POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE (CRITICAL) : A NICE CHANGE OF PACE

 When dealing with decades long, entrenched corruption of the corporate polluter and Ministry of Environment style it becomes easy to be disillusioned and skeptical. When one joins an environmental group it does elevate one's hopes and aspirations for environmental improvement. It also reinforces the fact that most people are good at heart despite the appearance that so many politicians are not. I think what has been most shocking to my system is the extremely bad behaviour, thank goodness of only a few citizens who surreptitiously have advanced their own position at the cost of both their friends and colleagues as well as that of the public interest. That such perfidy existed I originally did not know. 

Currently I am attempting to arrange a groundwater tutorial with the mostly new Woolwich Council. Within a mere 48 hours I have had positive responses from half (3) of them so far. I view that as an excellent start and certainly hope for more. I expect that this time we will be able to come up with a time that suits more folks.

I will admit that I am looking forward to assisting these new councillors to get a better handle on proposals or ideas brought to them through their Council duties. It has long been my opinion that there has been a one sided voice speaking to municipal councillors regarding the Elmira Water Crisis and all the ensuing plans whether for groundwater cleanup or downstream Creek cleanup. I believe that if councillors can get a better handle on the basics of groundwater, contamination, remediation etc. that they eventually will make better decisions in the public interest. This could be through better knowledge and understanding or even simply greater skepticism as they ask more and harder questions when Lanxess, GHD and the MECP plans are presented to them.

A POSITIVE START TO MY OFFER TO WOOLWICH COUNCIL

 Well I must say that I am pleasantly surprised as to how quickly I've actually gotten a couple of responses from two Woolwich councillors. The one was an absolute yes that they are definitely interested in a groundwater tutorial and the other was a more general yes the idea sounds good can I have a little more info to which I've already responded.

As far as I'm concerned the tutorial will strictly be about groundwater: where it comes from, where it goes ...specific to the immediate Elmira area and to the former Uniroyal Chemical. I will be using a few maps and diagrams as we all know that a picture is worth a thousand words. I will also be encouraging questions from councillors. Now if there is a question that is either a little off topic or perhaps even a little advanced for a beginning Hydro G tutorial, I will do my best to keep it simple and explain it. 

As of this morning I am gathering a few extra colour diagrams etc which I believe will be particularly helpful and getting them reproduced to distribute to councillors. Likely most of these will be for followup questions or discussion whether by e-mail or in person. Followup interest may be a  function of how well and how much councillors have learned in the pure groundwater tutorial hence that is an incentive to me to do a good job for them.   

OFFER OF A FREE TUTURIAL WENT OFF THIS MORNING

 I revised my initial draft letter more along the lines of Dr. Dan Holt's suggestions and sent all six councillors as well as Drs. Dan and Sebastian copies. I do have a tendency to "editorialize" and both wisely suggested that a short, to the point offer (without too many comments) was best. This I have done. The offer was to any or all six councillors (including mayor) if they are so inclined.

As with any subject there tends to be lots of acronyms and in-house language if you will. I will attempt during this groundwater tutorial to both answer any relevant questions as well as to clearly explain the basics of hydrogeology. For example simply saying that groundwater like surface water generally flows downhill is accurate however there are many nuances involved. Also there are huge issues regarding contaminant hydrogeology and the subject can get somewhat complicated although my favourite saying is that hydrogeology is not rocket science despite some practitioners pretending that it is.  

ANOTHER POTENTIAL INITIATIVE WITH WOOLWICH COUNCIL

 Well I've sent an idea to CPAC and to date have received considerable  feedback from them. The idea actually was first briefly mentioned during e-mail conversations with councillor Nathan Cadeau many weeks ago.  Basically I had offered to give Woolwich councillors a groundwater tutorial. At this point in time I'm waiting for CPAC's final position on a second Draft I've sent them making my proposal to Woolwich Council.

I see the offer as a win-win. New councillors in particular have an onerous learning curve and obviously in most cases hydrogeology isn' t part of that. This however is Elmira, Ontario and in fact it is needed. I would expect Council to have a few questions plus if they're in agreement we still have to pick a day and time.   

FAKE SCIENCE, JUNK SCIENCE, PSUEDO SCIENCE BY WHATEVER NAME IS EMPLOYED BY ELMIRA"S POLLUTERS

 Terms that have been used frequently to describe RAC and TAG include lapdogs, tame, bureaucrats, suits, professional liars (some only), originally Sandy's curling buddies, cringe-worthy and worse. None of this seems likely to deter the hardliners on Council. Some are ideologically hardliners and others are simply non-thinking, lazy hardliners. These are the ones who surround themselves with like thinkers and fellow travellors. It's not only misery that loves company but cowardice thrives with company as well. 

Junk science includes sampling in areas where you are least likely to obtain accurate samples. An example is sampling for sediments in the bottom of the Canagagigue Creek where there are cobbles, heavy stones and other "armouring" on the bottom. As DDT and dioxins/furans adhere to tiny soils particles and fine sediments you can reduce detections of these toxic compounds with selective sampling.

Taking soil samples in the middle of aquifers is a great way to miss where both the subsurface LNAPLS and DNAPLS are. The LNAPLS float on top of the water table (i.e. just above the top of the aquifers whereas DNAPLS sink through aquifers (soils saturated with water) and mostly reside in depressions on the surface of aquitards  (much less permeable clays and silt).  

Intentionally using inappropriate monitoring wells to "prove" hydraulic containment. Wells that are carefully screened in one aquifer or another generally provide very accurate groundwater elevations whether for the Upper Aquifer, Surficial Aquifer, Municipal Upper Aquifer, Municipal Lower Aquifer etc. The problem arises when dishonest brokers (i.e. professional liars) choose wells whose screens intersect two different aquifers. This happens far too often and was used to falsely claim hydraulic containment on the west side (off-site) of Uniroyal Chemical during "optimization" studies (early 2004?) when a well screened in both the UA and MU was used. The UA reading falsely elevated the alleged MU groundwater reading making it appear that off-site MU readings were higher than on-site thus hydraulic containment was supposedly good when it wasn't. This dishonest process was also used with well CH97 just south of Uniroyal during the building of the  Ammonia Treatment System around 2007 and 2008. Again Ch97 was improperly used to "prove" hydraulic containment on the Uniroyal/Chemtura site. The Environmental Review Tribunal eventually did give me a tiny pat on the back for finding that whereas CPAC, Woolwich Council, Pat & Susan had me kicked off CPAC for being right (again). 

Very little ever changes in the land of the blind, incompetent, and intentionally obtuse.

THREE OF THE BIGGEST LIES SOLD BY UNIROYAL/LANXESS WITH CRA/GHD & MOE/MECP SUPPORT

 1) LNAPLS and DNAPLS are are not a serious issue on the former Uniroyal Chemical site in Elmira.

2) The Stroh farm is not highly contaminated with Uniroyal toxins and was not deliberately used as an east side by-pass to transport these toxins into the Canagagigue Creek.

3) Risk levels from Uniroyal toxins are "acceptable" downstream of the site all the way to the Grand River..

Each and every time the professional liars were allowed to move on unscathed to the next distortion and manipulation they knew that their ultimate victory was assured.  Each and every time Woolwich Township did not issue a Press Release condemning Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/ Lanxess it solidified their status and position. Each and every time the Ministry of Environment produced a report criticizing the company's efforts but then eventually relented it gave the polluter the green light.

Our media knew to be careful and were likely even given a couple of individual's names not to quote. They were also told that yes it was O.K. to publish Letters To The Editor from Pat and Susan as they were allegedly more responsible and professional. To their shame the media generally followed directions. It save them any further defamation lawsuits.

Their ace in the hole was one former resident who has slowly come out from under her camouflage. She has become increasingly emboldened and especially as most of her past colleagues have fallen to the side seems to be almost willing to be considered part of the establishment, to both their shame. She has been an active participant in all three lies.

 

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RESIDENTS OF TOXIC NEIGHBOURHOODS VERSUS DOWNSTREAM RESIDENTS OF THE CANAGAGIGUE CREEK

 First of all is location. Most people move a number of times in their lives whether for work, retirement, to get closer to their kids (or further away) etc. This is quite normal also as neighbourhoods "mature" from young families to older folks over the decades. Now take a look at the 22 Old Order Mennonite families living and farming downstream from Uniroyal Chemical (Lanxess Canada). These are generational family farms. Exactly how many residents of urban neighbourhoods have their children or grandchildren also living as adults in the same home as their parents? Very, very few. Therefore the exposure times for the downstream residents can easily be from in the womb until into the ground.

The generational aspect also permits bioaccumulative  Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) to negatively affect the development of babies in the womb. Hence the exposure of the mother may well be passed onto the fetus especially when we are talking DDT, dioxins/furans/PCBs/PAH, mercury etc . These health effects can range from minor to fatal.

Living and working on the farm full time can also increase exposure compared to a dual working parents being away from the house eight to eleven hours a day. There are a multitude of exposure paths including drinking water, children playing in the Creek, livestock wading in and drinking from the Creek, and soils, sands being used as either garden amendments or for use in children's sandboxes. There are also constant air emissions with Uniroyal/Lanxess toxic air emissions primarily being blown eastwards from the chemical plant towards the downstream neighbours. 

Lastly as the Creek flows through these farms either children or adults can fish in the Creek. Only for the last five years or so have their been warning signs posted along the Creek advising fishermen not to EAT their catch. Even those signs were posted against the vehement wishes of the totally corrupt Ontario Ministry of Environment. These fish are indeed contaminated well above the Ontario fish tissue residue guidelines. See the previous sentence about the "totally corrupt" MECP.