IS IT POSSIBLE THAT STANTEC SIMPLY COULDN'T STOMACH LANXESS/GHD'S RIDICULOUS JUNK SCIENCE DATA? (i.e GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT)

................................................................................................................................................ LEFT CLICK ON ABOVE CARTOON TO EXPAND IT FOR EASIER READING! ......................................................................................................................................... O.K. besides going through the recent "Draft Risk Assessment Canagagigue Creek, Elmira, Ontario" I have also reread and carefully examined the data in the "2020 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Soil Investigation". The data is horrific in that over and over again we have labratory Method Detection Limits (MDL) 50, 60, 70, 100, 200 and 285 times greater than the criteria for a specific toxic chemical compound. In other words the toxic compound whether lindane or one of the DDT compounds (DDD, DDE, DDT) will not register as a detection much less an exceedance of the health and safety criteria unless the the concentration is 50, 60, 70, 100, 200, or 285 times greater than the criteria depending on which ridiculously magnified MDL is used. All these compounds based upon their toxicity have appropriately low concentration criteria which criteria are measurable by professional labs. UNLESS...the lab may have higer costs for analyzing at extremely low concentrations based upon greater effort and work required OR if there are a multitude of other compounds present in the sample above and beyond the specific one being analyzed for. In that case perhaps the polluter involved needs to identify some of the other compounds present. In the case of Uniroayl Chemical it could be any one of 150 various chemical compounds of varying toxicities. If the sample (soil or sediment) is so bad that reasonably accurate concentrations cannot even be determined by a professional lab then perhaps the obvious decision should be to start excavating and removing the grossly contaminated soils or sediments from the natural environment. Unfortunately Uniroyal/Lanxess almost seem to embrace these situations that make their pollution data essentially useless. In other words they treat these Non-Detects at ridiculously high Method Detection Limits (MDL) as being true Non-Detects which they are not. A Non-Detect at a MDL that is at least close to the health criteria can give the reader a reasonable understanding of the extent of the contamination and possible risks involved. A Non-Detect at a MDL however that is 50 times higher or more than the health criteria is essentially useless. There could be severe contamination with serious risks involved for persons or wildlife exposed to the contaminant or not. There is no way of knowing under those circumstances. On and off the Uniroyal site there are enough detections of so many contaminants that one should assume that a high MDL Non-Detect is bogus rather than the other way around. ................................................................................................................ Examples are as follows: Background Sediments (i.e. four creeks) for Lindane have Method Detection Limits between 10.5 and 106.3 times greater than the criteria of .00094 ppm. DDD has Method Detection Limits (MDL) between 6.4 and 64.9 times greater than the criteria of .00354 ppm. DDE has MDLs between 23.9 and 119.0 times greater than the criteria of .00142 ppm. DDT has MDLs between 19.3 and 193.2 times greater than the criteria of .00119 ppm. .................................................................................................................................. The Stroh Drain which I refer to as the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB) has the following ridiculously high Sediment MDLs of between 106.4 and 159.6 times greater than the criteria for the pesticide Lindane. DDD (pesticide) has sediment MDLs between 64.9 and 96.0 times greater than their criteria. DDE has MDLs between 119.7 and 176.1 times greater than their criteria. DDT sediment has MDLs between 193.3 and 285.7 times greater than their criteria. ..................................................................................................................................... Sediments in Reach 3 (immediately downstream from Lanxess property) have MDLs between 10.6 and 106.4 times greater than the criteria for Lindane in creek Sediments. DDD has MDLs in Reach 3 between 3.1 and 65.0 times greater than their sediment criteria. DDE has MDLs between 12.0 and 119.7 times greater than their sediment criteria. Finally DDT has MDLs between 19.3 and 193.2 times greater than their sediment criteria. ....................................................................................................................... The very same nonsense occurs for Reach 4 (Lanxess property) in the Canagagigue Creek. Dioxins appear unaffected by this high MDL plague. Similarly Soil samples are much less affected than Sediments. Overall these high MDLs greatly lower the number of both detections and exceedances of contaminants tested for in the creek. They also clearly give most readers, on a limited time budget, the quick impression (via Non-Detects) that the Creek is in better shape than it really is. It is contaminated the entire length from Lanxess all the way (5 miles) to the Grand River, both above and below criteria, with multiple compounds including dioxins, DDT, DDD, DDE, lindane (Likely), PCBs, PAHs, mercury and more, in both soils and sediments. I've based the title above on Stantec allegedly NOT including any of the "2020 Canagagigue Creek Soil and Sediment Investigation" into their recently released "Risk Assessment Canagagigue Creek, Elmira, Ontario". I have inquiries out on this matter. If in the 650 or more pages I've simply missed a page or two or more with the 2020 data in it then I can assume that Stantec are actually able to stomach Lanxess's ridiculous junk science data. My bad.