"WEASEL WORDS" - I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THEM IN YESTERDAY'S POST

What of course reminded me of the MOE/MECP's, GHD and Lanxess's english skills in employing intentionally deceptive words and language was simply rereading Monday's K-W Record article by Leah Gerber titled "In Elmira, toxic waste remains an issue". In that article are a number of unintentional errors as well as intentional ones by Lanxess reps using "weasel words" to lie and decieve the public while stickhandling carefully. The " stickhandling" includes the choice of words such as "significantly, based on laboratory analysis, significant damage, impacts of significance, in this area" etc.. It is outright lying to the public while allowing themselves lots of wiggle room in case any TAG or RAC (HA!) members were to decide to challenge them. ............................................................................................................. The company rep appears in this newspaper article to suggest that Lanxess have done their due diligence. News flash Mr. Michael Mackin: Firstly you personally have never attended a single public UPAC, CPAC, RAC or TAG meeting in your life. Therefore you are nothing but a bought and paid for mouthpiece spouting off whatever bull.hit your employer instructs you to. Secondly if your definition of due diligence is making private, behind closed doors sweetheart deals with the Ontario Ministry of Environment, not in the public interest, then by your definition you've done your due diligence. Otherwise you are full of it. Thirdly your claim that "There is nothing to indicate any impacts or concerns from an off-site release to soil and groundwater based on laboratory analysis." is breathtaking. The fish are full of mercury, PCBs, dioxins/furans, DDT and more based upon laboratory analysis. What the hell are you talking about? Ahh yes, weasel words again. "...off-site release to soil and groundwater...". You are intentionally ignoring off-site releases from Uniroyal Chemical directly into the SURFACE WATER of Canagagigue Creek. Also this last dishonest quote of yours implies that impacts or concerns must be based upon laboratory analysis. Well another news flash Michael. Just because your company discharges toxic chemicals to the natural environment without laboratory analysis at the time does not lessen the negative health effects upon either animals or human receptors. Your victims do not ask for or require lab results from the discharge to know that they are sick. .................................................................................................... All in all just more of the same crap but from a different corporate entity. There is more in Monday's Record article to raise the ire of knowledgable and honest citizens. Of course the majority of those involved are not honest when you consider the Township (Woolwich), the MOE/MECP, GHD, Lanxess, and local and provincial politicians. That most are in on the sham is how they get away with both the coverups and the control of public consultation.