Kudos to the Woolwich Observer for publishing my Letter To The Editor in its' entirety versus editing it and then publishing. Furthermore my Letter To... also states "Is there one overarching conflict of interest that has subverted our Ministry of Environment?" Both of these statements while accurate also strongly suggest corruption of one form or another. I suggest that bravo to the Woolwich Observer as they are in my opinion demonstrating courage for the benefit of the public interest versus hiding and remaining quiet due to libel chill or other intimidation.
I noticed carefully a few comments by Susan Bryant at last Thursday's TAG meeting. I did indicate yesterday her comments regarding a PROTEST. Interesting and Lord knows long overdue but I am skeptical it will happen. In reference to the Stroh Drain soils and sediments she did give minimal support to Sebastian when she stated that the area is "under sampled perhaps". Definitely less than unconditional support but better than the rest of TAG.
Still zero answers as to where PCBs in the Creek are coming from. Unbelievable ! I also loved Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach's portrayal of the Min. of Environment's (MECP) logic being "specious" as to why the Stroh Drain isn't a source of contamination to the Creek. What the public interest has long required is more citizens stepping up and calling the MOE/MECP out for the bullsh.t and nonsense.
Neither Tiffany nor Wilson would respond to statements by Sebastian regarding dioxins/furans found in the sediments of the Stroh Drain at thirty times higher than the federal criteria of .85 TEQ ppt . Neither would they directly respond to strong criticism about the shallow depth of sediment sampling nor to the fact that the MECP tested the lean portions of fish versus the higher concentration areas such as the liver, other organs and fatty areas. Instead both Tiffany and Wilson went off sideways with Wilson suggesting that shovels are O.K. for shallow underwater sampling of sediments versus professional core samplers and Tiffany blathering about location CANCR5 having the highest sediment concentrations of contaminants (it doesn't) and that a year's worth of under pumping of the Municipal aquifers on the Uniroyal/Lanxess site isn't a cause for worry about loss of hydraulic containment permitting on-site contaminated groundwater to flow off-site (it is).
Some good signs lately but not much from TAG.
No comments:
Post a Comment