LANXESS/GHD SELF SERVING MISREPRESENTATION OF THEIR OWN CRAPPY DATA

The "2017 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Floodplain Soil Investigation" is riddled with poor data, poor sampling protocols, and ridiculous labratory Method Detection Limits. Despite that, honest brokers could make some accurate understandings and conclusions from parts of the data if they so wished. They do not. Lanxess and GHD via their Risk Assessment (HHERA) have come up with conclusions and assumptions that fly in the face of their own data and its'very limited quality. Via their Risk Assessment they have made gross conclusions such as the only unacceptable risks for human beings exist in Reach 4, the Lanxess site. These they claim can be mitigated by the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). They have also concluded that for ecological receptors Reach 4 has the only unacceptable risks. Specific to the 2017 report are various data presented in their Figures section. This data should have been discussed/debated page by page three and a half years ago but was not. ................................................................................................................... These Figures compare numbers and percentages of various contaminants (DDT & dioxins) with their locations in the creek i.e. Reach 1 (next to the Grand R.) with Reaches 2, 3 and 4 (Lanxess site). While there appears to be some decrease in concentrations in Reach 1, it is minor. Similarly Figures showing "normalized" concentrations of contaminants in regards to the number of metres from the Grand River is an eye opener. The concentrations again are very similar. Reach 2 (around Northfield Dr.) is greatly under represented in these Figures for some reason despite a number of samples taken from that area. Graphs showing the distribution of higher concentrations found in each of the four Reaches also contradict the broad and self serving conclusion that Reaches 1, 2, and 3 are much less toxic and risky than Reach 4 (Lanxess site). Depth sample comparisons are also interesting as it appears to me that there are just as many higher concentrations of contaminants in deeper soil/sediment samples as in shallower ones. Lastly there are graphs comparing different concentration results taken by the Ontario Ministry of Environment versus GHD. The results generally show significantly higher concentrations analyzed by the MECP for the same samples than by GHD and their labs. What the hell! Are GHD even fudging their collection of samples or somehow diluting them prior to analysis??? .................................................................................................................. In the real world crappy, dishonest and generally low quality reports get thrown into the garbage bin. In Elmira/Woolwich, with the blessing of the Ministry of Environment they are misinterpreted, fudged and if necessary stakeholders can be intimidated into compliance. What Woolwich citizens need more than alleged "experts" looking out for their interests are trained and experienced citizens whose careers can not be jeopardized by Lanxess, GHD and or the Ministry of Environment (MECP). In other words more independence and fewer "suits" would go a long way. Oh right Woolwich had that up until September 2015 and they and Chemtura/Lanxess/MECP didn't care for it and got rid of it.