Terms that have been used frequently to describe RAC and TAG include lapdogs, tame, bureaucrats, suits, professional liars (some only), originally Sandy's curling buddies, cringe-worthy and worse. None of this seems likely to deter the hardliners on Council. Some are ideologically hardliners and others are simply non-thinking, lazy hardliners. These are the ones who surround themselves with like thinkers and fellow travellors. It's not only misery that loves company but cowardice thrives with company as well.
Junk science includes sampling in areas where you are least likely to obtain accurate samples. An example is sampling for sediments in the bottom of the Canagagigue Creek where there are cobbles, heavy stones and other "armouring" on the bottom. As DDT and dioxins/furans adhere to tiny soils particles and fine sediments you can reduce detections of these toxic compounds with selective sampling.
Taking soil samples in the middle of aquifers is a great way to miss where both the subsurface LNAPLS and DNAPLS are. The LNAPLS float on top of the water table (i.e. just above the top of the aquifers whereas DNAPLS sink through aquifers (soils saturated with water) and mostly reside in depressions on the surface of aquitards (much less permeable clays and silt).
Intentionally using inappropriate monitoring wells to "prove" hydraulic containment. Wells that are carefully screened in one aquifer or another generally provide very accurate groundwater elevations whether for the Upper Aquifer, Surficial Aquifer, Municipal Upper Aquifer, Municipal Lower Aquifer etc. The problem arises when dishonest brokers (i.e. professional liars) choose wells whose screens intersect two different aquifers. This happens far too often and was used to falsely claim hydraulic containment on the west side (off-site) of Uniroyal Chemical during "optimization" studies (early 2004?) when a well screened in both the UA and MU was used. The UA reading falsely elevated the alleged MU groundwater reading making it appear that off-site MU readings were higher than on-site thus hydraulic containment was supposedly good when it wasn't. This dishonest process was also used with well CH97 just south of Uniroyal during the building of the Ammonia Treatment System around 2007 and 2008. Again Ch97 was improperly used to "prove" hydraulic containment on the Uniroyal/Chemtura site. The Environmental Review Tribunal eventually did give me a tiny pat on the back for finding that whereas CPAC, Woolwich Council, Pat & Susan had me kicked off CPAC for being right (again).
Very little ever changes in the land of the blind, incompetent, and intentionally obtuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment