FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2302214505> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2302214505 startingPage "139" @default.
• W2302214505 abstract "On 25 July 2002, in direct response to a report about the destruction of Dampier rock art (Bednarik 2002), the State Government of Western Australia announced that it would conduct a four-year study of this issue. On 16 October 2002, the then Premier, Dr G. Gallop, announced a committ ee of nine mem-bers, the Rock Art Monitoring Reference Committ ee (RAMRC), to oversee this project. Exactly four years later, on 17 October 2006, the government released a report on the results of only the fi rst of these four years of study, conducted by a supposedly indepen-dent team from CSIRO (The Australian Common-wealth Scientifi c and Research Organisation).This raises some very pertinent questions: why did it take four years to present the outcomes of just the fi rst of four years of research? Is the project team that produced this report free of infl uence from gov-ernment agencies? Does this report exonerate the government from the accusation that its policies are destroying the Dampier rock art, or from the respon-sibility of managing this world-class cultural monu-ment? These are the principal questions examined here. The fi rst two questions are easily answered. The incredible delay is att ributable to government pro-crastination and dithering. Although the RAMRC was established three months aft er the initial an-nouncement, it took to 16 July 2003 to invite inter-ested parties to conduct this study, i.e. a full year. It took another year, to 12 August 2004, to commence the project by CSIRO, which the government an-nounced then as a unique and advanced pioneer-ing study, ‘the fi rst of its kind in the world’. CSIRO (2006) produced a report for the fi rst year of its work (August 2004 to August 2005) on 10 April 2006, but the government delayed its release for another six months. At the same time it became known that the study had run out of funding. Therefore the history of this project indicates a scandalous ineffi ciency of the government.The second question, was there government in fl u-ence in the project, is just as readily clarifi ed. One of the members of the CSIRO team is not a scientist of that organisation, but is none other than Bill Carr, re-cently of the Department of Industry and Resources, currently the Director of the Conservation Commis-sion (CC 2006) of Western Australia. At the DIR, he was responsible for defending the government from accusations of rock art vandalism, and appointing him Director of the Conservation Commission is like placing the fox in charge of the chicken coop. It re-futes the idea that the government lacks a sense of humour or irony. The fact that Carr has served as a member of the CSIRO team, despite his signifi cant confl ict of interest, severely questions the indepen-dence of this report.Which brings us to the third question to be consid-ered. The value of the CSIRO report should be judged solely on how well it meets the original objectives of the project. The principal objective, as stated on its page 4, was to ‘investigate and report on impacts of proposed industrial developments on the rock art of the Burrup’. The RAMRC formulated three research questions to be investigated by this project:• Is the natural weathering of the rock art of the Burrup Peninsula being accelerated by industrial emissions?• Is there a signifi cant and measurable problem?• If there is a signifi cant issue, what management approaches are recommended?The project has not clari fi ed the fi rst issue, and has hardly even att empted to do this. The second issue remains unanswered, hence no att empt was made to address questions of management. Moreover, the ini-tial objective, to report on the ‘impacts of proposed developments’ (such as the Pluto plant and others) was completely ignored in this report. No modelling of any kind was even att empted, and in that sense alone this report is signifi cantly inferior to previous studies of the impact of Dampier industry, such as those by Sinclair Knight Merz just a few years ago. The project has therefore failed to deliver on any of its objectives, and in that sense it is an unmitigated failure.It has, however, provided excellent basic data on the quantifi cation of some of the many relevant airborne pollutants, and in that sense off ers substan-tial justifi cation for the concerns fi rst expressed fi ve years ago (Bednarik 2002). Most important of all, it provides unequivocal confi rmation that acidic pre-cipitation occurs for most of the year. Although the data are highly fragmentary (two of the samplers are" @default.
• W2302214505 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2302214505 creator A5005709506 @default.
• W2302214505 date "2007-05-01" @default.
• W2302214505 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2302214505 title "Dampier rainwater as acidic as beer: CSIRO" @default.
• W2302214505 cites W2025531185 @default.
• W2302214505 cites W2079078688 @default.
• W2302214505 cites W2107963489 @default.
• W2302214505 cites W2182770506 @default.
• W2302214505 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2302214505 type Work @default.
• W2302214505 sameAs 2302214505 @default.
• W2302214505 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2302214505 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2302214505 hasAuthorship W2302214505A5005709506 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConcept C59577422 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C11413529 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C138885662 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C17744445 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C199539241 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C2778137410 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C3116431 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C41008148 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C41895202 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C48103436 @default.
• W2302214505 hasConceptScore W2302214505C59577422 @default.
• W2302214505 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2302214505 hasLocation W23022145051 @default.
• W2302214505 hasOpenAccess W2302214505 @default.
• W2302214505 hasPrimaryLocation W23022145051 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W1002038355 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W1498348812 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W1512593352 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W155503264 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W1965079414 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W1980183992 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2010745358 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2031543729 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2038432964 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2184624718 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2234171809 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2311994030 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2327755217 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2346091992 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W240029718 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2547380890 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2776141920 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W3016045368 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W335126626 @default.
• W2302214505 hasRelatedWork W2284185106 @default.
• W2302214505 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2302214505 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2302214505 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2302214505 magId "2302214505" @default.
• W2302214505 workType "article" @default.