ERRORS IN CREEK SAMPLING

At the last RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) public meeting on December 8/16 I spoke as a Delegate regarding the failures in sampling that would negatively affect our understanding of the extent and distribution of toxic contaminants in the creek. I spoke to both sampling biases in regards to parameters examined both over time and at various locations in the creek. I also spoke regarding what I viewed as location biases. My focus was on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) not dissolved solvents. These POPs include of course Dioxins/Furans, DDT, PCBs and many pesticides.

It was clear to me that the Ontario Ministry of Environment had been indulging in sampling that would minimize the numbers of areas requiring remediation both by under sampling most if not all of the further downstream areas as well as by under sampling many of the different POPs that are in the creek. For example if you have ten different toxic POPs but only regularily sample two of them (Dioxins/Furans & DDT) than guess what: you are going to be focused on those two where you find them both at high concentrations and more often and only remediating their locations while ignoring lower concentrations of Dioxins/Furans & DDT that may also however have a multitude of other highly toxic POPs together.

Both further downstream creek sediment sites ( #22 & #23) as well as all the downstream floodplain soil sampling sites have been greatly under sampled since 2012. I have had discussions with a PHD in Biology who has explained the technical terms regarding sources of error in sampling. Some are relevant to my comments at RAC others less so.

There are technical errors with the equipment, sampling errors within the medium being sampled, geographic errors in that large variations in concentrations can be very close together and finally temporal errors ie. significant changes in concentration based upon seasonal factors. I would suggest that the last three errors are most relevant to these discussions. Overall these errors can be either minimized or at least put in perspective via multiple sampling events versus what has been done in the creek. Intentionally only sampling sites that first give you high concentrations guarantees that over time you will have higher concentrations at those same sites versus further downstream sites that have been essentially ignored. The Ministry "investigation" of the Canagagigue Creek has been biased and unscientific from the start. Take your pick: incompetence or bias in favour of finding fewer problems.