THE Perth site of a chemical company suspected of having supplied a highly toxic batch of 245T to Kimberley workers 20 years ago has been found to be so badly contaminated with the herbicide that scientists say it is 1000 times more contaminated than sites that would require urgent action in other countries. Environmental scientist Steve Appleyard has surveyed the site and reported on the contaminated groundwater at the site of the now defunct Chemical Industries Kwinana.Dr Appleyard told The Australian yesterday it was possible the rogue batch of 245T – blamed for deaths, severe illnesses and birth deformities by the government workers who claimed to have used it in a weed-spraying program – may have contributed to the contamination."It's possible, but it is hard to know what went in there," Dr Appleyard said. It is understood CIK – a supplier of chemicals to the Agriculture Protection Board which employed the weed-sprayers – dumped loads of different toxic waste, including 245T and 24-D into a pond that seeped into the water table. Both chemicals are components of the Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange."It was a pretty awful practice," Dr Appleyard said. "It is on a world scale in terms of nastiness of contamination."Dr Appleyard said the contaminated area was smaller than that at the Sydney Olympic site at Homebush but was much more concentrated and the contamination was in the water rather than the soil. A West Australian ministerial investigation has begun into the health effects on workers who took part in the weed-spraying program in the Kimberley between 1975 and 1985.The West Australian Government has now widened its inquiry, calling in the Department of Environmental Protection after investigations by The Weekend Australian revealed that the heat-damaged – and thus more toxic – batch of 245T matched the description of an unmarked chemical used by the workers. West Australian Agriculture Minister Kim Chance yesterday called for people to come forward with information about the 245T batch, believed to have been imported into Australia between 1969 and 1971 disguised as another chemical.Circumstantial evidence links the chemicals with those discovered 20 years ago by Professors Ben Selinger and Peter Hall, who established that Agent Orange chemicals had been imported in Australia.The Australian National University professors were tipped off about the chemicals, which tests at the time found to be 200 times more toxic than the levels then allowed (245T is now banned).Former workers in Derby claim they dumped about 30 drums of the chemical and that the drums are still buried near the town. Mr Chance confirmed yesterday the Government's investigations extended to locating possible dump sites. For 20 years the victims of the chemicals have been asking Government for answers, and have got little response and inadequate action. The issue has received coverage in the press for some time now, but put it on the front page of The Australian and we suddenly have Government dancing a panicky jig. Perhaps now the truth will be uncovered and justice served. Narelle Hine, Broome, WAThe herbicide "Broadside" is still being used by local authorities in Western Australia resulting in a large number of residents reporting illness from exposure. We found Broadside has had it's licence for use withdrawn by regulators around the world as it contains either 245T or 245D. In response to residents complaints, local authorities in Western Australia claim the National Registration Authority advises Broadside is still registered for use in Australia. Yet no one can substantiate or justify this claim. It's frightening to think the NRA relies almost entirely on documentation of lab trials provided by chemical manufacturers and does NOT carry out it's own independent testing. Worse still, when independent testing around the world OFTEN disputes the accuracy of lab results provided to the NRA by manufacturers in registration applications. When members of the public report serious health hazards from toxic chemicals, instead of keeping information on a public register, it demands the victims provide scientific proof of harm. The one consistency in this methodology is an end result where dangerous chemicals are only banned 5 to 10 years too late! The growing number of successful prosecutions against chemical manufacturers for falsifying lab reports tends to conjure up similar images of what we've seen by other powerful lobby groups such as tobacco companies. It's no wonder why some of the world's leading experts are beginning to question why none of the billions of dollars collected for cancer research is being spent on finding the causes of cancer. There is an urgent need for a full public inquiry into the now well established history of dumping banned chemicals for sale in this country and the transparency of regulators supposedly responsible for protecting public health.