ADJUSTMENTS/AMENDMENTS TO LAST WEDNESDAY'S (i.e. GIGO) POST

 

I do not have a Mathematics degree. I did graduate in Economics (B.A. 1974) from the University of Waterloo. Yes I did take a third year Statistics course and passed it with a lot of hard work. That said I can't remember the last time I actually refreshed my memory with Log scales, Logarithmics or for gosh sakes Calculus which I genuinely despised. It's been well over half a century ago approximately. 

Why did I suggest that the vertical scale ( i.e. y axis I believe) was a Logarithmic scale? First of all bear with me if my terminology is incorrect here. Most linear scales for example might be scaled such as 0, 2,4,6,8,10,12 etc. up the y axis. Or they could be 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, etc. 

I believe that I got fooled by the vertical scales in Jen Lyndall's (Integral) report because they were scaled as follows:  .01, .1, 1, 10, 100     Note that each higher number up the vertical scale is TEN times the number preceding it.  Hence the actual numerical difference between spaces of similar length isn't the same as it is with the two linear scales in the preceding paragraph. In this scale presented in this paragraph the numerical difference between marked points is   .1-.01= .09   The next numerical difference between marked points is 10-1= 9    The next numerical difference between marked points is 100-10=90 .

Ms. Lyndall's graphs actually have quite a variety of vertical scales on them including  .1, 10, 1000 as well as .1, 10, 1000, 100,000 and some that I find rather bizarre such as   .03, .1, .3  followed by .03, .1, .3, 1, 3 As weird as these last two are in that they are neither equal difference in values between them like paragraph 2, NOR is each higher up the scale number a similar multiple as in paragraph 3 (i.e. 10 times).

What is my conclusion? Both Log scales (paragraph 3 at first blush) and I hesitate what to call the scales in paragraphs 3 and 4 with either the exact same multiples (i.e. 10) used moving up the vertical scale or as in paragraph 4 the .03, .1, .3 and .03, .1, .3, 1, 3 with different multiples between marked points ( 3.3, 3, ) and (3.3, 3, 3.3, 3) now appear to me to be an aberration. 

To be clear I have been referring to Jen Lyndall's Figures 4-24 up to 4-57. which plot concentrations of DDT and Dioxin/Furans on the vertical y axis and either location as in Reaches 4, 3, 2, 1 downstream or a number of graphs have dates (years) on the horizontal x axis. Now all the graphs have concentrations on the vertical y axis either mg/kg (parts per million) or ng/kg (parts per trillion) depending on which of two contaminants (DDT or Dioxins/Furans) they are looking at.  Regardless these concentrations are marked whereas Logarithmic numerics are not, which has me now believing that these are all linear scales albeit some of them I still believe are bizarrely scaled and labelled.

Is there a purpose to this. Of course there is. All Log scales AND all linear scales using multiples of the previous marked value as they rise up the vertical scale reduce the visual aspect of exactly how high the highest values actually are. If they went up the vertical scale in a linear fashion such as 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18  can you imagine how large the page would have to be to register say a 114 value? Therefore by using a scale such as 2, 10, 50, 250  (multiples of 5) you can readily fit in the 114 value PLUS  visually the 114 value sits much lower on the page and doesn't so drastically appear out of place with all the lower values.

The other advantage for unscrupulous polluters is simple confusion. You can pretend that you are transparent and putting all data on graphs when in fact you are intentionally making the graphs as confusing as possible. 

P.S. Speaking of NOT putting all data in reports shouldn't Table 3-3 of this report under Maximum Detected Concentration for Background (Creeks/Ditches) have a value of  24.4 ng/kg (ppt.) for Dioxins/Furans rather than the 9.0 ng/kg listed? This just happens to be the Stroh Drain which coincidentally I'm sure is one of the major coverups Lanxess are involved in.

   

 

AN INCREDIBLE BREAKTHROUGH IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY? TRAC ASSISTING WITH VICTIM SURVEYS

In the United States the concept of a "captured" regulator is well understood. Whether this goes so far as to include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency I can not be certain. Up here in Dogpatch (Woolwich Twn.)  it has been readily apparent that for the majority of the decades since 1992 that Uniroyal Chemical and successors have "captured" the public consultation body. This is hardly surprising as even a long term TAG and TRAC member, Sebastian, has written about the deference TAG and TRAC members constantly show to Chemtura and then later Lanxess Canada. Sebastian has also explained in detail how this has occurred including the members simply being overwhelmed with various and numerous technical reports without them having their own technical experts to refute controversial positions and opinions of Lanxess and GHD.

 Regarding victim surveys I expect that Lanxess and the Min. of Environment want to spread the responsibility to include citizens on TRAC. This of course in no way indicates that these citizens have any influence or control whatsoever over the (dirty) polluter and regulator who have thoroughly enjoyed their forever holiday from serious oversight or accountability. By victim surveys I mean TRAC have been asked to come up with questions to presumably ask citizens and residents mostly of Elmira but maybe of Woolwich Township overall. Now here's the rub. There have been all of zero health studies done of human beings in Woolwich or Elmira exposed to Uniroyal's toxic emissions. There has however been testing on fish species in the Creek. Perhaps GHD in their infinite perfection have found a way to survey proven victims of Dioxin and DDT poisoning. Will TRAC therefore be speaking to the fishes?

At first blush I thought that Jen Lyndall (Integral) had carefully ignored tissue residues in fish. That would be understandable considering that they are even more significant than health exceedances found in Creek sediments, creekbank soils, creek waters and floodplain soils of Dioxins/Furans, DDT & metabolutes, PCBs, Mercury , PAHs and more. Fish are living organisms within the Canagagigue Creek and aside from their intrinsic value in the ecosystem they are also in the food chain of bass, the very occasional pike and more likely mink, raccoons, herons, hawks, coyotes etc. Unfortunately these predators up the food chain suffer even more as most of the contaminants mentioned bioaccumulate as they go up the food chain. 

Her two Figures (4-62, 4-63) show Total DDT and Dioxins/Furans concentrations in fish tissue. They do not show the Tissue Residue Guidelines (TRG) for any of the fish species which at least reinforces my negative feelings towards her report (i.e. Data Summary).  Not that I'm considering changing professions from environmental activist to that of a professional, intellectual prostitute, but if I was I too would not include the health criteria in these two Figures leaving as usual the public and TRAC in the dark (& covered in sh*#).  

GIGO - GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT JEN & HADLEY MAKE HORRIBLE MUSIC TOGETHER & CALL IT SCIENCE

 

I sure hope that Jen Lyndall was well paid for the garbage report that she presented to TRAC on Thursday June 18, 2026  titled "Data Summary Report Canagagigue Creek And Floodplain".  I am not bringing into disrepute Ms. Lyndall's qualifications or credentials. I watched the entire on-line video (Woolwich Website) and was quite impressed with her presentation manner, speaking clarity, thinking on her feet handling questions etc. It is the actual content of her report that I find dishonest, disingenuous and disgusting. I expect that a huge part of that is because her report should be more accurately titled  "Data Summary Report of a Polluter's Talented and Energetic, Decades Long Efforts To Minimize and Coverup Toxic Pollution".

I have spent much of the last thirty-six years debunking all the lies and distortions presented by Elmira's infamous polluter.  Sorry I need to be more specific when Woolwich Township have happily hosted Varnicolor Chemical, Rothsay Concentrates, Breslube/Safety-Kleen and Uniroyal Chemical. I am now referring to Uniroyal/Lanxess. I have spoken at UPAC, CPAC, RAC, TAG, Woolwich Council and even Regional Council. I have written reports to all those semi to fully corrupt bodies plus TRAC. The general rule is minimum to zero questions followed by NOTHING. No followup, no requests for clarification, no discussion and no debate. This is essentially how Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura and Lanxess have operated namely by denying occasionally but mostly simply ignoring legitimate, researched opposition. 

This latest report is full of omissions as well as red herrings. DDT breakdown products (DDD, DDE) are not well examined. Numerically lower Reaches (1, 2) in the Creek are given short shrift. Provincial and Federal health criteria are noticeably missing in action. One would think that they have some serious value in a report like this. Logarithmic concentration scales for many of the Figures are a little unusual compared to reports done by CRA/GHD. The charitable view might be that CRA/GHD have more accurately concluded the technical capabilities of most of the public consultation members. The uncharitable view might be that CRA/GHD are simply continuing their amateurish report writing efforts by avoiding logarithmic scales even when they are appropriate and advantageous.

More and better needs to be done with these logarithmic scales. Mostly the vertical scales (concentration) need to be better with more values written on the vertical scale. This would help elucidate the values of the raw data presented by Ms. Lyndall. Also short shrift again seems to have occurred with Lindane in Ms. Lyndall's report. Samples were taken and values determined in some earlier major reports (eg. 2020 GHD) . 

Overall Ms. Lyndall was handed a croc of an assignment. Personally I would be hard pressed to want to put my name on any report that only purports to be legitimate and scientific. Gussying up crap science from those before you is a stinky job with some of the odour bound to transfer your way. All my past objections to these Creek reports continue on here as they have NEVER been honestly or accurately publicly debated. This includes MDLs, shovels versus core samplers and locational sampling biases.

NEW WATER ALLOCATION ASSISTING WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

 

Today's K-W Record has an article by Bill Jackson titled "Woolwich allocates water to Elmira projects". This of course is in relation to the Region of Waterloo Water Crisis which was first announced last December. There are three specific projects in Elmira which can now proceed with the best known likely being the former Trinity United Church on Arthur St.  The other two projects are the infamous Hawk Ridge Homes down on the corner of Union St. and First Ave.  It is infamous due to the lengthy delays occasioned by the presence of Sulco Chemical (CCC) and Lanxess Canada (Uniroyal) across the road.  Woolwich wisely attempted to not approve this subdivision based upon noise and odours at a minimum and toxic air emissions as a possibility. The third project is the residential construction scheduled for 22 Church St. which I believe is the now former Home Hardware site. 

I would suggest that all of these projects should make hay while the sun shines because just like the current power outages happening this morning in Elmira, the water supply is on a shaky foundation. The Region of Waterloo are so desperate that they are squeezing the 20% safety allocation as well as recommissioning both old well fields closed due to contamination and or other likely infrastructure issues. 

THE TRAVESTY & SHAME OF DECEPTIVE AND DECEITFUL MONITORING REPORTS BY LANXESS CANADA & GHD

 

My focus today is on the 2020 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Soil Investigation although most of my comments refer to the bulk of what passes for scientific study and investigation surrounding the Creek over the last fifteen to twenty years. This report is one of those recently examined by Jen Lyndall of Integra Inc.. Keep clearly in mind that I'm not commenting on groundwater or other environmental issues today hence please do not make the mistake of thinking that my silence in any way imparts some kind of tacit approval. It does not!

The 2020 GHD report on Lindane, DDD, DDE, DDT and Dioxins/Furans in the Creek is essentially a whitewash or if you will a greenwash. Above and beyond so many massive deposits of these toxic chemicals found in creek sediments and creekbank soils is the use and abuse of Method Detection Limits in assigning Non Detects throughout this report.  The worst offenders are Non Detects with Sediment samples however there are some doozies with soils as well. Overall the number of non Detects with high to very high Method Detection Limits has ruptured the credibility and accuracy of this entire report. This goes for all four reaches of the Canagagigue Creek as well as of some of the Background sampling. 

  If as I have indicated above massive deposits of various toxic chemicals have been found then how is this report deceptive and deceitful ? Firstly all criteria exceedances are supposed to be highlighted. They simply are not. Too many have been missed and only discerning, competent readers will spot them  on the first time through. Most will not. That in and of itself is deceptive and misleading. Secondly some of the MDLs are out of this world as they are 10, 20 and or 100 times higher than the health criteria presented in the report for various chemicals whether located in sediment or soils. In my opinion some of these MDLs appear to be tailored towards certain reaches for example in order to minimize them and to give the appearance that other reaches are more contaminated.

I have over the years and decades presented this information before. Like everything else that does not follow the narrative put forth to the public; contradictory evidence, opinions and reports are given zero weight by the polluter, fellow travellors and friends. Inconvenient facts and truth are simply dropped and ignored and generally discussion avoided as much as possible.

JEN LYNDALL/INTEGRAL CANAGAGIGUE CREEK DATA SUMMARY REPORT: AN INTERESTING BUT MOSTLY USELESS PILE OF PUS

 

How could it possibly not be? It's a Data Summary of many, repeated, poorly done, amateurish and inaccurate other reports all done by bought and paid for consultants on behalf of their dirty polluting clients be they Uniroyal, Crompton, Chemtura or Lanxess.  I will concede that the level of "dirtiness" may be decreasing as the time distance from the gross daily dumping until now continues to expand. 

Background concentrations are extremely high near the start of the report as comparisons are made for example between Upstream Background concentrations of Dioxins/Furans and Total DDT in various media (soil, sediment, surface water) and further downstream Reaches in the Creek. I did not see any reference to various relevant criteria on any of these Figures and in fact I found it very difficult to find tiny subtly different coloured circles representing concentrations of contaminants relative to alleged Background values. If the Background levels are actually that high then I would suggest that upstream (& downstream) dumping (legal or not) is a significant cause. Like most of the inaccurate information and data concerning this site, inappropriate Background locations have all been properly and publicly presented at public meetings simply to be ignored for evermore if it does not suit the polluter's/regulator's narrative. 

I did not find fish tissue concentrations.in this report.  A skeptic might suggest that that is because the data is strong and very negative concerning the ongoing health threats to both wildlife and human life ingesting contaminated fish (mercury, PCBs, DDT, Dioxins/Furans). A kinder, gentler critic might suggest that Lanxess/MECP simply did not advise Ms. Lyndall that that data existed. This perhaps would be in-line with the nonsense and disingenuous claims of various remediation done around the site. I was there when most of these "remediations" allegedly took place and the Figure showing them is a crock. Further to this I just love it when Uniroyal/Lanxess "fellow travellors" expose their biases and dishonesty. Hadley did it with crap about the on-site pits and ponds being "...remediated thoroughly". Utter bull Hadley. You weren't there and none of them were excavated through the bottom of the pits and lagoons which is where the contaminants went on their way to both the Upper Aquifer and the Municipal Aquifer. Also Susan Bryant made some dumb remark about former municipal landfill M2, on the Uniroyal property, being closed before Uniroyal made Agent Orange. What kind of crap is this Susan? One I think your facts are wrong but even if your timing is on, so what? This landfill is on Uniroyal/Lanxess property and after the municipality quit putting garbage in the landfill it was still right there for more industrial disposal. Also Ken Reger (former employee) testified at the Environmental Appeal Board hearings that he saw Uniroyal drums buried  there and finally both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T wastes were buried there and once leaking you had Agent Orange with the 2,3,7,8 TCDD probably already in the 2,4,5-T and the 2,4-D having it's own dioxins along for the toxic ride.

I can't help but notice that there has been some "thinning"  of data in Integral's Data Summary. For example including the various government health criteria  for dioxins/Furans and DDT in various media (soil, sediments, fish tissue) would give a far better understanding of the risk involved with the concentrations of these chemicals found in all media from fish tissue to soil, sediment and even surface water which is damn interesting when we've been advised for decades that these chemicals are hydrophobic and essentially insoluble in water. The fact is they are soluble but at a very low concentration plus they are more likely to exist in the Creek as DDT and Dioxins/F attached to particles as suspended sediments in the water. 

All in all a useless report but a fun read nevertheless. I do not blame the author (Lyndall) so much as Hadley and other Lanxess fact deniers and fantasy boosters.

THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND: ANOTHER SHAMEFUL & DEEPLY DISTURBING TRAC MEETING

 

A week ago yesterday the TRAC meeting was held in Woolwich Council Chambers. For the second time I had to get on the Township to post the video of that meeting on their Woolwich Township website. To their credit they did so quickly after I called.

There are smart people on that committee including Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach.  There are smart and credentialed people on that committee including a hydrogeologist, a municipal planner, a regional water department staffer, possibly even a biologist or an ecologist. There are technical people and some very untechnical and uncredentialed persons with other soft skills such as human psychology, human manipulation and other skills; such as Susan Bryant. There are honest people and blatant liars present. There are a few with knowledge of the site and far too many who know nothing prior to their appointment to the committee. Some have common sense others less. What there is a complete lack of is members with serious Elmira environmental knowledge going back to 1989 combined with honesty, common sense and at least a minimum of  hard, technical skills including maths and sciences.  NOT ONE, and it is  intentional, on that committee has all those requirements. I do which is precisely why mayor Shantz , Lanxess and the Min. of Environment (MECP)  do not want me on that committee nor able to speak to them directly.

I viewed the entire TRAC meeting (June 18/26) on the Woolwich website last evening and it was beyond painful. Misunderstandings, incorrect facts and guesswork were prevalent throughout the meeting and they were NEVER corrected or clarified by the few who did know the facts and the truth. At one point Sebastian (the brightest light of a very dim bunch) conflated numbers of samples taken with number of DETECTIONS of two toxic chemicals. Hence he asked if that particular Table spelled out that more attention should be paid to the upstream reaches of the Creek ( Reaches 3 & 4) closest to the Lanxess site than the further downstream ones of Reaches 2 and 1.  Not only did nobody correct him or clarify his obvious honest mistake but Hadley Stamm (*5 minute wonder) of Lanxess actually had the nerve and the  brass to answer him with "Right but I'm not going to take that jump yet.". She actually agreed with his incorrect conclusion but was careful to delay that conclusion until the next or a later meeting.

Jen Lyndall of Integral Inc. somewhat mystifies me. Apparently she is a former friend or colleague of Hadley Stamm (not good). She presented the first part of a Data Summary to TRAC at the meeting. In my opinion this is just one more in a long litany of Public Relations nonsense issued by the polluter and its' successors for the purpose of green washing. There is way more than enough data available between soil, sediment and fish tissue sampling to know how grossly contaminated the Canagagigue Creek still is, even after allegedly stopping dumping over fifty years ago. It would seem to me that five decades of flushing and flooding of the Creek should have long ago flushed all the mobile and even semi mobile deeper sediments down into the Grand River and further (Lake Erie) by now. Unless of course contaminated groundwater and soils/sediments are still via natural processes (or with help) being released from the grossly contaminated former Uniroyal Chemical site.

My final comment today :  Sebastian pointed out to Jen Lyndall (Integral) that Tables 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 all indicated that dioxins/furans were DETECTED in surface sediments, sub-surface sediments, surface soils and sub-surface soils 100% of the time from a total of well over a thousand different samples. Oops I misspoke! Table 3.4 has the only dioxin/furan detections below 100%  for sub-surface sediments. It was 98%  . Ms. Lyndall responded "Yes even in background locations which is interesting" .   Credit goes to her for being accurate and honest on that point although either Hadley or some other DNAPL/ Dioxin  deniers suggested that dioxins are ubiquitous. They are not thank goodness ubiquitous at the concentrations also indicated in those four Tables.

The scam, the sham and the coverup continues. I still expect some token, tiny cleanup of part of the Creek with everybody's fan favourite Susan Bryant being handed some environmental award for her  acting skills over thirty plus years, aided and abetted by the guilty parties.