Friday, June 29, 2018


Personally I'm doubtful however with their latest effort dated June 13, 2018 you'd never know it. This is the second of two reviews dated that day and this is the longer one focusing solely on Floodplain Soils.It is ironic that the other 8 page one pointed out a number of errors in GHD's efforts in their report about the 2017 investigation of the Canagagigue Creek sediments and soils. This review by the MOE(CC) is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges, pineapples, or even to watermelons.

Firstly you cannot honestly or scientifically pretend that measuring the same chemicals twenty years apart at different locations is relevant to anything. GHD picked the new sampling locations. They got them supposedly within 100 metres of the MOE ones from twenty years ago. Good Lord groundwater may be somewhat homogenous but soils are not. Literally two soil samples fifteen feet apart can have drastically different concentrations of either DDT or Dioxins in them. Therefore 100 metres apart simply is not comparing apples to apples. It is not relevant to anything at all. Secondly the MOE's Table 1. is simply inaccurate. They have not correctly listed the data from twenty years ago regarding MOE concentrations of DDT. Thirdly the calculations on page 7 allegedly determining the percentage decrease of DDT over the last twenty years do not match the numbers stated in their Table 1. This is more typical CRA stuff. It is inaccurate, embarrassing and shameful. We the taxpayers are paying for sloppy work. Enough long ago.

No comments:

Post a Comment