A CURRENT AFFAIR REPORT ON JETSKI's (PWC)
Miffo
To those who saw the story about Jetskiers (or PWC - Personal Water Craft)
on Channel Nine's A Current Affair program on 5/1/2000, they have invited
people to post comments about their story on their A Current Affair Web Site
via http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/news/aca_front.asp .
I posted the below message twice last week but they didn't list my comments
on their Bulletin Board. If channel nine's Current Affair Program isn't
suppose to be bias, then why wouldn't they list my Comments on their
Bulliten Board? If it's too long or offensive, then why wouldn't they edit
my comments? Why don't they have the decency to reply to me in any way after
I have spent a fair bit of my time writing my views.
I believe they only print/report what ever they can to stir up the public
without providing the real facts. They have lost their credibility in my
opinion, and I don't intend to watch their programs or comment on the
rubbish they report again.
Miffo
MY RESPONSE TO A CURRENT AFFAIR REPORT ON JETSKI'S
The ACA report on Jetskiers was obviously a biased story and the reporters
should have done more fact finding instead putting this program on air
without reporting the real facts about jetskiers and jetski's.
This report has done nothing but generalised Jetskiers as hoons which is
very poor reporting.
I am a jetskier and I agree that the non-law abiding Jetskiers (and other
vessels) should be fined for their offenses. I also feel that video taping
offenders should be promoted, and the law breaking jetskiers and the driver
of other vessels, should be fined if caught on video tape. There should also
be PWC zones in beach areas to enable us jetskiers to enjoy our sport.
Perhaps this would be the solution to the perceived problem with jetskiers.
Also, I believe that a licence is not required to operate Jetski's in
Victoria. If this is true, then perhaps a PWC licence should be introduced
in Victoria. If other states requires a licence to ride a Jetski, why judge
jetskiers based on PWC riders in a state that requires no PWC licence?
The comments in ACA generalised jetskiers based on the hoons in this report.
The following comments were made about jetskiers which should have been
investigated further in your program....
1) It was mentioned that 83 jetski deaths occured in USA in 1997 when the
Australian figures were not mentioned at all. Why mention a 2 year old
figure in America when the story was based in Melbourne? It would have been
more appropriate to report the number of Australian Deaths (by state &
territory) in comparison to boat deaths. It would also have been more
appropriate to look at the number of people killed in other vehicles in
comparison to Jetski's. Even with 83 deaths in USA, this is a pretty good
figure considering the number of people living in USA who has jetski's,
isn't it?
2) Herb had a video footage on a person riding a PWC at a reasonable speed
and referred him as am idiot who rides as fast as he wants and wherever he
wants. This footage showed no wrong doing by this PWC rider. He was riding
fast but there were no indication of signs or of any other craft or people
near by. So what was this guy doing wrong?
3) Your reporter also regarded Jetski's as a noisy menace when in fact PWC's
are a lot more quitier than most other powered vessels. Below is a FACTUAL
report about the environmental impact of jetski's that I feel you should
report on your program. Please note the real facts (as per item 1) regarding
noise from a PWC.
The following are extracts from a study of the 'Impact of Motor Boat and
Personal Water Craft on the Environment' By Thomas P. Ballestero, Ph.D.,
P.E., P.H., Environmental Research Group, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, New Hampshire
1.It is now acknowledged that all modern Personal Water Craft (PWC) meet or
exceed government noise regulations.
2. The wake of a PWC is much less than the wake of a power boat travelling
at the same speed because the power boat has a larger draft and thus
requires more engine power to move it at the same velocity as a PWC. The
increase in power is transmitted to the water and is dissipated through a
wake: Since the wake of PWC's are arguably smaller than those of power
boats, the environment impacts due to wakes would therefore be smaller from
PWC's than for boats.
3. The propeller drive common to outboard and inboard motors in power boats
has the impeller in a water column and yields a rotating disturbance. This
effect re-suspends sediment which in turn, reduces light penetration into
water which, in turn, is disruptive to
macrophytes (emergent and sub-mergent aquatic plant species). The indirect
effects of types of water quality problems associated with power boats
(sediment re-suspension, turbulence, and increase in dissolved oxygen) have
been extensively studied. The jet drive of the PWC has the impeller enclosed
in a housing and the water expelled by this system (the jet) is sent out to
the water body as an uni-directional flow stream. In certain instances it
was found that artificial mixing of river water provided beneficial
temperature and dissolved oxygen changes which in turn aided some fish
species.
For a given constant depth to water, rationally, a power boat propeller sits
closer to the river bed than a PWC. Therefore the power boat would be
expected to have a larger effect on the bed sediments.
The direct effect of this turbulence on fish is manifested in increased
mortality of fish species and egg mortalities being directly related to the
intensity of the turbulence. The submerged exhaust of outboard motors and
mixing of exhaust and water by the propeller drives exhaust compounds into
the water. This has a dramatic effect on volatile organic compounds (VOC's)
in our waterways. Common compounds in power boat exhaust include: unburnt
fuel (usually a fuel/oil mixture), nonvolatile oil, volatile oil, lead and
phenols. These compounds when mixed with water directly lead to visual
pollution, taste and odour problems and toxicity to our aquatic flora and
fauna.
It is noted that the VOC's in a given body of water increase dramatically in
periods of high boating traffic. This is known as the "weekend effect".
PWC's by nature of their operation exit the exhaust gases directly to the
atmosphere as their exhaust outlet is at the waterline or above it and the
subsequent VOC's are found to be considerably less.
Conclusions
PWC's have less impact on the environment than fishing.
As PWC use is being severely regulated compared to other boat classes, there
does not appear to be a clear or definite environmental reason why they
should be.
There is no scientific evidence which concludes that
PWC's should be regulated any differently than power boats. PWC regulations
seem to be the result of over-utilised water resources which do not have
recognised recreational management strategies. This regulates the management
of individual water bodies to ad hoc groups
which define what are to be acceptable and inacceptable uses of the water
body in many instances securing traditional use at the expense of new ones.