NEVERENDING GAMESMANSHIP ON THE FORMER UNIROYAL CHEMICAL PROPERTY

 

Ahh science! You can't fool it. You can't use words to stickhandle around it. Plain, old everyday lies get caught up in the data and facts don't they?  Well not nearly so much as you might hope. Afterall do you think these decades long contracts and associations with professional consultants, hydrogeologists, chemists etc. are for the public's benefit or for the shareholders' benefit?

I would like to think that after thirty-five years that I've seen all the tricks of the trade. Not a chance. There are likely ones of such breathtaking arrogance and brazen chutzpah that I haven't even dreamed of their existence. So what have I seen over the decades?

DNAPL soil sampling intentionally done in the least likely elevation and location to find DNAPLS. Upstream "Background" Creek monitoring results allegedly clear of Uniroyal contaminants that are actually downstream of past Uniroyal disposal areas such as Bolender Park. Sediment sampling done with open shovels versus closed sampling tubes pushed into the sediment which retain all the sediments they extract versus the shovel method which allows fines to flow off the shovel as it is extracted from the water. Method Detection Limits from commercial labs which far exceed the health criteria for specific chemicals thus producing false or sketchy Non-Detect (N.D.) results. "Investigations" of large areas of contamination that consist of all of two samples such as on the Stroh property. Also numerous soil samples on the Stroh property just inside their property line with Uniroyal that however are taken at a depth of 15 cm. or 5.9 inches. Considering most of these soils have been tilled, aerated and rained upon for decades it is a wonder that any positive results are available at those shallow depths. A refusal, over and over again, to take deeper soil samples both on and off the Uniroyal site which would indicate that solvent contaminated liquids can mobilize hydrophobic compounds such as DDT and dioxins and carry them further bith laterally and vertically.

So are we seeing science or more likely junk science and psuedo science throughout the so called "cleanup" of the aquifers, the Creek (Canagagigue) and the site itself?