How could it possibly not be? It's a Data Summary of many, repeated, poorly done, amateurish and inaccurate other reports all done by bought and paid for consultants on behalf of their dirty polluting clients be they Uniroyal, Crompton, Chemtura or Lanxess. I will concede that the level of "dirtiness" may be decreasing as the time distance from the gross daily dumping until now continues to expand.
Background concentrations are extremely high near the start of the report as comparisons are made for example between Upstream Background concentrations of Dioxins/Furans and Total DDT in various media (soil, sediment, surface water) and further downstream Reaches in the Creek. I did not see any reference to various relevant criteria on any of these Figures and in fact I found it very difficult to find tiny subtly different coloured circles representing concentrations of contaminants relative to alleged Background values. If the Background levels are actually that high then I would suggest that upstream (& downstream) dumping (legal or not) is a significant cause. Like most of the inaccurate information and data concerning this site, inappropriate Background locations have all been properly and publicly presented at public meetings simply to be ignored for evermore if it does not suit the polluter's/regulator's narrative.
I did not find fish tissue concentrations.in this report. A skeptic might suggest that that is because the data is strong and very negative concerning the ongoing health threats to both wildlife and human life ingesting contaminated fish (mercury, PCBs, DDT, Dioxins/Furans). A kinder, gentler critic might suggest that Lanxess/MECP simply did not advise Ms. Lyndall that that data existed. This perhaps would be in-line with the nonsense and disingenuous claims of various remediation done around the site. I was there when most of these "remediations" allegedly took place and the Figure showing them is a crock. Further to this I just love it when Uniroyal/Lanxess "fellow travellors" expose their biases and dishonesty. Hadley did it with crap about the on-site pits and ponds being "...remediated thoroughly". Utter bull Hadley. You weren't there and none of them were excavated through the bottom of the pits and lagoons which is where the contaminants went on their way to both the Upper Aquifer and the Municipal Aquifer. Also Susan Bryant made some dumb remark about former municipal landfill M2, on the Uniroyal property, being closed before Uniroyal made Agent Orange. What kind of crap is this Susan? One I think your facts are wrong but even if your timing is on, so what? This landfill is on Uniroyal/Lanxess property and after the municipality quit putting garbage in the landfill it was still right there for more industrial disposal. Also Ken Reger (former employee) testified at the Environmental Appeal Board hearings that he saw Uniroyal drums buried there and finally both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T wastes were buried there and once leaking you had Agent Orange with the 2,3,7,8 TCDD probably already in the 2,4,5-T and the 2,4-D having it's own dioxins along for the toxic ride.
I can't help but notice that there has been some "thinning" of data in Integral's Data Summary. For example including the various government health criteria for dioxins/Furans and DDT in various media (soil, sediments, fish tissue) would give a far better understanding of the risk involved with the concentrations of these chemicals found in all media from fish tissue to soil, sediment and even surface water which is damn interesting when we've been advised for decades that these chemicals are hydrophobic and essentially insoluble in water. The fact is they are soluble but at a very low concentration plus they are more likely to exist in the Creek as DDT and Dioxins/F attached to particles as suspended sediments in the water.
All in all a useless report but a fun read nevertheless. I do not blame the author (Lyndall) so much as Hadley and other Lanxess fact deniers and fantasy boosters.
No comments:
Post a Comment