Wednesday, July 21, 2021

LANXESS/GHD SAMPLE TESTING DEPTHS CONTINUE TO SUCK

Sediment sample depths from the bottom of creeks and drains are either 0-10 cm. (0-4 inches) or 10-30 cm. (4-12 inches). As a generality concentrations of some contaminants are greater with depth. This kind of tells you why the guilty parties ("powers to be") lie, bulls.it, bafflegab about shallow depths being better. What they mean is better for them and their interests ($$$). ........................................................................................................................... Soil samples from beside but above the normal waterline of creeks are taken at either 0-10 cm. (0-4 inches) or 10-30 cm. (4-12 inches). Again as a generality contaminant concentrations in soil increase with depth. There appears to be no consistency in regards to either sediment or soil samples regarding depth. In other words some samples are tested at both shallow depths (either 0-10 or 10-30) and others inexplicably are not. Or maybe it's not so inexplicable. Deeper samples generally have higher concentrations of contaminants and none of the guilty parties want that exposed if at all possible. .................................................................................................................................. Lanxess, GHD, MECP, Woolwich Township all seem quite capable of forgetting various soil samples found at depth on the Uniroyal/Lanxess property. I'm referring to real depth as in a number of feet deep not pretend "deep" samples from between four inches and twelve inches (i.e. 10-30 cm.). This includes during the excavations at GP-1 (2013-2014) as well as at test pits in and around (east) of RPE-5 after that. High concentrations of dioxins, PCBs were found eight feet below ground surface. ........................................................................................................................................ It's all about appearances. It's pretend science, pretend public consultation and even a pretend mayor who violated her conditional reinstatement to office by the Honourable Justice David Broad in July 2015.
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 21, 2021 at 8:05 PM

    Chances are erosion, entrainment and deposition of sediments on grassed floodplains negates sampling deep. Unless Woolwich Dam fails, or s super cell parks over Elmira, any high water that floods usually occurs in the spring when the ground is frozen and usually not erodible. However,I agree on paragraph 3 and deep sampling in those areas. I do however feel your last sentence is inappropriate and has nothing to do with this post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AlanJuly 22, 2021 at 8:35 AM

    Overall some good points in this comment Barry. I would add however the following: our last major flood in the Canagagigue Creek occurred in June (2019?) not in the spring. Secondly the Woolwich Dam is mostly earthen not concrete all the way across. Hence it could fail. The last sentence is to drive home the point that politics rules everything and has always trumped science, data and facts here in Elmira (Woolwich Township).

    ReplyDelete
  3. alanJuly 22, 2021 at 11:12 AM

    One other small matter. Our brain trust on Woolwich Council have rezoned for development both the Stroh and Martin farms. There will be commercial & light industrial development on these probably highly contaminated lands. This will include excavations for basements, footings as well as road construction through the area (i.e. Elmira By-Pass). Workers, customers, and the public will be exposed to unremediated soil contamination in the area.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)