, that was their job in the context of the report.

They have said they are not 100% certain of the cause of the deaths, but put percentage ranges on possible outcomes in a scientific manner.

As said in my opinion, more research/testing is required to get closer to closer to a 100% certain outcome.

Out of interest

Does anyone think they are way out with their percentages?

Or they are not experts?

Or didn't do their job properly?

Or were not independent?
Redwurzel please don't risk injury banging your head against the brick walls on here.
 
Back
Top