COMPLETELY FENCE OFF THE "GIG" & POST WARNING SIGNS

One week go today at a public TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting in Woolwich Council Chambers, Dr. Dick Jackson's 2016 TAG Work Plan was accepted by the TAG membership. This Work Plan lists three specific areas that have not been handled properly or professionally by Chemtura and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. They are the Off-Site Remediation of the Elmira Aquifers, the ON-Site Remediation of LNAPLS and DNAPLS and thirdly the ongoing discharge of POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) such as Dioxins & Furans and DDT into the Canagagigue Creek at least as far downstream as the confluence with the Grand River, over a half mile south of West Montrose. These broad problem areas are the result of inadequate, unprofessional monitoring and or flawed testing and analysis of both ground and surface water samples.

Dr. Jackson's immediate action which will be presented to RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) on December 3/15 in Council Chambers is reflected in the title above. This is an indication of the seriousness of the data that Mr. Jackson has seen to date. I am not yet certain that he has seen all of it which is why I sent him an e-mail last week regarding the M.O.E. report (2012 data) showing 12,000 parts per billion (ppb) of DDT in one sample spot downstream in the "Gig" (ie. Canagagigue). This combined with CPAC's 20,000 ppb. sediment sample taken this past May indicates the threat to wildlife and humans.

Dr. Jackson also pointed out a somewhat peculiar comment in the M.O.E.s most recent sampling report dated September 30, 2015. They compared the sediment concentrations in the "Gig" with a couple of other highly contaminated areas. The other two areas were Whitby Harbour/Pringle Creek and Trent(?). The problem according to Dr. Jackson is the large volume of water in those two areas compared to the very small, confined space of the Canagagigue Creek. In other words there is no getting away from sediment contamination in a small creek compared to in a much larger surface area and volume of water.

A second problem would be that the M.O.E. only gave a couple of results only, for Dioxins/Furans only. No mention of whether there is also DDT present along with the Dioxins/Furans as there is in the "Gig". Besides the unknown effects of multiple toxic componds present simultaneously, to date it appears as if the M.O.E. are more concerned with DDT as it more regularily is in high exceedance of various health standards.

Are the M.O.E. as usual setting up their excuses early? Are they going to use the mathematical joys of Risk Assessment to minimize the threat? Will they give us their version of safety when it involves other human beings and wildlife without a voice in the matter?