Friday, July 28, 2023


 Yes I did receive and read about 1200 pages of information pertaining to the reconstruction of Church St. East but as indicated here my and other CPAC members questions were not addressed. My response yesterday to Boris Latkovic was critical but in hindsight instead of leaping into the reports offered and then being disappointed that they did not address our legitimate concerns and questions perhaps I should have been less trusting that the answers were within. 

So where are we now? We have a ton of written info, lab analyses and more that are somewhat interesting in their own right. Also I believe that the 1200 pages shows a bias against Uniroyal Chemical being the source of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) chemicals in nearby soils along with PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) such as benzoapyrene, anthracene etc. This is my opinion based less upon what is specifically said and more upon that which is not said. Uniroyal Chemical is not named nor given it's due as a MAJOR polluter on a major scale and all the while it shares several hundred metres of property line with Church St. (Hwy #86).

So was Boris simply stalling and deflecting by sending me the 1200 pages or is he really a nice guy at heart who knows how much I generally enjoy reading technical reports? Should I have been upset with him when none of the answers were clearly given in the reports? Maybe my attitude should be that his and the Regions (& MECP) failures to date to answer simple questions actually is the answers themselves. For example I've asked if there has been any lab analysis proving that coal tar macadam (paving) was present. The non answer means NO!. Has there been any technical reports, lab analyses etc. that definitively tie the benzene found in nearby soils to the alleged coal tar paving? The non answer combined with the NO answer to the presence of coal tar paving means NO! Does the Region have any legitimate technical reports that prove that old, buried coal tar paving leaches toxic chemicals into the natural environment? Again the non answer means NO!

Same thing with PAHs. Has the Region got any proof that they came from alleged only coal tar paving (macadam)? The non answer is NO! etc. etc. So how long can the Region and the MECP stonewall us? Are they furiously writing up new reports as we speak to justify their verbal claims? Is it possible that they actually believe their own theory or have they been caught red handed lying to the public presumably to assist in the ongoing coverup around the Uniroyal Chemical and Lanxess Canada mickey mouse cleanup? Or is there some other reason why they are all being so obtuse on this matter? I do not see general disrespect or apathy as being the cause. Right now their credibility is on the line as is the MECP's yet again.   

No comments:

Post a Comment