M.O.E. JUNK SCIENCE FOR THE MASSES

In line with Saturday's posting here are a few specific examples of poor science in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's report titled Canagagigue Creek 2012 Downstream Sampling March 28, 2013. Keep in mind that this report allegedly is comparing Dioxin and DDT results from 1996/97 in both creek sediments and floodplain soils downriver from Chemtura in Elmira. Also keep in mind that the Canagagigue Creek dissects the Uniroyal/Chemtura site from north to south.

Page 5 shows us dioxin results in two locations namely FP 5 & FP6 (floodplain soils). The 2012 results in FP5 have a result as well as a "Duplicate" result and they are reasonably close numerically. This is good science having taken duplicate samples for quality control purposes. The problem is that out of four pages of tables and results, FP5 is the only location where duplicate samples were taken. This includes the two creek sediment locations as well with zero duplicate samples and results presented to us.

Page 6 is one really weird page. It is dioxin results in creek sediments and bad enough that the alleged third location is FP1 ie. floodplain soils, but the reality is that while the third (sort of) location for sediments may be geographically near FP1 it is ridiculous to label it as such. The only thing more ridiculous is then comparing dioxin results in creek sediments from 2012 with dioxin results in the floodplain soil (FP1) from sixteen years earlier. This isn't comparing apples to oranges it's comparing turkeys to airplanes. Duhh!

Further neither in 1996 nor in 2012 is their any attempt to talk about these floodplain soils. Are they silt, are they topsoil, are they clay? Various levels such as 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm depth are mentioned but they appear inconsistent within the two reports. Also a couple of locations in the floodplain and one in the creek sediments in 1996/97 show seasonal variations in the results, namely May versus November. These are significant changes yet there again appears to be no followup with the other sampling locations. I am wondering if the whole assumption of hydrophobic DDT and Dioxins compounds binding strongly to either soil or sediments is so much hokey. Is it possible that each spring the flooding and heavy rain dilutes and washes these compounds downstream to share with the rest of the Grand River watershed? The whole premise of looking at ten floodplain locations in 1996/97 and then "comparing" them to two locations sixteen years later is beyond asinine. It would have had some scientific value if every couple of years they had followed the same protocols and done the same tests at the same locations. What they have done instead is not science it is merely distraction and deflection. No wonder Chemtura were willing to pay for this crap but won't fund CPAC's peer reviews of their and the M.O.E.'s junk science.