THE MOST EGREGIOUS EXCEEDANCES OF CRITERIA BY METHOD DETECTION LIMITS (MDL): 50 - 200 TIMES HIGHER !

I've finally finished the report. Unlike certain alleged experts, professionals and others I actually read everything and then go back and analyse that which I've read. Over the last few days I've been posting some of my findings here. Simply put there are more Non-Detect results, whether Soils or Sediments, than there are detections. Hence there are also more Non-detects than there are exceedances of criteria. If we were sampling clean farmland that would be expected. We are not however. In fact the vast majority of MDLs that are listed are far in excess of the criteria assigned to the specific chemical tested for in the sample, again whether Soil or Sediment. Regarding diffent parameters (chemicals) being tested for, four of the five of them have MDLs far in excess of their criteria, whether provincial (Table 8) or federal (ISQG). This refers to Lindane, DDD, DDE, and DDT. For whatever reason all the samples tested for dioxins/furans (i.e. Total TEQ) had Method Detection Limits (MDLs) below the criteria of 7 parts per trillion (ppt). Also keep in mind that the criteria for TEQ (Toxic Equivalency) is measured in ppt which are literally a million times smaller than the measurement of parts per million (ppm) being used for Lindane and the various DDT compounds. Eg. ppm are 1,000 times larger than ppb (parts per billion) which are a thousand times higher than ppt. ............................................................................................................................. Soils have MDLs that exceed their criteria at lower rates/multiples than do sediments. Partly this is do to the lower criteria for sediments and partly due to lower soil MDLs in some locations. For example the exception is Reach 2 in the creek which actually has much lower soil MDLs than does Reach 4. This of course creates a sampling bias which favours greater positive detection in the much further downstream Reach 2 than in Reach 4. However that is strongly counterbalanced by the fact that Reach 4 includes the Uniroyal/Lanxess property which is the ultimate source of these contaminants in the first place and has more and higher deposits of contaminants in both soils and creek sediments. There is no legitimate comparison, in my opinion, between all the various locations and sample parameters because of this ongoing apples to oranges nonsense. This is not science so much as, I believe, a deliberate attempt to confuse. GHD and Lanxess do not want citizens or the general public to be able to read and understand what their version of science is. I suggest that their version as indicated in both this report (2020 Canagagigue Creek Soil and sediment Investigation) and the 2017 Canagagigue Creek Investigation is at best junk science and at worst fraudulent science. ............................................................................................................... Soil MDLs exceeding their criteria do so between 1.6 and 10 times. That of course seriously inhibits finding all the exceedances of criteria for Lindane, DDD, DDE and DDT. Sediment MDLs however exceeding their criteria do so between 3.1 and 244.7 times with numerous exceedances (12) well in excess of 100 times the criteria. This makes getting positive detections of contaminants very difficult even in highly contaminated sediments. I assume that that is the intent of the authors. If they have some legitimate rationale for these ridiculously high MDLs then they need to 1) explain them 2) explain how ridiculously inaccurate and generally useless the results are which purport to indicate certain areas of the Creek requiring attention and hopefully cleanup.