BEYOND GARBAGE, BEYOND STUPID, BEYOND GIBBERISH: WHY AREN"T TAG MEMBERS SCREAMING AT LANXESS, GHD & STANTEC?

Oh right I keep forgetting. The TAG members were handpicked to be polite, respectful and "nice" at all times to the professional liars in front of them. Did TAG members take an oath of non-hostility, non-confrontation and even non-anger despite whatever prevarications, factual untruths, deception and outright gibberish are presented to them? It sure looks that way. Where is Will Smith when you really need him? O.K. bad example but it sure makes the comparison when you realize how offensive the constant lying and deception is without TAG members, at the very least, confronting Lanxess, MECP, GHD or Stantec. Call them out! Let the public hear what you know about the raw data being used in the ridiculous Risk Assessment. ........................................................................................................ I've just done a quick review (this time) of both the 2017 and 2020 Canagagigue Creek "Investigations". Way beyond pitiful. Way beyond contemptible. Way beyond truthful. The Emperor (Ramin?) has no clothes and NOBODY at TAG will tell him so to his face. I am beyond disgusted. Yes Sediment results are technically and factually worse than Soil results. Partially this is due to sediment criteria being at least ten times more stringent (i.e. lower) than soil results. Hence if you have a Method Detection Limit (MDL) of .020 ppm (ug/g) for both soil and sediment but the MECP Table 8 criteria for some DDT compounds in soil is .05 ppm then an exceedance of that criteria at least registers as a detection (i.e. the criteria exceeds the MDL). However the same MDL (.020) for sediments having a lower criteria due to greater exposure to lifeforms in the sediments will often not register as either a detection or an exceedance. This is because the Table 8 criteria for some DDT compounds in sediment is .005 ppm hence the MDL is four time greater than the criteria. Other criteria for sediments such as the ISQG (Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines) have even lower criteria than the Table 8 criteria thus putting the MDLs even that many more times greater than the criteria. What a scam! ................................................................................................................. Make no mistake, soil results are also jigged. Make no mistake that these high MDLs are thousands of miles beyond self-serving for Lanxess Canada. They have effectively taken a grossly contaminated creek from the former Uniroyal Chemical site all the way to the Grand River (5 miles) and superficially made it appear to just have a few exceedances here and there combined with a few "hotspots" here and there. The Risk Assessment draft Conclusions go beyond asinine, in my opinion, all the way to manslaughter. Both wildlife and human beings have sufferred for decades without proper acknowledgement or proper remediation of the creek and clearly our authorities at all levels support this coverup.