MORE STUDIES & MORE RED HERRINGS TO JUSTIFY NO CLEANUP OF THE CANAGAGIGUE CREEK

 How many studies/investigations generally all confirming what we have known since Rachel Carson advised us in "Silent Spring" (1962) do we need? Three more have been presented to Lanxess by the Ontario Ministry of Environment indicating that DDT and its metabolytes persist in soil for many decades and move up the food chain (i.e. bioaccumulate). These published post graduate studies while helpful are of little use if their conclusions are misinterpreted, minimized or generally ignored. Furthermore at some point all the studies/investigations/reports relative to the HHERA (Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment) over the last five to ten years become nothing more than a voluminous and weighty cudgel for Lanxess and GHD to hide behind. See they say: "We've done our due diligence. We've studied the risks. You can't argue with science. If you do we will smack you in the back of the head with all these reports that we have either bought and paid for or have reviewed." Of course they have long ago failed to embrace or acknowledge the "precautionary principle" which suggests that when there is scientific evidence raising doubt about future environmental and human safety, then precaution is paramount. 

The corporate principle however carries more weight for Lanxess and friends. It states that when there is scientific evidence raising doubt about future environmental and human safety, then in order to protect the  income stream of investors and share holders, all means necessary will be employed. These means may be legal or not. They most certainly are highly unlikely to be moral or ethical but apparently along with dishonesty are protected by our courts and judicial system. Afterall corporations buy lobbyists for a reason. It's a lot easier to have loophole riddled laws put in place by sympathetic politicians than it is to hide blatant contraventions of the law.

The most recent additions to the plethora of alleged "scientific" study by CRA and GHD include a tiny bit more of soil sampling and a tiny bit of earthworm collection sampling for DDT. Twenty years ago some on-site earthworms were found to have high levels of dioxin/furans in them. Hardly surprising. Also those high levels move up the food chain to robins, shrews, voles etc. and then further up the food chain to hawks, owls, coyotes and more. They didn't force Uniroyal/Chemtura to do more on-site cleanup then and however bad these most recent sample results are they too will not force greater cleanup. Lanxess are firmly in control of the process from start to finish and everything else is all for show and appearances. Everybody involved (i.e. alleged stakeholders) just want this process to end and to do so as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. Let the wildlife suffer and the same with the twenty-two farm families living and farming along the Creek downstream from Uniroyal/Lanxess. Our authorities have known since the 1950s how much damage Uniroyal Chemical was doing and every step of the way they have collaborated with Uniroyal and corporate successors to minimize cleanup costs and deny the truth to the public.