M.O.E. INTENTIONALLY OBSCURING CANAGAGIGUE DATA

Outrageous and blatant best describes the Ministry of Environment's handling of the Canagagigue Creek studies. Incompetent is also a possibility albeit the Ministry's history of deceit makes the former more likely. Last spring or summer the M.O.E. had promised the final 2015 data and report by October 31/16. Dr. Jackson after advising that the roadblocks to progress were not technical they were public policy (politics); resigned as Chair of TAG effective December 31/16. This should have given him two months to study and comment on the Ministry's final conclusions regarding the contamination in the creek. Lo and behold on October 31/16 indeed another report was produced by the M.O.E. with both more data from 2014 and data from 2015 however we were advised that the final, final report isn't until February 2017, two months after Dr. Jackson is gone. It allegedly will also include more data on bio-accumulation and possibly further contaminants in fish tissues. Nicely played M.O.E..

Last Saturday I posted that the M.O.E. studies are sketchy. Further to that the M.O.E. have a bag of tricks which they employ to dissuade citizen participation and critique of their work. It includes issuing reports either the day of or after they have been presented publicly by M.O.E. personnel. This makes intelligent questioning of reports and data impossible in a timely manner.

The scientific validity of their studies are questionable. If you want to examine toxic contaminants over time in a creek then you attempt to minimize other variables as much as possible. Hence if you take ten samples at ten different locations in year one then subsequent years you would sample the same parameter at the same location hopefully around the same time of year. The same time of year is to reduce seasonal variability due to temperature, spring floods etc.. The M.O.E. absolutely have not done that. Their locations change constantly including skipping from floodplain soils in 1996 to alleged floodplain sediments in 2012 (1 location) and 2015 (several locations). To date the M.O.E. have failed to explain how or why sediments in the bottom of the creek should be labelled as floodplain locations ie. FP-1,2,3,4 etc..

Sediment locations Station #22 and #23 were skipped in 2012 and 2013 with no rationale given. Floodplain soils (FP-1 to FP-10) were skipped entirely after 1996 with the exception of FP-5 & 6 in 2012. This is not remotely a scientifically valid study. It is an intentionally obtuse, confusing, hide the forest with the trees attempt to swamp citizens with data that cannot readily be compared from year to year. It is for the purpose of thinning out public criticism and allowing the M.O.E. and their buddies Chemtura to interpret the data absolutely any way they wish without opposition.

Professional con artists would refer to this as the long con. Indeed professional thieves could take lessons from the M.O.E. in regards to duping the public albeit professional thieves steal money and valuables (jewelry etc.) whereas the M.O.E. steals our health and lifespan.