SCAMMING DATA: GHD ARE NO SLOUCHES

TEQ SEDIMENT COMPARISONS ..................................................................................................................... I have already mentioned that the dioxin (TEQ) concentrations found in the Stroh Drain sediments in GHD's 2020 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Soil Investigation are quite remarkable. This is because I compared them with seven other locations that were also sampled in this latest report for dioxin concentrations in creek sediments and the 24.4 parts per trillion found in the southern end of the Stroh Drain exceeded six of those seven other locations. The only sediment location that exceeded it was at one of the locations sampled on the Lanxess property which of course is the source of the dioxins. ................................................................................................................................ I have also now compared the Stroh Drain sediment concentrations with the earlier report "2017 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Floodplain Soil Investigation" also done badly by GHD for a number of previously posted reasons including shovel versus core sampling, ridiculously high Method Detection Limits etc. Now again the 24.4 ppt. TEQ in the Stroh Drain exceeds the vast majority of TEQ sediment concentrations found both on site (Uniroyal/Lanxess) as well as downriver. However there are four results, one on site and three downriver albeit very close to Lanxess, which dwarf the first, only, and likely last result from in or around the Stroh Drain, if Lanxess/MECP have their way. ........................................................................................................................................ The one downriver result is at what is known as Station #20 located downstream of lanxess but upstream of the first road crossing namely the New Jerusalem Rd. It is followed by Station #21 which just like Station #20 is also part of Reach 3 (of the creek) but slightly further downstream. To add further confusion some of these samples are referred to as being located at the New Jerusalem Rd. even though they are on both sides of the road (i.e. upstream & downstream side of the road) hence three different designations for their location can be used (STn. #21, Reach 3, New Jerusalem Rd.). I do not belive that this unecessary confusion by the authors is unintentional but hey judging intent versus incompetence can be a tricky business. ......................................................................................................................... Speaking of tricky as well as "scamming" in the title above, it is child's play to sway the impression of the extent of contamination simply by manipulating the number of samples taken or not taken. For the last seven years Lanxess/GHD have sucessfully pretended that the Stroh Drain is uncontaminated simply by refusing to sample in and around it at all. Historically they have been able to focus attention on a couple of hot spots near their site (Stn #20 & 21, New Jerusalem Rd. etc.) again by simply constantly and regularly sampling those areas. Yes they are heavily contaminated. That said if you sample known contaminated areas with ten times as many discrete samples as anywhere else downstream then guess what? You now have the data you want which points to high concentrations where it's more convenient for you to access the creek. No nasty begging or inducing landowners for access when lo and behold you've been sampling for years and decades along the creek where you have easy access such as New Jerusalem Rd. And your own data now easily persuades part time volunteers to go along with remediating exactly where it's easier/cheaper for you. ..................................................................................................................................... It's a long game and the game winners, as usual, are the game players. The rest of us citizens and members of the public don't even know it's a game untill it's almost over.