M.O.E. / CHEMTURA GAMESMANSHIP NEVERENDING

Richard Clausi has a theory that he calls the teeter totter theory. Basically the farther out and more outrageous the nonsense coming from the opposition; the further out the other end of the spectrum we must be. In other words to balance someone close to the centre of the board you move in and to balance someone way out on the end you move out to your end. For a long time I took this theory with a grain of salt but like many of Richard's ideas and metaphors; they tend to grow on you. Of late I've been realizing that a middle of the road, calm, low key approach is exactly what lying polluters and their enablers are hoping for. Hence for example the addition of the word lying in the above sentence. It's truthful and honest but also inflammatory. If Chemtura and their partners in pollution including historically, particular members of Woolwich Council, were moderate and reasonable and even slightly honest in their positions and communications; then it would be very easy to move towards their position, find some common ground and comprimise on some issues. As it is however they adamantly refuse to acknowledge or respond to reasonable requests, questions and or comments. So be it.

The latest in a long line of M.O.E. twits would be George Karlos. I will give him credit in that he has acknowledged my right to criticize/insult him here in this forum as I see fit. He does however object to any critical characterizations of him in my e-mails. Interesting. Regardless I do not easily or readily publicly criticize anyone without ample evidence of their serious efforts to earn such criticism. George is making a habit of it. At last month's CPAC meeting he was sending e-mails and more to the CPAC Chair advising that yours truly must be brought under control because certain M.O.E. employees new to CPAC meetings had expressed concerns about my conduct. Really? They had never been to CPAC before and allegedly they were worried about me. Gee I wonder who the jerk was that whispered in their ears. If he did at all? Now this month George promised CPAC that he would bring Jaimie Connelly, the M.O.E.'s senior hydrogeologist to the meeting to answer some questions pertaining to the recently received six year old letter Jaimie wrote to the last CPAC. This May 2, 2008 letter is a breakthrough regarding source removal versus hydraulic containment on the Chemtura site. George either on his own or with Chemtura's help has now figured out how badly this letter portrays Chemtura, their consultants Conestoga Rovers and the Ministry's (M.O.E.) positions. Therefore George wants to renege. That's the only logical explanation for his last minute conditions he's putting on Jaimie's attendance. That's right conditions on the attendance of a professional hydrogeologist who CPAC requested attend this meeting in regards to ONE, 6-7 page letter he wrote six years ago. George claims that Jaimie wants questions about the letter in advance or he will not attend. Frankly George I find that unlikely. I've seen Jaimie at CPAC meetings over the years and he is confident, calm, professional; totally unlike various CRA reps who know they can't sell their bullshit sucessfully. Jaimie will be strong when he is certain and I believe when he is less certain he will say so.

Dr. Dan the CPAC Chair is in a difficult position. He was the one who requested Jaimie's presence to assist CPAC's understanding of the weight and significance of Jaimie's May 2, 2008 DNAPL letter. Even more astounding was the DNAPL letter written thirteen days later by Wilf Ruland which while following up on Jaimie's also went further in regards to excavation of free phase DNAPLS downgradient from RPE 4 & 5. I'm also not holding my breathe expecting Wilf to show up to comment on his letter. Chemtura, CRA and the M.O.E. would not approve so that pretty much cans that. Dr. Dan has incorrectly suggested that George's request is reasonable. It is not. George's request is manipulative. I am not remotely disappointed in Dan's immediate opinion. Dr. Dan is of good character and has proven himself over and over again.

Councillor Mark Bauman seems to be responding to recent criticism here regarding his refusal to provide me with the Region of Waterloo's answers to my three pages of technical questions about the West Montrose water supply. I was promised these responses from the Region when I handed over my questions at the request of Councillor Bauman. The criticism will continue until I receive them. It appears as if your less than clever sidekick is attempting to muddy the waters but their feeble attempts are backfiring. The rest of CPAC & SWAT know what game you two are working. Your ongoing campaign to assist Chemtura keeping me off CPAC has only been partially sucessful. You have also exposed your pro Chemtura position in constantly attacking my "style" and attempting to undermine my influence with the vast majority of the honest and publicly motivated CPAC and SWAT members.