Last year a scholarly article was published in Environmental Science Magazine titled "Limitations of chemical monitoring hinder aquatic risk evaluations on the macroscale". This was a very large study of decades of monitoring data from across the United States. Both the Editor and the authors included a Summary or Abstract if you will. Each essentially said that despite decades of monitoring, less than 1% of chemicals with possible toxic effects have the proper data required for risk assessment. The second statement from both parties was that analytical limits are far too high for detecting many chemicals, especially pesticides. Thirdly both advised that these limitations have biased risk perceptions and I would add risk assessments.
If none of this rings any bells than you have not been keeping up with the risk assessments done by Uniroyal Chemical/Chemtura and later on by Lanxess Canada who are only too keen not to spend another nickel on cleaning up the Canagagigue Creek after spending millions (?) on lobbying, bribing?, monitoring and persuading politicians and credentialed TAG/TRAC members that all is well. I have long said that risk assessments are mathematical models filled with assumptions that can be favourably bought by polluter clients for a fraction of real cleanup costs. When as it turns out these monitoring data are also woefully incomplete including laboratory detection limits of toxic chemicals lower than their mandated health criteria; then what you have is not a risk assessment it is actually a get out of jail free card produced by well educated intellectual prostitutes all pretending to rely on the "professionalism" of others.
Mention is made of both DDT and Dioxins as are present in the Canagagigue Creek, courtesy of Uniroyal Chemical and Lanxess Canada, accompanied by warnings as to their enhanced toxicity.
No comments:
Post a Comment