The two reports are dated December 7/23 and December 20/23. The shorter second one I have read and I'm almost half way through the longer first one. Interesting criticisms include Stantec making conclusions based upon limited evidence. There are also comments about Stantec presenting data in an inconsistent fashion. For example this might include data sets for soil samples that include dates, locations, depths, soil types and other parameters and then the next soil samples only have half the identifying parameters of the first soil samples.
To date a big complaint by the Ministry of Environment (MECP) is in regards to chicken and egg consumption. Apparently Stantec made various assumptions (the bane of risk assessments?) regarding free range chickens not foraging either on contaminated floodplain soils as well as not right beside the contaminated Creek. I guess that Stantec allegedly asked the Old Order Mennonite farmers whether their chickens foraged for food where they weren't supposed to and the farmers supposedly said no they don't. This raises two issues. Are chickens highly obedient to human verbal commands and if not would they obey written posted signs advising them to stay away from the Creek? Yes indeed folks, professional Risk Assessments are a laugh a minute as long as you can avoid seeing the dead bodies.
Two other criticisms by the Ministry are the fact that there are multiple channels of the Creek in the downstream area heading towards the Grand River. Hence the distance of the Creek is substantially greater than 8 km (5 miles) and should be reflected with more soil and sediment samples . Floodplain samples also should be increased I would think. In a recent post I discussed alleged anomolous very high contaminant concentrations. Apparently Stanted prefer to call these results "outliers" and may have conveniently (& self-servingly) been leaving them out of various calculations. The Ministry view this as a little too blatant and want that data back into the various risk calculations and others.
This has always been part of my criticism of this whole process. When the polluter and his bought and paid for "experts" and "Qualified Pe*****" are manufacturing all the reports they get to cherry pick the evidence. This likely includes "evidence" that all the other stakeholders aren't aware of and which can be thrown out if it turns out to be inconvenient to the narrative being peddled to the public.
The so called experts and MECP and officials are perfect examples of GREENWASHERS. They are in a conflict of interest because if they actually helped "fix problems" they would be out of a job, thus they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. None of them can be trusted unless they consistently prove to be on the side of local citizens and part of the solution.
ReplyDeleteAfter all the real environmentalists are gone, the chemical company lands will become a very valuable paved over industrial park joining the other newly designated industrial Stroh farmland with contamination to the east.
Where can I find these reports?
ReplyDeletePhone or e-mail Woolwich Township. I believe that the new Support Person for RAC & TAG is named Alex. She most likely will e-mail you the recent (Dec. 7 & 20) MECP reports. They are in two tiny packages but are actually three reports sort of.
ReplyDelete