CLARIFICATION ABOUT LAST FRIDAY"S BLOG POST RE: THE CREEK & NON-DETECTS AND THE CREEK & CORE SAMPLERS

 A core sampler is a hollow tube which can be inserted into the sediments at the bottom of a creek by basically shoving downwards in order to pick up a sample of  those sediments inside the hollow tube. The tube is then opened up and the sediments can be visually examined as well as tested for various contaminants. The core sampler of course needs to be used where sediments are present not where Lanxess and GHD decide to sample which sometimes is where the bottom of the Creek is "armoured" i.e. where larger stones and rocks are sitting.  Then using the "armoured" bottom of the Creek as an excuse they use an ordinary shovel to move rocks and stones out of the way plus they actually use the shovel to take the sediment sample. Well an open shovel blade is a poor tool for that job because as the sediments are lifted through the water column on the way to the surface the fines simply wash away. The fines are where dioxins/furans, DDT and other contaminants are most likely to be attached to.  Basically Lanxess and GHD are artificially manipulating the sampling to reduce concentrations of contaminants found in the Creek. If TAG members at the time had even an ounce of backbone, grit or character they immediately would have loudly condemned the practice and thrown out all the results. One TAG member, Joe Kelly, did stand up and loudly complain about this practice.

Next we have phony Method Detection Limits (MDL). Yes some contaminants are routinely tested for in low parts per billion in water such as benzene. which has a Ontario Drinking Water Standard of 5 parts per billion. Now how intelligent would it be for the Region of Waterloo to test benzene in water at a Method Detection Limit of say 15 parts per billion (ppb.) versus a more normal 1 ppb. ? Basically only concentrations higher than 15 ppb could be detected  and all the other samples would be written as Non-Detect or ND (15 ppb) even if every sample was above the drinking water standard of 5 ppb.

Many soil and sediment samples have much lower health criteria thus requiring lower MDLs. For example a contaminant with a criteria of .007 requires a MDL at least that low in order to capture all the exceedances of the health criteria. Many labs actually charge a higher fee per sample the lower and presumably more difficult it is to achieve the target concentration. This actually gives unscrupulous persons an incentive to ask for higher (and cheaper) MDLs. They not only lower their lab costs but also lower their detections and exceedances of various contaminants.  

Figures can lie and liars can figure. The best ones are hired by the biggest and dirtiest polluters. If you want a job after you get your University science degree casually mention to the private industry recruiter that you fight for the brand and your loyalty only extends to your family and your employer, nobody else. Shareholder profit oriented businesses really like that kind of enthusiasm.