LIARS LIE & DECEIVERS DECEIVE

YOU the readers can decide for yourselves. Following are some quotes from the "2020 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Soil Investigation Report" by GHD dated June 30, 2021. "DDT and metabolyte results were all less than Table 8 Standards ..." (Pg. 14 6.1.1). That is a bald faced lie! Due to the high Method Detecion Limits (MDL) such as .11, .17, and .23 ug/g it is impossible to know whether the Shirt Factory Creek soil samples do or do not exceed the MECP Table 8 standards of .05 ug/g for Total DDD and DDE or .078 for DDT. ................................................................................................................................. "Lindane was not detected above the sample reporting limits and reporting limits were all less than the Table 8 Standard."(Pg. 15 6.1.3) Another bald faced lie! The Table 8 Standard for Lindane is .01 ug/g. In fact most of the reporting limits (i.e. MDL) were exactly the same as that standard/criteria. However the MDL or reporting limits for Lindane samples at Shirt Factory Creek were much higher namely .060 ug/g which is six times higher than the Table 8 Standard of .01 ug/g. ................................................................................................................ "Results for DDT and its metabolites were all less than their associated ISQG criteria." (Pg. 15 6.1.4) Bald faced one again! In fact the MDLs (Method Detection Limits) ranged from .034-.23 ug/g while the criteria for DDD is .00354, for DDE is .00142 and for Total DDT is .00119 ug/g. O.K. I've just spotted a footnote that suggests that GHD may have multiplied these lab result concentrations by "...the fraction of organic carbon in each sample." Hunh! So now the question is whether the federal sediment criteria are indeed as they are publicly stated/published and are GHD doing this mathematical multiplication in order to reduce the concentrations below the published federal criteria? Or as the footnote indicates is this multiplication by the fraction of organic carbon solely to calculate SELs (Severe Effect Levels) and not for ISQG (Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines)? Interestingly here in the text I see no results for this. Well luckily for GHD/Lanxess/MECP I personally and the public in general are refused the right to publicly ask the filthy polluters these questions. It might hurt their wee feelings. .......................................................................................................... "All remaining Lindane results were less than the ISQG and SEL criteria." (Pg. 16 6.1.6) Well again we have a criteria of .00094 ug/g with MDLs ranging from 0.010-.10 ug/g. That's going to require some mighty tricky stickhandling to pretend that MDLs that are ten to one hundred times higher than the sediment criteria for Lindane can give any kind of accurate or meaningfull numbers. The calculation for multiplying the alleged fraction of organic carbon by the cdoncentration found by the lab does not seem to be here in the text. Elsewhere perhaps, less likely to be found/read? .................................................................................................... Finally there is yet another possibilty. Is this stuff about fractions of organic carbon legitimate in any universe other than that of GHD? It would have been appropriate for them to supply some kind of technical opinion on the matter by unbiased, nuetral experts. I've seen CRA in the past come up with some weird technical claims. Is this just the same old, same old self-serving nonsense to bail out their clients? If so where are the Ontario MECP and why aren't they stepping in and calling a foul???