ARE YOU KIDDING ME? IT'S A MIRACLE! WE MUST ALL BOW DOWN TO THE MAGNIFICENCE OF OUR REGIONAL POLITICIANS & WATER PROVIDERS

 

There are two articles in today's K-W Record. The first is by Joe McGuinty and is on the front page. The second is by Luisa D'Amato and is on page A4. Mr. McGuinty's front page article is dishonestly and deceptively titled "Region finds "significant " new water capacity, easing constraint". While I usually don't begrudge a little literary flexibility in headlines, this one grates me. Absolutely no "significant" new water capacity has been found whether "significant" or "new".  What has been found is a catchall word used by professional liars namely "optimization". It was used up here in Elmira more than twenty years ago and despite serious criticism then and a demand for a clear definition all we got was mumbo jumbo combined with assurances that we, the credentialed suits, know best. In fact  in that case optimization ended up meaning less on-site pumping and treating of highly contaminated groundwater at Uniroyal Chemical's  (Crompton) expense and more off-site pumping and treating which is 50% paid for by the taxpayers.

I might add that the alleged "new" water capacity is the exact same water from the exact same aquifers allegedly being pumped a little harder at one well and perhaps a little lighter at other wells. I have long referred to this regional water management practice as "musical chairs". In Waterloo Region's case they have done it with contaminated wells in order to affect the direction of contamination plumes. As the plume approaches a particular well you shut down pumping and go to another well instead. The contaminant plume will slowly revert to it's natural flow direction under non pumping conditions. Other terms for this practice include "Interceptor Wells".  These are wells that are drilled in front of a contaminant plume and are then pumped to waste hopefully protecting other wells further downgradient.

Not only is there absolutely no new, significant water capacity but in fact what the Region is doing is taking old decommissioned wells due to industrial contamination (solvents mostly) and recommissioning them. I call that retreading them and as I wouldn't put retreaded tires on my car/motorcycle I also don't want to drink water from retreaded wells. 

Ms. D'Amato deserves credit for her article titled "The water crisis is over. Now it's time to ask: Why?" She states that she does not understand what "optimization" really means and : "I'm not a hydrogeologist (and there wasn't one at Tuesday's news conference to ask) but I didn't understand how that worked to increase the overall supply. I wanted more specific answers, and I think the public does, too. "  Ms. D'Amato may be smelling the same horse manure that I am. Apparently yet another "study" is underway that sometime down the road will clarify all this. That is most likely even more bull (or horse) as far too many "professional" studies are simply credentialed suits selling their clients own opinions back to them under the guise of third party, independent and unbiased parties. It's all about credentialism and fooling the general public who are not experienced or knowledgeable on the matters under "study".

IS THE K-W RECORD NO MORE THAN CONTROLLED OPPOSITION FOR THE WEALTHY, POWERFUL AND INFLUENTIAL?

 

I hinted at this yesterday here when I advised that they have full knowledge of  the contamination downgradient from the current Safety-Kleen site and hence should be demanding the release of various hydrogeological reports done decades ago on the area. Secondly on a totally different topic don't you find it strange that despite the Federal government threatening to charge perhaps as many as two million Canadians criminally and then seize their legally acquired private property from them; hardly so much as a tsk tsk out of our local papers. Are they now being financed by federal government handouts in order to survive and at least give the appearance of a strong media standing on guard for Canadian rights and values?

Thirdly is the Elmira Water Crisis. I originally bought the storyline that this is no longer news. It's old hat. It's allegedly not of interest to Waterloo Region citizens, residents and  water drinkers. If perhaps both the Record and the Observer would get off their butts and do their jobs they might just find that this is a huge unfolding story. It's even more than that. It's a coverup of huge magnitude including ALL our local politicians (O.K. only 95%) . Making excuses as they are now doing as the 2028 deadline is looming is one thing. Pretending however that gee willikers there are parts of the Elmira Aquifers that are much less contaminated than they used to be so grab a glass, turn on the tap and we promise you won't die immediately. Honest Injun. Oops! Make that Honest Indigenous because politically correct language including gender pronouns is far more important than minor matters of poisoning (slowly?) Canadian residents and citizens.

  Yes it does go back on us to some degree. If I am virtually the only person ringing alarms and raising red flags locally then we are certainly done. Just mail in your independence, free thinking and rights to demand better from our governments and be done with it. 

IS LUISA D'AMATO BLOWING SMOKE OR JUST PARROTING THE REGION'S LIES?

 

Before expounding upon the title above which is relevant to Luisa's article in today's Record ("Here's the way out of the region's water crisis") I would like to add that I do give Luisa credit for her last Friday article in which she strongly advises the Region not to leave some Wilmot citizens behind as they suffer from well interference issues caused by increased regional pumping of water for our major cities. She makes it clear that the quoted R.J. Burnside 2025 Water Report categorically states, contrary to the regional position, that increased pumping from the Wilmot Centre Wellfield (Shingletown K50/K51)  has lowered the water levels in those wells and in the specific aquifer involved (AFB2).

In today's article however Luisa appears to have swallowed various regional lies . One I would claim is what Luisa calls "Optimization". Here in Elmira we were sold that same big word as if it's official sounding nature immediately makes it true. It does not. In Elmira it eventually meant that rigorous conditions put on the cleanup were relaxed which merely reduced Uniroyal Chemical's cleanup costs and did nothing for the cleanup itself. In fact it may have actually hurt it. 

The second bigger issue is the use of the "river wells" as they used to be called. Luisa stated that these wells on the west side of the Grand River were removed from service because due to water conservation they were no longer needed. HORSE MANURE !  First of all the wells were on both sides of the river with some K80 wells on the west side and wells K70 and K71 on the east side. K by the way stands for Kitchener. The Region I believe lied then when they claimed they were shut down because algae in the very nearby Grand River was causing both odour and taste problems. The reality also consisted of gross soil and groundwater contamination immediately upgradient of these wells located between Forwell Sand & Gravel right next to the river and Safety-Kleen further upgradient (east). The contamination consisted of oils, fuels, solvents and PCBs likely released during the Forsythe or Breslube days prior to Safety-Kleen's purchase of the contaminated property.  

Luisa D'Amato and the Record already know this because I have told them so in writing months ago but perhaps they have a conflict of interest going on. 

REGION OF WATERLOO RACING TOWARDS MORE HUMILIATION & LOSS OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

 

Maybe they've already decided that there isn't anyone left in Wilmot who supports any of them hence they may as well throw a tiny group, population wise, to the wolves than to even suggest the tiniest cutbacks on water for the tri cities and the rest of the Townships. By throwing to the wolves I am suggesting that the Region really don't care if every single family in Wilmot Township have to remortgage their homes in order to either drill new, deeper wells or simply to extend their current wells to a greater depth. That might at least partially explain their ridiculous stance on well interference claims. This of course only applies to those rural properties on private water systems. 

The recent R.J. Burnside report is an eye opener in that it clearly states that municipal aquifer levels (AFB2) in Wilmot have been declining for the last six years and that this corresponds to climatic effects AND to increased pumping for use in the rest of the Region. In a nutshell the regional councillors are a bunch of cowardly bullies hiding behind the law, lawyers and Wilmot citizens good nature. That is a long term recipe for disaster and I only hope when the payback comes that it is focused on regional politicians.

The Region are also counting on citizens being preoccupied with families, jobs, climate change (heat domes etc.), health (cancer especially) etc. Distracted citizens work best for a perverted democracy such as we have that refuses to look after all their citizens and in fact plays one group off against another. How many of these Wilmot citizens remember the map that the Record published last January showing the various aquifers and aquitards? That Figure or cross-section is a subsurface conceptual geological model of the Wellesley and Waterloo Moraine and more which clearly indicates how wells need to be drilled deeper as the aquifer levels (AFB2) subside. 

Frankly only liars and sociopaths could continue denying the facts. No politician will ever vote in favour of criminal charges for politicians proven to be liars. Guess why.

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.