Method Detection Limits (MDLs) go without saying. Any time the laboratory detection limit of a contaminant exceeds the health criteria, whether federal or provincial, then you've got a stinker. The reason for the high MDL may or may not be legitimate, it may or may not be honest. News flash polluters lie and they aren't paying big bucks to third parties to cost them money but rather to save them money.
Locational sampling biases as somewhat described here last Saturday are deceptive. One of the easiest methods of lying and deceiving is simply to refuse to sample where you have strong grounds to believe that there is significant contamination. This includes entire Reaches of the Canagagigue Creek as well as refusing to take any soil samples in and around the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm. Also without confirmation either assuming a sample is soil versus sediment or intentionally misnaming third party samples to sew confusion. All of these have been done by Lanxess/GHD.
Then there is simple refusal to properly edit one's technical reports. Good Lord but both CRA and GHD are corrupt as in "riddled with errors". Geez there are multiple failures to shade criteria exceedances in Figures they present while claiming that all exceedances are shaded so as to stand out. Horse feathers. Hint for GHD : O.K. the soil criteria for dioxin close to surface water is 7 parts per trillion whereas the sediment criteria for dioxin (TEQ) is only .85 ppt. . Aren't you guys supposed to be professionals? Everybody makes mistakes (human error) but don't you routinely and carefully edit the technical crap that you publish? I think the answer is obvious. Why waste your time editing out obvious errors when you aren't accountable to anybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment