RISK ASSESSMENTS: ARE THERE HONEST, ACCURATE ONES OUT THERE?

 Last Friday I posted here about the second phony Risk Assessment done in regards to Uniroyal Chemical in Elmira, Ontario. The first one was done in the early 2000s and allegedly claimed that there were no unacceptable risks to receptors in and around the property with the exception of occasional trespassers and possibly earthworms if I remember correctly.  Also if my memory is correct, Dr. Henry Regier a local resident, academic and environmental enthusiast, spent considerable effort looking into the Risk Assessment process including interviewing appropriate Ministry of Environment officials. His conclusions did not do much for the credibility of either the process or of the MOE/MECP.

Now it turns out that surprise, surprise, not everyone shares my opinion of the Risk Assessment (R.A.) process here in Ontario. A few things need to be understood however. Firstly the R.A. done roughly twenty years ago was done on a property often described even by MOE officials as one of the most highly contaminated sites either in Ontario or even in Canada. These contaminants include dioxins (the worst kind-2,3,7,8 TCDD), NDMA, DDT, solvents, pesticides and herbicides including lindane, 2,4-D, parathion, and multiple Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) only a few of which have already been listed. Oh and maybe coincidentally lots of mercury and PCBs downstream in Uniroyal's private sewer known as the Canagagigue Creek. Secondly no health study was ever done in Elmira for the benefit of local residents. Thirdly we were advised with public statements along the lines of "NDMA is the most carcinogenic compound known to mankind." and "2,3,7,8 TCDD is the most toxic compound on the planet." It is very difficult to square those statements released by our authorities with a polluter initiated, paid for Risk Assessment that essentially said "Smile, be happy, all is well."

Now nearly two decades later we get yet another stinker R.A. This one is telling us that there are no unacceptable risks to either humans or other environmental receptors downstream in the Canagagigue Creek. Well maybe the authors of this most recent R.A. got confused. Maybe they think their R.A. is to determine risks to themselves, the authors of this high falutin, glossy coverup masquerading as a scientific, legitimate document. Now if we local Elmira residents hadn't beeen bombarded with three decades plus of junk science, psuedo science and just plain trashy technical reports all minimizing the environmental damage and health effects here; then we might have a little more patience and less contempt and disgust for all the lies over the last thirty-three years.

Can an honest, legitimate Risk Assessment be done? Is the process capable in neutral, unbiased hands to produce a worthwhile, robust and scientific document? I don't know. But what I do know is that here in Elmira we've never had either honest, neutral, unbiased or legitimate efforts focused on our environmental crises.