CLARIFICATIONS IN WOOLWICH OBSERVER 'S STORY THIS WEEK ABOUT THE CREEK

First of all the title is dead wrong. That title is "Testing shows creek poses no unacceptable risk to humans". Excuse me but that is 100% WRONG! Testing actually shows incredible risks to human health as DDT, DDD. DDE and dioxins/furans all EXCEED health criteria in both creek soils and creek sediments. In some cases by a very wide margin so please do not misinform the public by suggesting that the concentrations in and around the creek of even just those two toxic groups of compounds (DDT, dioxins) are acceptable. THEY ARE NOT! .............................................................................................................................. Here in the Advocate last Saturday I responded to Jamie Petznick's letter to TAG . Jamie was answering some questions from TAG and as well he provided an informative article from a Donald L. Siegel which explained the difficulties involved with groundwater remediation. I objected to any scenario/interpretation that would let the polluter in charge off the hook for their inadequate and at times incompetent remediation efforts since 1989. .................................................................................................................... Back to the first paragraph: That which shows the creek poses no unacceptable risk to humans is the bought and paid for Risk Assessment (RA) done by Stantec on behalf of Lanxess Canada. Stantec made it very clear that they were relying on Lanxess/GHD monitoring and testing of soils and sediments over the decades in their RA. That testing/sampling has been poor and written about here for many years. Far too many samples are analyzed at Method Detection Limits (MDL) far in excess of the health criteria which both greatly reduces detections at all (i.e. ND-non-detect) and greatly reduces exceedances of the criteria. For example if the MDL is 3 parts per billion and the criteria is 1 part per billion then only samples that are three times the concentration of the health criteria will be registered as present in the sample. Some of these MDLs are ten, twenty and a hundred times higher than their cooresponding criteria. That folks is not scientific investigation it is fraud. It is exactly like the cartoons I've sent out recently whereby the Boss is ordering Dilbert to use blatantly bad data because it's the only data available. .................................................................................................................. .........................................................

........................................................................................................................... LEFT CLICK ON CARTOON TO MAKE IT LARGER ................................................................................................................... P.S. Our authorities simply cover their ears and eyes and pretend that nobody is on to them. That is how they are fooling the media and the public.