Contributor HOWARD SALKOW takes us on a historical voyage up a coconut tree and despite some of the evidence; we must never overlook the fact that coconuts are very much about who we are.  

It’s easy to see why we’re going nuts over coconuts. And let me immediately point out that there is no ambiguity in this statement, or any other that may sneak into this copy. 

You have to understand, when you study the history, there is a link between us mere mortals and the fruit. The archaic form of the word cocoanut derived from the 16th-century Portuguese and Spanish word coco meaning "head" or "skull", from the three indentations on the coconut shell that resemble facial features. Thanks to Wikipedia, we can now hold it aloft, fondle it knowing that some of us have been fortunate enough to be part of the family Arecaceae, or palm family.  

There is more, thanks to our free encyclopedia, that reinforces its value. The coconut is known for its great versatility as seen in the many uses of its different parts and found throughout the tropics and subtropics. 

Coconuts are part of the daily diets of many people. They are different from any other fruits because they contain a large quantity of "water" and when immature they are known as tender-nuts or jelly-nuts and may be harvested for drinking. When mature, they still contain some water and can be used as seed nuts or processed to give oil from the kernel,?charcoal?from the hard shell and coir from the fibrous husk.  

And now, as you treasure your nuts in one hand and review council’s Coconut Management Plan in the other, you have to wonder after this invaluable background data why anyone would want to mess with our nuts. Afterall, when you think tropics, you think coconuts. It’s that simple. 

Let’s recount, for the record, what the fuss is all about. 

Council have stated that the purpose of the Coconut Management Plan is to predominately address any impact coconut palms have on natural vegetation and potential risk in unsuitable streetscapes, while protecting those along beaches, parks and foreshores. 

But most importantly there currently is no management plan in place, which may sound odd for the Coconut Capital of Australia. But on a serious note, with no management plan in place, this can ultimately threaten the protection of coconut palms from being removed on an ad-hoc basis. Under the Plan, Council says that the vast majority of the palms on the foreshore and beaches would be protected and it absolutely does not plan to remove thousands of coconut palms.  

It seems the aim of the plan is to have no net increase in the number of coconut palms in the Douglas Shire. 

Within the plan, the word risk rears its ugly head. The protection of our brain matter is clearly foremost in Council’s thinking. 

Although there is evidence that death by coconut exists – dating back to the 1770s – there is no detailed account of how many, if any, have perished in Port Douglas at the “palms of this 1.44kg missile”. Yet, if you delve a little deeper, some of Wikipedia’s facts tell a different story. So much so, you may never want to again visit the tropics. I don’t, for one minute, believe this is Council’s intent.      

Some facts that make for fascinating reading: 

In August 2001, the Toledo Blade reported that "a check with the experts" found that a human was more likely to be killed by a pig or a falling coconut than by “a shark on the prowl for dinner”.  

In February 2002, The Daily Telegraph reported that coconut trees were being removed from beaches in?Queensland, Australia, to guard against “death by coconut”.  

In April 2002, the?Boston Herald?ran an op-ed piece titled “Travelers should watch out for coconuts – the killer fruit.” The piece reported on the removal of palm trees bearing coconuts in Queensland and noted that local officials were “advising campers not to pitch their tents under coconut trees”.  

In June 2002, The New York Times reported Burgess' claim that “the chances of being killed by a shark are less than those of being killed by a coconut that falls from a tree."  

In March 2003, The Morning Call in Pennsylvania reported, “You are 30 times more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than by a shark.”  

In July 2005, Richard Roeper in the Chicago Sun-Times cited a 2001 report from the London Times for the proposition that, “You're more likely to be killed by a falling coconut than a shark.”  

In February 2009, CBS News reported: “You have a better chance of being killed by a falling coconut than by a shark.”  

Following shark sightings off the Massachusetts coast, The Boston Globe in September 2009 quoted a local resident as saying, “You're less likely to get killed by a shark than by a coconut falling on your head.”  

In November 2010, The Guardian reported that the Indian government removed coconuts from the trees at Mumbai's Gandhi museum “for fear that a nut would descend on to the head of President Obama” who had recently visited the city. The article cited the Barss study and observed: “Thanks to Indian officials and perhaps also to Barss, Obama's recent visit to Mumbai was devoid of coconut trauma.”  

In October 2011, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation?broadcast a story in which Christopher Neff from the University of Sydney claimed that “while people may not pay attention to the statistics, you are more likely to be killed by a coconut than eaten by a shark.”  

As we enjoy the cool temperatures, the coconuts will continue to fall without any adjustments to our population here in Port Douglas. And you have every opportunity to decide how serious you wish to pursue this matter. 

If we are truly concerned that our population will be impacted, we may want to follow Honolulu’s example with this sign.   

Whichever way you look at it, or feel or caress it, I love my nuts and no one is going to take them away. There is something to be said for being nuts about nuts.