Wednesday, April 25, 2018

GHD FAKERS - TWO SOIL SAMPLES IS A SHAM OF AN INVESTIGATION



Two samples does not a major investigation make. It doesn't even make a minor investigation. It is a typical example of past CRA junk science. It is how credentialed, ethically challenged, well paid human beings manipulate science for self-serving purposes. These were two composite soil samples spread over a large area. Even then both DDT and Dioxins/Furans were detected. Exactly how easy is it to fudge a composite soil sample? Allegedly they were taking these samples in a low lying area which likely served as the pathway for hundreds of thousands of gallons of Uniroyal's liquid wastes which were produced day in and day out. A major portion of sampling location SS20 is located on the high ground which is a wide diagonal swath of ground oriented in a north-west to south-east position. Liquids generally do not run uphill if they have an alternative. It is also likely that the solvent soaked liquid wastes penetrated into the lowlying ground and took the DDT compounds and Dioxins/Furans with them.

These ongoing discharges from Uniroyal's east side ponds ended a long time ago. More than four decades of weathering of surface soils has occurred. This includes wind, sun, rain, snow and literally major floods. This area other than the previously mentioned high diagonal stretch of ground is in the Floodplain of the Canagagigue Creek. How much of these surface DDTs and Dioxins have been transported either into the Stroh Drain or directly overland via major flood and back into the Canagagigue Creek? How much have penetrated deeply and are between one foot and ten feet below the ground surface? We do not know because the corrupt partners in pollution refuse to properly investigate. They are and always have abused the public trust and interest by being the foxes in charge of the hen house. The Ontario Ministry of Environment give them the veneer of respectability, of credibility, of honesty. At least that is among the woefully uninformed, the woefully ignorant, the most naive and finally amongst the most corrupt.

Some TAG members have suggested that the theory of flow being solely from west on the Chemtura/Lanxess site directly east onto the Stroh property is just that, a theory. It is just as likely that flow was from north-west to south-east across the property line. Or it could have been from west to east further north and then turned and flowed primarily southwards on the Stroh property. With the Stroh Drain running initially from north to south parallel to the Lanxess property line this seems like a strong possibility.

Even with composite soil samples averaging out the highest concentrations discovered, the TEQ or Toxic Equivalency of Dioxins/Furans was 6.97 from SS21 just north of SS20 and in the "Gap" area. The term "Gap" was coined as the area which GHD initially and intentionally avoided in their on-site soil sampling back in 2015. We had advised them repeatedly of our concerns in that area yet they still magically "forgot" to sample there while sampling both north and south of the area. To this day they have refused to sample in and around the Stroh Drain on the Stroh property which runs parallel to and within 20 metres of their property.

The 6.97 mathematically derived number is interesting. The criteria for Dioxins/Furans in soils is 13 parts per trillion (ppt). That is unless the soils are within 30 metres of a waterway. Enter the Stroh Drain. That puts the criteria in the "Gap" area as 7 ppt. not 13 ppt.. Keep in mind that the 6.97 number is a number of different soil samples mixed together and then tested. To end up at 6.97 means that some of these soils were below that number and others were ABOVE it! Also keep in mind that these were surface samples after decades of weathering and transport.

Lanxess, GHD and the Ontario M.O.E. are once again involved in a coverup. The Stroh Drain, the likely relocation of GP1 and the possible Interceptor Trench from the Lanxess site onto the Stroh property speak to out and out corruption. The refusal of all three parties to honestly, forthrightly and transparently do an honest investigation only reinforces these beliefs and suspicions.

5 comments:

  1. I would like to see a post from you on a future project for sampling from the Lanxess property to the mouth of the grand and in a detailed manner and with associated costs on the entire project. This includes where to sample, how deep to sample, what contaminants to analyze for and a timeline to do it. Also a complete summary of costs again would be nice. Maybe this would show all you criticize how to do a proper study once and for all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A post would hardly scratch the surface. We at CPAC are ready, willing and able. What is needed now is an honest east side study(ie. Stroh & Martin farms). The guilty parties know how but why should they when dishonesty saves them money?

    ReplyDelete
  3. And they are laughing at that comment. Still worth a shot in my professional opinion. If a well thought out final and complete plan is presented and ignored then I feel you have a right to vent disgust if they fail to deliver. Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I and others have had the right to vent disgust for at least the last twenty years. Why do you think we still don't have our drinking wells restored since 1989? Why do you think the creek is still such a mess? We've given those slime well thought out plan after plan and they've ignored them. They've lied and misled over and over again. These are on-site clean up plans, off-site clean up plans, creek clean up plans. Hindsight has proven we the citizens right far more often than not. And still the slime in partnership with the M.O.E. continue to do the cheapest, least effective clean ups because they have the money, power and lack of decency to clean up their own mess properly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And you have just answered the question so what is the purpose of continuing to vent when you already have said it will produce more nil results. I am not sure what to suggest anymore.

    ReplyDelete