DID UNIROYAL CHEMICAL IN ELMIRA HELP FINANCE RON STROH'S CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS?

 

The WATERLOO REGION RECORD on May 1, 2025 claimed that "...workers, companies and the provincial government were fighting about compensation for workers who developed cancer after being exposed to Agent Orange in the chemical plants in Elmira...". Since then the Record (under duress) has corrected that statement in today's Record by stating that "Only one Elmira plant was involved in the production of the defoliant Agent Orange. Incorrect information was published in a Record story on May 1."

So it appears that the Record are standing by the rest of their story while backing down on the inaccurate claim that multiple companies/plants exposed their workers to cancer causing Agent Orange.  Therefore  would  the corrected version now read "...workers, a company and the provincial government were fighting about compensation for workers who developed cancer after being exposed to Agent Orange in a chemical plant in Elmira...".?

This could be an outstanding admission with incredible repercussions. Of course the one plant in Elmira which produced Agent Orange for the American war effort in Vietnam was Uniroyal Chemical now known as Lanxess Canada. Lanxess Canada are currently heavily involved in NOT cleaning up the downstream Canagagigue Creek which besides being polluted with mercury, PCBs, DDT, DDD, DDE also has dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) from Agent Orange in exceedance of health criteria in creekbank soils, floodplain soils, bottom sediments and in fish tissues. 

Thank you WATERLOO REGION RECORD for publishing what you did, when you did. Your courage (?) may assist TRAC members as well as local citizens to stand up and demand an honest and fair cleanup of five miles of the downstream Canagagigue Creek from Lanxess all the way to the Grand River just south of West Montrose.   

P.S. Honesty makes me admit that I did receive some conflicting information verbally from the reporter. Also I do recall the National Newsmedia Council suggested to me only that the offending sentence would be removed. I wonder how you remove something like that over a month after the fact without reprinting the original article as well as the alleged new version. Perhaps the on-line version which I can't access has done it properly but the printed version doesn't appear to have done so.