LANXESS TAG TEAM IDIOTS - LUIS & ALLAN D. ARE SETTING NEW LOWS IN INCOMPETENTCY

 I forgot to mention here yesterday that that turd Luis actually suggested that Sebastian was confused and was claiming that water ran uphill. Hmm "turd" could be a little strong as it implies that Luis intentionally attempted to undermine Sebastian's credibility so let's assume that Luis merely was confused and or is stupid and actually thinks that Sebastian said that which he did not. There were other misstatements (lies?) noted in the notes I made of the TRAC video by Luis. He stated that none of the aerial photos showed any kind of pathway or stressed vegetation from Uniroyal over to the Stroh property. In fact there are and while 1964 isn't very clear it is one of them. There is a much better one published by Conestoga Rovers in one of their GP-1, GP-2 reports around 2013. It was a non CPAC citizen who pointed it out that caused me to go on my self-guided tour (with R. Stroh permission).

First of all question #4 had asked GHD if they had done any calculations to determine chlorobenzene's Effective Solubility whether on or off site. The answer was an unsurprising no. This despite Jaimie Connolly (MOE) having done so years ago during DNAPL investigations on the former Uniroyal site.  Both Allan D. and Luis A. buttressed each other's frankly pathetic understanding of DNAPLS during their presentations.  Allan D. suggested yet again that he hadn't used the 1% Rule to deny DNAPL presence. Such a liar. Luis or Allan (tag team) also suggested that concentrations of dissolved chlorobenzene from pumping well W4 were around 4,000 ppb. He did this with exactly zero data backup presented. He also suggested that fifteen years later concentrations had dropped to below 80 ppb. the drinking water standard, again with zero data backup. Luis you are incompetent with either a poor memory or poor credibility or both. Your word is meaningless to the well informed. Produce the data for us. You also claimed that on-site pumping well PW4 had concentrations around 4,000 ppb. and that they have not decreased over decades of pumping. Listen you twit. That is nonsense. Concentrations at PW4, OW62 and OW88 all huddled together have exceeded 4,000 ppb. by orders of magnitude decades ago precisely because there was/is FREE Phase DNAPL present in the sub-surface and Bob Hillier (MOE) brought a sample form OW88 to UPAC in the early 90s.

Secondly DNAPL dissolves slowly hence it is difficult to get high concentrations of chlorobenzene at any time much less when an aquifer is being pumped 24/7. Of course concentrations will drop especially at off-site pumping well W4 that was pumped 24/7 for approx. fifteen years. Let's see the concentrations today and if they remain low then clearly the off-site chlorobenzene DNAPL at OW57-32 and near the Howard St. Water Tower had a  much smaller initial volume/weight etc. than on-site PW4 area.

One of the overhead Handouts (pg. 62) presented suggested that significant cosolvents in the per cent range or higher by total solvent composition could affect chlorobenzene concentrations. For the love of all that is holy you don't want to try to explain what you mean there. You will screw that up as well. The final point on this Handout (pg. 62) states that concentrations of unnamed VOCs and SVOCs in the off-site aquifers are in the parts per billion range and are not expected to have an impact on effective solubilities. Really? Without doing any calculations at all you can figure out Effective Solubilities in your head. Also again I might add not a single concentration result (with well # & date) is presented as backup. Finally you don't list the names of the VOCs and SVOCs you are referring to. Did you check a half dozen of them or 100 different Uniroyal solvents off site? I call BULLSHIT on that one.