HOW MANY LIVES ENDED PREMATURELY & HOW MANY YEARS LOST FOR FAMILIES?

Most of the victim's are unknown to me. Others however I did know including a family member as well as Esther Thur. She had repeat cancers over the last twenty years of her life and she felt that Uniroyal Chemical bore some responsibility. Other family members here in Elmira, Ontario have had cancer and survived  to date at least. Today's Record carries an Obituary of a former Elmira resident who just recently passed away. I was told that cancer was the cause of death. The property he lived on was/is contaminated with Uniroyal waste products.

Courts don't like hearsay evidence. Esther telling me that she blamed Uniroyal Chemical carries little to no weight in court. Esther would have to tell the court directly which is pretty difficult after she's gone. Polluters have long used the defence that cancer is ubiquitous i.e. everybody's getting it. In one sense the more people who get cancer, yes from a myriad of different causes, the more difficult it is to pinpoint one single polluter. Uniroyal Chemical however can not hide the fact that they have discharged carcinogenic compounds into the soil, air, groundwater and surface waters all in Elmira, Ontario over a period of decades .

Where is the accountability? Where is the justice? Certainly not here. Certainly not from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and certainly not from our judicial system.

LANXESS CANADA (Elmira) PLANS FOR THE FUTURE

 

Continue to sell and propagandize what a swell, environmentally conscious company Lanxess are. This means them shedding all blame for themselves mostly and their predecessors at least a little bit for the toxic mess they are responsible for.  I expect that for a small amount of money paid out they have obtained NDAs (Non Disclosure Agreements) from downstream residents.  I also know that they made a self-serving sweetheart deal with the Ontario Ministry of Environment.

They want a new, non binding Control Order or equivalent without hard dates or demands. They want a Control Order that refers to "historical" contamination nicely ignoring the fact that alleged "historical" contamination exists today throughout their site as well as downgradient and downstream. 

They want  to end their potentially life long pump & treat fiasco but they sure as hell don't want to actually get involved in a real life clean up of their site or their neighbours. That could cost them a lot of money.

They want a co-opted, friendly, allegedly "citizens" committee that they and Woolwich Township fully control. Sebastian and perhaps one other may continue to point out the company's and their consultants failures but all to no avail. The committee is impotent and fully intended to remain that way.

They want their cake and to eat it as well. Just because they bought a money making chemical company doesn't mean that they ever had any intentions to do anything serious regarding the grossly contaminated property.  Maybe the MOE (now MECP) gilded the lily when advising them of how much or how little work and money was required to keep them off the hook of real cleanup. Maybe Lanxess are upset with the MECP.  Or maybe they are still best bedfellows.

HOW MANY MORE LIES WILL BE EVENTUALLY UNCOVERED AT THE UNIROYAL CHEMICAL SITE ?

 Not just lies but outright coverups I'm confident will eventually be proven. Not just DNAPLS and not just overland flow of contaminants onto both the Martin and Stroh property but significantly more. A recent Blog commenter advised that there are other highly toxic chemicals worse than dioxins and NDMA buried on the site. Certainly we know about DDT, many other herbicides, PAHs, parathion etc. What other surprises might there be?

The whole verbal story about gravel pit 1 & 2 has pretty much been a croc from the very beginning. Old maps have not just failed to clarify the truth they have actually clouded it more than ever. Interceptor trenches further north may have been installed after decades of massive leakage southwards, for the purpose of deflecting the toxic mess eastwards off-site (Stroh property), so as to somewhat cleanup the low lying stinkhole just north of the North-West to South-East diagonal ridge of high ground on Lanxess's east side.  

The alleged Stroh property investigation was pitiful and full shame to CRA, GHD and Lanxess for the scam.  Further deceptions include the original location of GP-1 as per official maps versus the multiple, ever changing shifting of GP-1 by CRA and GHD. 

The west side also has some tales yet to tell. Testimony at the Environmental Appeal Board hearings in the early 1990s was never followed up on. Buried drums, raw product and chemical wastes all found their way into the M2 landfill on the Uniroyal/Lanxess site. Again they are still there but only hydraulically contained in theory. Our MECP are knowingly and wittingly complicit.

Someday the site will be remediated and then we will see the full extent of the professional lying that Elmira and citizens have been subjected to over the decades by all parties.

TRAC CHARACTERS NOT ALL BAD, BIASED OR INCOMPETENT

 

I stand by my characterization however that TRAC really stands for "Totally Rotten and Corrupt".  This is because just like RAC and TAG, that is what they were designed to be and the proof is in the pudding. For eight and a half years RAC & TAG marked time, spoke politely and behaved deferentially towards Lanxess, GHD and the Min. of Environment (MECP). This is by my personal observations as well as by the opinion of one of their own members Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach who so publicly proclaimed it in writing. Those written comments are currently on the Township's website, possibly the October 2023 TAG meeting, unless the Township have shifted it again.

 Ramin was awful in that he was slick, smooth, soft spoken and much like Joe Ricker had a voice that was confident and reassuring.  His replacement (?) Hadley has no such built in advantages. Her voice is loud and grating at least to my ears. Her knowledge base is infinitesimal compared to Ramin's.  None of that is her fault or directly indicative of character flaws. That tends to tell me that Lanxess feel the public relations war has been won and Hadley is simply there for mop up.

I view Councillor Cadeau as beyond hope unless of course he really is a CPAC secret agent (see yesterday's post). Susan Bryant's decades of double dealing Elmira citizens, APTE and the Elmira EH-Team put her in an unflattering league of her own. Thank God Pat McLean is long gone and good riddance to bad rubbish. Eric Hodgins formerly a hydrogeologist with the Region of Waterloo has me perplexed. He disappeared literally for years maybe decades and now he's back by invitation as a retiree. I don't think he lives in either Woolwich or Elmira but then neither does Susan. So much for local citizens being on this highly scrutinized and vetted municipal committee. 

Ryan Prosser seems to be on the ball and doesn't let stupidity go unchallenged. He clarified yet again what needs to be done to get clams and bio-monitoring back to the Lanxess site.  Councillor Eric Schwindt seems willing to follow the bullsh*% doled out to him but perhaps he's quietly building a knowledge base before seriously challenging the self-serving propaganda copiously available. Linda Dickson has me stumped. She works hard on looking at the monthly Progress Reports but clearly does not have the environmental background to put the months to years long pumping failures into perspective.  Too bad. Sebastian did step up at the end of the TRAC meeting and proclaimed that there was significant disagreement within TRAC on some matters.  That is good but TRAC is supposed to keep the public fully informed. Many more details please Sebastian.

I feel badly for the two students from Conestoga College. Frankly they got used by Nathan Cadeau (TRAC Chair) as well as by Lanxess and the MECP. Seriously why would you ask for free technical expertise from community college students at the same time as you are paying small fortunes to GHD, Stantec and more?  The answer is simple. The credibility of bought and paid for consultants is low as it should be. Stantec are experts in a number of fields but Risk Assessments is not one of them and it shows. So they bring in honest students just trying to pass their courses and attempt to use them to bolster their own credibility. Both pathetic and disgusting. 

INFORMED RESPONSE TO THE PACK OF MOSTLY AMATEURS ON TRAC

 

                                                                                                                         June 13, 2024

                                                                TRAC MEETING

Kind of an inauspicious start when the presenters apparently can not pronounce Lanxess. It is neither Lanex nor Lanexs. Similarly NDMA or N-Nitrosodimethylamine is NOT MDMA nor MDNA. Finally sub-surface remediation is known as in situ not in- su just as remediation of contaminants brought to the ground surface for treatment are known as ex-situ not ex-su.. Minor points yes but they reflect poorly upon TRAC's alleged professionalism.

It appears if one of the latest Lanxess recruits has made a serious error. Hadley claimed twice in the TRAC video that one can drink the discharge water going into the Creek. Well I suppose one can drink arsenic, cyanide, bleach or whatever one wants but really she should have warned unsuspecting people about the consequences. I believe her drinking suggestion was based upon reduced NDMA concentrations in the discharge water. Yes they are reduced but NOT to drinking water standards. Somewhere I noticed ND (.2) ppb. and somewhere else (likely in the monthly Progress Report) a discharge to the Creek criteria for NDMA of ND (.14) ppb. Even this lower number is approximately fifteen times higher than the drinking water standard of 9 ppt or .009 ppb. Then of course there are all the other chemicals in the soup that are above the drinking water standard. What for me is the most horrifying is that no one corrected her. Nathan and Hadley for example are newbies. Allegedly Susan, Eric H., Sandy, Tiffany etc. are not. YET NO ONE CORRECTED OR CLARIFIED HER. That is incredible beyond belief. Are they all grossly ignorant or simply too well trained to contradict Lanxess???

TRAC Chair Nathan asked Nadia and Sadie of Conestoga College if in their research they had come across “asymptotic behaviour” by NDMA i.e. NDMA never achieving a concentration of zero over time. I believe that Nathan was trying to dispel or disprove my written comments that Joe Ricker's (WSP) theory of “asymptotic behaviour” was junk science or worse. On the other hand maybe Nathan is secretly either an agent of CPAC or an eco warrior and he was hoping that the ladies would respond in the negative as they did.

The discussion focusing on a pilot test of ISCO (In Situ Chemical Oxidation) totally failed to hit the most significant point. Not only was it a failure under the direction of Conestoga Rovers and Chemtura but according to the first TAG Chair, Dr. Richard Jackson, the failure was due to a completely inept and amateurish effort by those two. Several former TAG members were present back then including Sebastian, Linda and Susan but apparently their memories or courage failed them. I have previously sent the references (TAG Minutes & date) to both Woolwich Council and TAG but if you are unable to access them promptly then rest assured I will so provide for a minimum administrative fee solely to ensure appreciation for my efforts. After all you Woolwich Township have a history of dumping on and scapegoating well informed citizens who work for free, literally for years in the public interest.

I am curious as to whether the admitted loss of hydraulic containment to the Creek is solely a function of normally higher ground and surface water levels in the spring time. Could there not also be an element of continued reduction in shallow aquifer pumping along Uniroyal/Lanxess's south-west corner also contributing to this loss of containment?

So has Hadley stuck her foot in it again? Personally I kind of like her based upon her honesty about being a newbie and being on a steep learning curve. Regardless I was a little non-plussed to hear her advise TRAC that the 2028 deadline actually was neither a deadline nor a timeline. Hadley rather strongly referred to it as a Target !!! My recollection both verbally and in writing (June 2000- Kal Hannif MOE) was that 2028 was a mandated deadline and that we at CPAC were so advised many times of that as was TAG from 2015 onwards. Now if that mandated deadline is not a mandated deadline anymore than that's O.K. This is Woolwich Township and clearly black is white, white is black and any and all Ministry Orders etc. are mere suggestions totally amenable to unilateral amendment, revocation and reinterpretation upon the whim of his/her Majesty the Crown.

There was discussion by Hadley and Eric Hodgins regarding “magic bullets” i.e. a remediation technology that could inexpensively do a masterful job of destroying contaminants and cleaning up aquifers etc. Hadley suggested that Lanxess would likely be the first to ever hear about any magic bullets. Eric agreed that such a magic bullet was not likely to show up. Unfortunately Hadley's five minutes of experience with Lanxess really doesn't give her all that much credibility to date.

Ryan Prosser clarified a lot of misconceptions regarding obtaining acceptable clams for bio monitoring at the Lanxess site i.e. the Canagagigue Creek. As had previously been discussed in detail there are a number of native clam species with adequate populations to use here in Waterloo Region versus going back and getting the clams (eliptio complanata) from Balsam Lake which is outside of our watershed. Jason Rice of the MECP blathered on about a new source of clams and Ryan Prosser again set him straight.

For some reason there was discussion about prematurely cleaning part of the Creek. Prematurely, really more than seventy years after the company started killing it? Hadley, Linda and Susan were involved with that discussion. Susan wanted the Risk Assessment finished first.

Susan frankly shocked me which at this point in time I thought that I was well past. In discussing the proposed new MECP Order with Eric Hodgins (former RMOW) Susan stated that the new Order should NOT first be presented to the public. Instead she wants the public educated first. Educated presumably in the ways of sweetness, lightness, obfuscation, deceit and manipulation so that they will not oppose the plans of the discredited non-saviours of the Elmira Aquifers. She and Eric also discussed six allegedly relevant questions regarding cleanup that some idjit may have proposed. Susan did however make one very interesting comment that I do tend to agree with. She asked why a volunteer group should have to be figuring out where the cleanup needs to be going. She referred to that as being too much and unfair. As she stated both Lanxess and the MECP have the funding and the expertise. Unstated may have been that those two have failed and maybe the only purpose of RAC, TAG and TRAC is alleged “citizen” involvement and hence some responsibility for the final failure.

Dr. Klees the faculty adviser to the Conestoga College students suggested that the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) might be old and out of date. Jason Rice, Eric H., and Hadley all joined in. She repeated her silliness about allegedly dumping clean drinking water into the Creek. Mayor Sandy Shantz made a comment similar to Susan's about “We need to educate the public.” after first saying that the Township needs input from the public. Two entirely different things.

To my relief Sebastian stepped up and rather bluntly suggested that TRAC be careful with their upcoming “Update” to Woolwich Council. He suggested that there were some fundamental disagreements going on within TRAC. WELL!

There were four pieces of correspondence to TRAC including my Delegation to Council back in May about Joe Ricker's "asymptotic behaviour" junk science, self-serving, face saving groundwater pumping failure excuses. There were the usual zero comments, questions or concerns expressed by TRAC.

Alan Marshall EH Team

DOES TWO PAGES OF EXCUSES JUSTIFY NEVERENDING PUMPING FAILURES?

 On-Site pumping of the Uniroyal/Lanxess Municipal Upper and Lower Aquifers has NOT achieved GHD's Target Pumping Rate in OVER TWO YEARS!  January 2022 was the last time they actually pumped the recommended 4.7 litres per second of groundwater in order to achieve hydraulic containment of the site only in those two aquifers. Their site is leaking into the rest of the Elmira Aquifers because they can not or will not pump a miserable 4.7 litres per second on -site and whether TAG or TRAC they won't offend anybody by demanding compliance.

Meanwhile the off-site pumping has been up and down for the last two years as well with a number of months higher than the GHD instigated Target Pumping Rates as well as far too many months well below even the minimum pumping rates as far back as 2012 . The result is that the higher off-site pumping rates (60-70 litres per second ) draw contaminants off the Uniroyal/Lanxess site and into the Elmira Aquifers but the lower off-site pumping rates (25-45 litres per second) fail to remove anywhere enough contamination to reduce groundwater concentrations of NDMA, chlorobenzene and so much more.

Every monthly "Progress Report" gives a listing of excuses as to why pumping rates, both on and off site, are not achieving the CRA/GHD determined Target Pumping Rates. The latest excuses cover two pages and are a litany of this pump is broken, this pipe is plugged , this part is on back order, the aquifer despite more rain and less pumping allegedly no longer supports this rate of pumping etc. etc.

The May 2024 Progress Report indicates that both on-site wells (PW4 & 5) are below Target pumping and four of the off-site wells are as well namely W3R, W5A, W5B and W9. I believe that this is intentional between the MECP and Lanxess knowing full well that TRAC can be relied on to always defer to smooth talking, client driven consultants and suits.

 

TRAC MEETING LAST NIGHT

 I've already posted here why I did not attend and that the meeting is simply more about face saving for Lanxess and the Min. of Environment (MECP) than about actually, honestly cleaning up the Elmira Aquifers or the Canagagigue Creek.  Interestingly there are a couple of dates already on the Woolwich Council Calendar for future TRAC meetings namely September 19, 2024 and October 10, 2024.  No need to worry about the next three months, as with or without meetings, there will be minimal on and off-site pumping combined with most likely zero Creek cleanup.  Afterall if and when Lanxess and the MECP  decide on a token cleanup of one or two "hotspots" in the Creek they will want to  ensure that the whole world applauds them as they allegedly, voluntarily clean up 1%  or less of the disgusting mess they've made of the downstream Creek. 

THE CLEANUP ALWAYS WAS INTENDED TO BE A SHAM

 The Feds, the Province, the Region and Woolwich Township all decided privately, decades ago, to just let it all go downstream, downgradient and up into the air.  At the same time they understood there would be serious political fallout if they came clean with the public. Amongst unfortunately a smallish number, those political entities have lost all credibility as they should. They are all a pack of professional liars and each and every responsible one should do quality jail time. Only then will conspiracies such as the Elmira Water Crisis not be repeated.

O.K. maybe I should have figured out the big picture a long time ago. The way DNAPLS were handled and mishandled way back in the 1990s should have shown me the light. The fact that Sylvia Berg and the APTE coordinators blanked out on the entire DNAPL scam involving Morrison-Beatty should have rung serious collusion alarm bells. Instead I wanted to think that only Sylvia and Glenys were involved when in fact it included Susan Bryant directly and the other coordinators indirectly. They were too busy with their own lives and families to put the necessary effort in to see through Sylvia's Bullsh*%. 

Tonite TRAC will do as it is supposed to do which is build credibility for both Lanxess and the MECP. They will discuss Agenda Items 6, 8.1, 8.2 and 9. all for the purpose of face saving. Afterall despite twenty-five years plus of professional lying, all parties now agree that they can't restore the Elmira Aquifers by 2028.  So their only hope is more lying. It's what they do best, it is their forte. 

I will not be attending in person tonite for fear of throwing up in disgust with what they say.  

THE DISGUSTING DNAPL COVERUP BY UNIROYAL, WOOLWICH & THE ONT. MIN. OF ENVIRONMENT

It started as early as the 1980s. Frank Rovers of  Conestoga-Rovers & Assoc.( CRA) allegedly told UPAC in the early 90s that the site was filled with both residual and free phase DNAPLs or Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids.  Now as a consultant to Uniroyal he also stated that it was least expensive to simply leave them where they were at on site. That excuse should have gone out the window in January 2007 when world renowned hydrogeologists Dr. John Cherry and Dr. Beth Parker set Susan Bryant, Pat McLean and Wilf Ruland straight at a meeting (including myself) at the University of Waterloo. They made it very clear that the most up to date understanding was that DNAPL should be removed from the sub-surface whenever possible in order to reduce groundwater contamination for decades to come.

DNAPL whether residual (scattered patches intermittently filling pore spaces in soil) or free phase ( solid lumps or blobs beneath the surface often resting on the surface of less permeable clay/silt aquitards) both dissolve slowly in groundwater. That slow dissolution can result however in groundwater contamination above drinking water standards for decades to centuries. This is precisely what has been happening with the failure to achieve chlorobenzene drinking water standards of 80 parts per billion (ppb.). 

In hindsight the intentional coverup of the presence of DNAPL both on and off the Uniroyal site was a clear indication that our authorities decided very early on in private NOT to clean up the Elmira Aquifers despite their claims to the contrary.  The entire efforts have been primarily  a public relations exercise to fool the public into thinking that a cheap pump & treat cleanup on its' own could do the job. Literally for twenty-five years Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura and the MOE/MECP lied to us. Only in the last few years have they come somewhat clean saying they can't do it albeit blaming it on "Asymptotic Bullsh*% " oops sorry they blame it on "Asymptotic Behaviour"  essentially the same thing as junk science and Bullsh*%.  

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP EXIST IN A FANTASY LAND OF THEIR OWN MAKING

Hence RAC, TAG and TRAC.  It's all about fooling the public. It doesn't have to be all the public, just enough of them.  Yes our local media, the Woolwich Observer, took their measure accurately back in 2015 but that didn't stop them. Similarly the Observer have spent decades warning Woolwich citizens about always increasing municipal taxes mostly to pay for unnecessary extras including staff raises and hires with little success.

Currently TRAC are selling the idea of giving Ramin,  Lanxess and the MECP a soft landing in 2028 the year that our drinking water aquifers were to be fully restored. No blame, no guilt, no shame it's all about friends pulling together to hornswoggle the public. The new Control Order from the MECP will be kind to Lanxess.  The Joe Ricker nonsense about "Asymptotic Behaviour" being responsible for remediation failures will cast blame for cheapness and laziness onto  more junk science. The amateurish "Advancements in NDMA Remediation" from Conestoga College will further deflect blame as the impression (false) will be given that Lanxess are still trying. Any revisions to the Risk Assessment of the Creek allegedly from TAG/TRAC or the MECP will be superficial at best and or mere window dressing as the vast majority of "revisions" have been. Alleged "hotspots" in the Canagagigue Creek have been nothing more than nonsensical, intentional, locational sampling biases from the beginning that TAG, co-opted Susan and others have jumped upon for an easier fix of five plus miles of grossly contaminated, downstream Creek.

It's all been a sham folks. Very little Source Removal either on or off site. Very little DNAPL removal either on or off site.  Limited pump and treat with promises for much more never occurring. Manipulated and strict control of which citizens our authorities will listen to with a strong preference for the ignorant, co-opted, deferential to authority and those with an agenda to advance themselves versus the public interest. To date not a single shovel of dioxins, DDT, lindane, PAHs, PCBs, mercury etc. has been removed from downstream of Uniroyal/Lanxess. 

   

YET ONE MORE ITEM ON THIS THURSDAY'S TRAC AGENDA

 That would be the likely "Get Out Of Jail Card Free" from the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MECP) to Lanxess Canada. After all nothing has been achieved as promised. The 2000 Amending Control Order insisted upon aquifer cleanup by 2028 and has NOT been complied with not via the junk science Joe Ricker explanation of "Asymptotic Behaviour" but due to laziness, cheapness, incompetence and negligence.

"The Cleanup Is A Sham" was written by myself and put on a sign on the roof of my car way back in the late 1990s. Truer words were never spoken. Personally I seriously doubt that anyone sincerely ever intended for the Elmira Aquifers to be properly cleaned up. They certainly have never taken the actions necessary to achieve that mandated goal by the MOE/MECP.

Hence a new Control Order needs to be written that exonerates Uniroyal, MECP and the successor chemical companies . On this Thursday's Agenda I believe it's referred to as the 2028 Control Order. 

TRAC MEETING THIS THURSDAY AT 6 PM.

 

TRAC is scheduled for this coming Thursday at 6:30 pm. TRAC of course stands for Totally Rotten & Corrupt and is yet another brainchild of Mayor Shantz. Gad but she has really put herself into the Woolwich and Region of Waterloo history books with her deferential and subservient abdication of responsibility and authority on the Uniroyal/Lanxess file.

There are three items of interest on the upcoming Agenda namely a Student Research Paper regarding groundwater remediation possibilities which I've already read and pointed out a number of weaknesses with it here a few days ago.  

The second item is in regards to updates with the HHERA or Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment.  This was done by Stantec and I've been advised that Stantec are totally out of their depth on this one. Now I do know that Stantec have extensive experience dealing with municipal infrastructure projects such as water, electrical, waste water etc. and that they are respected in that field. 

The third Agenda item deals with the so called "hot spots" which is deceptive and misleading in it's own right. There are far more than just three "hotspots" but when you do 90% of the samples in three areas where do you think your highest concentrations are likely to be? It's called a locational sampling bias and is very effective in getting the results that you want.

WOOLWICH BIOGAS MOVING FROM ELECTRICITY GENERATION TO (Natural?) GAS GENERATION

 O.K. so today's article in the Waterloo Region Record took me two or three reads to figure out what was going on. The "Opinion" piece is from Susan Koswan and is titled "Say no to a new pipeline in Elmira". Now yes I was vaguely aware from earlier newspaper ads etc. that Biogas were expanding again and that they were branching out from producing biogas from organics (foodstuffs) to run generators producing electricity to intentionally producing even more biogas (methane/natural gas sort of) to feed into the natural gas pipelines in the area. 

The local pipeline is allegedly around 2.9 km in length and according to Ms. Koswan's article is to connect with the Owen Sound Transmission Pipeline. Frankly I wasn't overly concerned as it didn't seem like a big deal other than conveniently local citizens probably have been bullshit*% right from the start years ago regarding the company's and province's plans. 

Now Ms. Koswan's Opinion piece is doing what it's supposed to do namely getting people thinking. Regardless of the volumes involved why exactly are we still building any infrastructure (a pipeline) with public funds to maintain or expand the use of natural gas versus renewables when the world are right now suffering from climate change  effects exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels like natural gas? It really doesn't make much sense and local citizens were sold a Bill of Goods yet again to provide profits to local entrepreneurs at the expense of  taxpayers and the environment.

FOOD WASTE TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY DOES NOT EQUAL FOOD WASTE etc. TO PRODUCE & DISTRIBUTE NATURAL GAS

TWO PAST RECORD EDITORIALS REGARDING UNIROYAL CHEMICAL

The first is titled "Toxic Time Bomb must be defused" dated May 4, 2016 and the second is titled "Our waterways need protection" dated May 9, 2016.  The first one describes the use and abuse of Agent Orange in Vietnam as well as describing signs that have been erected along three stretches of the Creek warning people not to eat fish caught in the Creek.  It has been heavily contaminated since the very late 1940s yet it took over 65 years to post warning signs. What does that tell you about local transparency and accountability?

The second Editorial advises that Woolwich Township have asked the federal government for help in cleaning up the Creek (Canagagigue). Dioxins from Agent Orange combined with DDT and so much more are the biggest problems. To date the federal government have done nothing but pass the buck. No surprise there when even the Ontario Ministry of Environment have corruptly abandoned their mandate and their responsibility through backroom deals and sweetheart deals with Uniroyal. 

These Editorials make it obvious that our governments are ignoring health risks to their own citizens. This is exactly what they have been doing at Grassy Narrows in northern Ontario since the 1960s. There mercury poisoning by dumping in the English-Wabigoon river systems were the problem. Here in Elmira it is industrial/commercial pesticides, herbicides, solvents and more. Shame on all levels of our governments from municipal, regional, provincial to federal.  

IS DISRESPECT TOWARDS OUR ELECTED POLITICIANS RIGHT, WRONG OR INAPPROPRIATE?

Lately there have been  a number of articles regarding politicians leaving politics due to unpleasant public disgust being expressed towards them. I think of past local incidents from chocolate milk being poured on Stockwell Day by local activist Julian Ichim to stones or gravel being thrown at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's bus. Now I am sure that some of the behaviour has been over the top which in Canada is still more likely to be verbal than violent. I also don't condone hate speech against politicians based solely upon gender, race, religion or skin colour.  Now hate speech against politicians for their ubiquitous lying is entirely different.

Today's Waterloo Region Record advises us that the governments of both Ontario and Ottawa are being sued by the Grassy Narrows First Nation regarding mercury contamination in the English-Wabigoon river systems. Both environmental and human costs of this contamination have been high for many generations with mostly hot air, bullsh*% and obfuscation being the governments' response to this past and even present industrial pollution. 

The title of the story is "Ontario, Ottawa sued over mercury contamination" and the decades after the fact lawsuit likely is directly caused by the failures of our governments to provide citizens with honest and timely justice.  It frankly is amazing to me generally how Canadians are so unlikely to commit violent offenses against blatant lawbreakers who have killed and maimed innocent citizens simply going about their business.  Meanwhile our governments weigh votes and look carefully at the politics rather than at either the law or justice, to their shame.

My take is that our politicians have earned every bit of disrespect  coming their way and  it is totally appropriate.

 

IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO DISCUSS/NEGOTIATE WITH LONG TERM PROVEN LIARS?

 TRAC is kind of an attempt. RAC and TAG were kind of an attempt. Sort of. Maybe. The problem is the grossly uneven negotiating positions.  Lanxess are a multi national, multi billion dollar corporation. RAC, TAG and TRAC are somewhat individual citizens and employees who are appointed by a grossly biased Woolwich Township who will not offend or alienate the province of Ontario via the MECP . 

Lanxess are first and foremost interested in shareholder profits and price shares. It has recently been suggested to me that perhaps they were misled by the Ontario Min. of Environment into believing that the Uniroyal/Lanxess site plus the Elmira Aquifers and Creek (Canagagigue)  were not as badly contaminated as they are. This would somewhat cast Lanxess as victims. Personally I am skeptical as surely they read all or most of the reports written over the last three decades or so.  Yes the reports conclusions are sugar coated but a lot of the data is quite damning especially to educated, intelligent readers.

From Uniroyal through to Lanxess Canada the lies have never stopped. Maybe there are fewer now and maybe not. Regardless the few remaining informed and intelligent people have absolutely zero confidence in any good faith discussions ever coming from Lanxess or the Ontario Min. of Environment (MECP). Perhaps there is some kind of sweetener to interest Lanxess in serious, good faith discussions.  I mean talks would have to benefit both parties. I just don't know right now what that benefit could be. Afterall when you own both the process and all the participants it doesn't get much better.

SORRY NATHAN & LANXESS BUT YOUR STUDENT RESEARCH PAPER HAS SOME ISSUES

 O.K. I know that the latest trends in education include more flexible, less rigid attempts at grading student knowledge of subjects.  This may or may not be simply "the flavour of the month" nonsense that has been ongoing in education for some time now. When your basic English and Mathematics at the public school and high school level are unchanged for decades to centuries, then overpaid, inquiring minds are always looking for ways to enhance, complicate things with new acronyms, new teaching methods, the very latest in advanced educational hooey.

There are a number of fairly minor errors in this paper produced by two Environmental Science students seeking a DEGREE not a Diploma from Conestoga College presumably here in Kitchener, Ontario. I will not go into all of them despite my joy at pricking Lanxess, Woolwich Township and the Ministry of Environment's bullsh*% balloons, junk science and more.

In fact I'm even going to suggest that there is a fairly logical reason for the following significant error in the report listing a number of different remediation methods available to remove NDMA from groundwater.  The long time criteria in Ontario for drinking water is a maximum of 9 parts per trillion (9 ppt. (ng/l) ) also known as .009 parts per billion (.009 ppb.) Well it certainly appears as if this research paper has however screwed up the CANADIAN criteria by listing it as  4 ppt. (ng/l) when in fact multiple on-line sources suggest that it is actually  .04 ppb or  40 ppt. (ng/l). The Conestoga College report claims that the Canadian standard is less than half as high as the Ontario criteria or standard when in fact the Canadian standard is more than four times higher than the Ontario standard (i.e. 4 ppt versus 40 ppt.).

Now why am I being so generous suggesting a fairly logical reason for this mistake? That is because the on-line Canadian criteria/standard for NDMA in drinking water is written somewhat bizarrely as follows:   .000 04  mg/l. Yes there is actually an empty space between the third and fourth zero. What the hell. Therefore it could be a forgotten zero???  Or not???? Regardless if it is supposed to read .00004 mg/l then it means  .04 ppb and  40 ppt. (ng/l).  Otherwise if that extra zero is included (.000004 mg/l ) then it reads .004 ppb. and  4 ppt. (ng/l). 

The website for the Canadian criteria advises that the  .000 04 mg/l or .04 ppb. or  4 ppt. (ng/l) are the accurate numbers.  While confusion is certainly understandable both can not be correct.  So did the Conestoga College folks screw up or is all the blame on our federal government twits writing the concentration in a funny manner?