SUSAN BRYANT CORRECTS WOOLWICH OBSERVER, POINTS OUT WEAKNESS OF RISK ASSESSMENT & THEN FALLS FOR LANXESS'S TRAP (Maybe)

Last Saturday I posted here with strong criticism regarding the Woolwich Observer's headline from a couple of days prior. Their dead wrong headline was "Testing shows creek poses no unacceptable risk to humans". My posting last Saturday was titled "Clarifications in Woolwich Observer's story this week about the Creek". I made it very clear that the headline was a stinker and was false. Lo and behold in yesterday's Observer we have a Letter To The Editor from Ms. Bryant saying the same thing. She is correct "Testing" does NOT show the creek poses no risk to humans. In fact the testing of creek soils, floodplain soils and creek sediments (bottom of the creek) shows incredibly high concentrations of toxic chemicals far in excess of health criteria. Unfortunately the damage is done as likely more people will read the stupid headline than either Ms. Bryant's Letter To The Editor or my Blog post. .......................................................................................................................................... Susan points out the contradiction between scientific facts and the assumptions and value judgements of the Risk Assessment. She feels that "...the assumption in the risk assessment is that because the farming population along the creek is small, the chance of people being exposed to these highly toxic spots is limited. So no action need be taken." If indeed that is accurate then I am even more disgusted. Does the killer of one human being get a pass because he hasn't killed multiple human beings? .................................................................................................................................. Lastly Susan suggests that "The most toxic deposits in our creek are small areas, relatively few, and easily accessible." A more accurate sentence would be "The most toxic deposits in our creek are easily accessible as miraculously they are all immediately beside roads (New Jerusalem Rd,. Northfield Dr.) such that equipment and personnel can be brought directly to these areas." Susan may have fallen into the intentional trap of "locational sampling biases". The polluter intentionally picks his sampling locations in easy areas to access. That would be where you don't have to trudge through bush along the creek carrying all your equipment with you. As soon as you have detections of toxic chemicals from your first easy foray then that success leads to more sampling in the same area. That is what has occurred over the years at the New Jerusalem Rd. crossing of the creek as well as further downstream at Northfield Dr. One you lower costs via easier sampling and two you lower costs by geographically scoping/reducing your area of so called "hot spots". ................................................................................................................................. So does Susan really believe that only one or two "hot spots" exist in the creek? She desperately needs a win after decades of compromises, private meetings and private deal making with the polluter and his successors. Maybe a "compromise" on a tiny cleanup has already been decided. That would be a win-win for Lanxess and Susan. Not so much for the downstream Mennonite farmers, their livestock and or wildlife.