ONT. MIN. OF ENVIRONMENT - ARE THEY DECEIVING US AGAIN?

At the May 12/16 TAG meeting we were presented with a report titled "Eating Fish from Canagagigue Creek". I believe that that report is a crock of contaminated, putrid fish.

Some of the obvious nonsense included the exquisitely careful way that the contaminant testing was done. By their own admission, parts of the fish that contained the highest levels of contaminants were not tested. This included fatty areas, internal organs such as the liver and the skin itself. Then there are the slightly more subtle games. For example the contaminants we are testing for bioaccumulate. They move up the food chain from prey to predator. With that we are breezily informed that Northern Pike which is the top predator in the creek is not targeted for organic contaminant analyses. These would include of course P.C.B.s, Dioxins and DDT all of which bioaccumulate and biomagnify as they go up the food chain. Hence ignoring both the top predator in the creek for testing as well as not mentioning mamalian predators outside the creek who eat fish, clams etc. grossly minimizes the negative effects upon wildlife dependant upon the creek.

Basically this entire report from the M.O.E. is a scam. It is minimizing the toxic effects from Chemtura and possibly others discharges into the environment by focusing solely on human consumption. Even that is minimized by looking at tissue residues individually. The big four would most likely be Dioxins/Furans, P.C.B.s, Mercury and DDT. We are advised that there were no advisories due to DDT presence. That makes exactly zero sense as huge DDT sediment results in the Creek are what started this whole process in the first place. Therefore the human consumption guidelines are based upon studies of one chemical alone in the tissues of fish. White suckers have guidelines exceeded by three contaminants and yet these are the individual guidelines for each contaminant. No one knows if the three together (P.C.B.s, Dioxins & Mercury) have synergistic effects such that Zero meals per month is more appropriate than the pronounced eight to sixteen per month. Would you eat any meals per month of a fish with those contaminants in it?

DDT was eventually banned because of its' effect on wildlife reproduction. It apparently had little effect on human beings at the concentrations it was in birds of prey such as eagles and hawks. I do not know how detrimental it is to raccoons, foxes, coyotes, mink, muskrats etc..

This report may not be full of lies but it sure as hell is full of deception and deceit. We are told that the Canagagigue meal guidelines are comparable to other waterbodies in Ontario. We are not advised that B.C. and Ontario have the highest Dioxin concentrations in Canada.

We are told that 8 meals per month and above is defined as "unrestricted". That is blatant M.O.E. bullshit. By the definition of the word "resticted" any advisory not to eat more than ten, twelve, fourteen or fifty meals per month is a RESTRICTION.

The eight meal guideline for DDT is 11,732 ng/g for HUMAN BEINGS. The concentrations in fish tissue that is part of the "Canadian Tissue Residue Guidelines for the Protection of Wildlife consumers of Aquatic Biota" is 14 ng/g. What the hell! Thank you for not telling us this Ontario M.O.E..

This report is a stinker of the quality that we in Elmira have come to expect from either Chemtura or the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Of course our local politicians gobble up this bullshit from those two parties and ask for more.