THE FOX IS GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE

Over three different studies (1996, 2012, 2014) of the Canagagigue Creek in Elmira I have seen the sampling locations both reduced and relocated. Some of these relocations are minor yet the difference in the results is major. From this I must infer that deposition of sediments or soils in a flowing creek is hit and miss and very difficult to predict. Furthermore creeks and rivers actually move over time as a result of high flows of water both eroding and depositing soils. Therefore picking representative and repeatable sample locations is both a science and an art. Similarily, unfortunately, if there is no oversight or accountability, picking the least likely locations to detect deposition of sediments or soils could also occur.

Three studies have been done and all three have detected DDT at levels in excess of the PSQG (provincial soil quality guidelines). The 1996 study showed both DDT and Dioxins above standards whereas the 2012 study showed DDT only as exceeding the standards. Dioxins were present at significant levels although with greatly reduced sampling points namely only 2 in 2012 versus 10 in 1996. This very weak "reduction" in Dioxin levels was then used in the 2013 study to justify focusing on DDT and ignoring Dioxin testing in the Canagagigue Creek. Dioxins were tested for in the berm around the Martin pond but ignored elsewhere. Talk about shaping the sampling to provide the results you want.

Further testing was done this past summer (2014) and I have no reason to be confident that that study will be done anymore scientifically then the last two. Most likely it will be an attempt to downplay and minimize the contamination which is the M.O.E.'s specialty.