HYPOCRISY OF THE LAW, MAN & COMMON SENSE

Dioxins and DDT in the sediments of Canagagigue Creek exceed all criteria and guidelines. The same compounds in the floodplain soils exceed all relevant criteria. The same compounds plus mercury and PCBs exceed most criteria in fish in the Canagagigue Creek particularly downstream from Chemtura. This is a no brainer unless of course you are the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. They want to do both a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and a Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA).

The criteria are set using science. Risk Assessment's values and figures are set using mathematics, philosophy, some logic, assumptions, "experience' and biases. Essentially the promoters of the Risk Assessment will use the adage "Bullshit Baffles Brains". Yes they will hire and pay very well credentialed experts with degrees in toxicology, mathematics, sciences and statistics and they will "prove" that their particular site specific conditions somehow undermine the generic criteria set by science for particular chemicals in particular environments such as waterways, agricultural soils etc.. They will produce their "site specific" values for which allegedly no harm will come to various receptors whether human beings or wildlife. Of course they will then "to be on the conservative side" even decrease their mathematically calculated values by a factor of ten to once again "prove" how honest and forthcoming they are. It's all a sham folks.

They won't even consider synergistic effects of multiple chemicals because science to date just doesn't know and or can't prove them. That won't hold these statistical heroes back for even a second. They will make assumptions (conservative ones of course) to further protect the receptors whatever or whoever they are. Their raw data will be what is required but not necessarily all that is relevant. They don't know what they don't know. How do Uniroyal and Chemtura's hundreds of other chemicals released into the natural environment affect life forms? How do a plethora of compounds deposited from the air in and around the creek affect life forms already under chemical stress?

All of this is a violent contradiction of the Precautionary Principle. Risk Assessments are an inherently dishonest attempt to justify less cleanup of our natural environment by industry. They are sanctioned by their bought and paid for buddies in government at all levels. Industry, particularly polluting industries, love them. In a nutshell polluters are allowed, for a price, to buy their way out of complete and proper cleanups of the environmental and human damage they have done. Scientifically determined criteria in the first place allow pollution up to a certain level. Even those levels whatever they are, are a compromise. But that just isn't good enough for them. They want to do even less. Shame on all of those involved.