Tuesday, August 2, 2022


 It's complicated and intentionally so. It includes deception and manipulation. It's like a magic trick whereby the right hand is gesticulating widely while the real matter at hand is being done surrepticiously by the left hand. Nothing is as it seems. According to Wilson Lau of TAG "The objective of the risk assessment is to determine what the relevant site-specific standard is based on the land uses and people on the site...". Frankly that is a bullsh.t objective.  There are generic standards and criteria that should be used as they are based upon scientific determinations of toxicity and health risks. The generic criteria for various toxins should be the minimum ones used. Hence if land uses and receptors (people) present are greater than normal or expected, the criteria (i.e. permitted concentration of a contaminant) should be reduced versus being raised if at the time of study there are fewer people present than expected.

There is a ton of qualitative bullsh.t versus quantitative data. This is similar to subjective versus objective arguments. In other words you can argue using objective data (facts) which are subject to misinterpretation as well albeit nowhere as egregiously, piously and  dishonestly so as pure subjective (likely speculative) arguments. These qualitative/subjective arguments can sometimes be nothing but guesses and assumptions. For example if you stare for fifteen minutes at a shallow stretch of the Creek and see zero fish then is it honest to claim that the entire five miles of downstream Creek is devoid of fish? Of course not.

How complicated and involved are Risk Assessments (RA)? Good Lord the flacking things go on for years and years. Again I emphasize intentionally. Whether citizen oversight and consultation is done by local, involved citizens or alleged "experts" working for free in their spare time; the amount of reading, rereading, studying and meeting together is way beyond onerous. How many of the current professionals on TAG while working full time for their employers, raising families and owning homes actually have the time to go back and review the thousands upon thousands of pages produced relevant to the RA? None! How many actually do it? None! How many leave and resign mid term whether local citizens or local experts. Lots! Bill Barr, Joe Kelly, Pat McLean, Katarina Richter have all left within the last two or three years alone.    

Risk we are told is determined by the overlap of three factors namely exposure, receptors and contaminant toxicity. An under determination of any of the three greatly and dramatically reduces the risk of harm in this case to human health. What an absolute load! Supposedly you draw three circles close together representing each factor. If the receptors (human beings) do not come into contact with  the toxic contaminants at their current location (exposure) when the study is underway then allegedly there is zero risk. What an absolute croc of crap! On a Monday there may very well be no risk half a mile down the Creek. The next day there might be three fishermen in the same location. Or the very same day there could be one fisherman two miles downstream. Or the pool toys and inflatables found beside the Creek may be in use when those studying the Creek walk by (hence risk) or not (no risk). 

Nobody anytime or anywhere has likely ever studied and completely understood and documented all the receptors, all the contaminants (plus their synergistic effects) and all the possible exposures whether past, present or FUTURE! The entire RA is a complicated mathematical construct far too amenable to self-serving deception and manipulation by those doing the work and those paying them to do the work. No polluter with a long history of disingenuous, self-serving, obfuscating talents should ever be allowed to have ANY influence over the results of a process so able to deceive the victims of pollution. This includes sketchy raw data being provided, influence over the members of any public consultation body, and money paid to investigators, local municipalities, politicians or citizens directly or indirectly whether charitable or for services rendered.. 


  1. Shame you weren't a retired Professional then just MAYBE someone would pay attention to your citizen history.. Continuous repetition all the time certainly .doesn't help but keep trying though.

    1. I can't imagine why I would want to be a retired professional.. The professional liars I have described here are still working. They are a disgrace to their profession.