DOGPOOP AND SANDBOX METAPHOR
A Woolwich Councillor came up with this metaphor a year and a half ago. Essentially you've seen a large dog poop in a child's sandbox. In order to clean this up (for health reasons) you cover the poop with sand and then you shove a few hoses into the sandbox. By ensuring that the sand box is uncovered , rainfall will percolate into the sand and slowly overtime dissolve the dog poop in the rainwater. The contaminated water will then slowly drain from the sandbox via the hoses. You carefully collect this contaminated water in order to treat it. Undoubtedly given enough time you will eventually have a perfectly clean sandbox for children to again play in. OR YOU COULD TAKE A SHOVEL & REMOVE THE DOG POOP ASAP. The first method is the one Uniroyal/Chemtura and the Ontario M.O.E. have chosen.
The town of Elmira is the sandbox. Hydraulic containment otherwise known as pump and treat is represented by the hoses. NDMA, DDT, DIOXINS, CHLOROBENZENE, AMMONIA, TOLUENE, XYLENE, ANILINE, TRICHLOROETHYLENE and a hundred more are the dog poop. You get the picture. The key to the real cleanup is to put the shovel where the pumping wells are. Both on site and off site these wells are located closest to the sources. The shovel of course represents source removal.
The cleanup of the Elmira Aquifer was predicated on the big lie that the only sources were at Uniroyal. The off site wells in reality were located next to the sources which Uniroyal, the Ministry of the Environment (M.O.E.) and probably the Region of Waterloo already knew. W5A/B were located next to the former First St. Landfill and downgradient of Nutrite (Yara). W4 by the water tower was to capture the dissolved constituents including Chlorobenzene, of the Free Phase DNAPL (dense non aqueous phase liquid) 100 feet below ground behind Varnicolor and across from Borg. W3 was located at Oriole Parkway and Industrial Dr. on the Sanyo Canadian property. Here the NDMA concentrations have always been much higher than anywhere else in Elmira with the exception of on site at Uniroyal or just barely off site.
Mixing my metaphors, Elmira has been the sandbox in which the children (politicians) have been playing for the last 22 years.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
FURTHER DOCUMENTED PROFESSIONAL EVIDENCE OF "OTHER" SOURCES IN ELMIRA
This evidence is found in the following report: "HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF THE VARNICOLOR PROPERTY-ROUTINE GROUNDWATER MONITORING FOR 1988". Prepared by Canviro Consultants a Division of CH2M HILL Engineering Ltd. May 1989.
The significance of this report is amazing. Firstly when I first privately and then publicly advised the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that the Varnicolor site was contaminated, they loudly denied it. Unknown to me they already knew and had two or three years of groundwater monitoring results to prove it. Secondly as I am about to quote in this report CH2M HILL strongly believed that there was another close by source contributing to groundwater contamination. Then a couple of years later when they were hired and under contract to the Region of Waterloo they reversed their position based on zero monitoring or examination of Borg Textiles. Their "source investigation" based on little or nothing supported both the Ministry of the Environment's position and also the Region of Waterloo's position that Uniroyal were the sole source of contaminants to the Municipal aquifer in Elmira. History proved Uniroyal correct and the others wrong simply with the public inclusion of Nutrite (Yara) in 2000.
"One concern which has been raised in previous monitoring reports is the possibility of offsite sources. Without the accurate definition of these contaminant sources, any predictions concerning contaminant fate is less than accurate. Presently several lines of evidence suggest that an offsite source(s) could be responsible for much of the groundwater contam,ination experienced in the area." To the present date (2011) there has been no "accurate definition of these contaminat sources". The above quote is on page 19 of this report as is the following. "The contamination identified in the Howard St. drain had some compounds whose concentrations exceeded those on the Varnicolor property. Contaminant concentrations can be expected to be diluted by moving further away from the source." ..."A number of other compounds detected in the Howard St. drain such as chlorobenzene, some halogenated phenolic compounds, herbicides and pesticides indicate that other sources of contamination in the area could be responsible for degradation of the groundwater."
Added to the above evidence are two points. Firstly the M.O.E. claimed that zero chlorobenzene was found in Varnicolor's on-site groundwater whereas it was found on their property line ie. the Howard St. drain which runs between Varnicolor and Borg Textiles. Secondly Free Phase DNAPL consisting of Chlorobenzene was found 100 feet below ground behind Varnicolor and across from Borg Textiles (near the water tower) in 1998. This final evidence was buried in a Uniroyal (Chemtura) report and yours truly only found it a little over a year and a half ago and made it public. Again as of this date (Feb. 2011) the Region of Waterloo, the M.O.E. and Chemtura have refused to comment or confirm. All three are still in denial mode. Quoting Aldous Huxley and the North Perth Advocate website " Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored".
This evidence is found in the following report: "HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF THE VARNICOLOR PROPERTY-ROUTINE GROUNDWATER MONITORING FOR 1988". Prepared by Canviro Consultants a Division of CH2M HILL Engineering Ltd. May 1989.
The significance of this report is amazing. Firstly when I first privately and then publicly advised the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that the Varnicolor site was contaminated, they loudly denied it. Unknown to me they already knew and had two or three years of groundwater monitoring results to prove it. Secondly as I am about to quote in this report CH2M HILL strongly believed that there was another close by source contributing to groundwater contamination. Then a couple of years later when they were hired and under contract to the Region of Waterloo they reversed their position based on zero monitoring or examination of Borg Textiles. Their "source investigation" based on little or nothing supported both the Ministry of the Environment's position and also the Region of Waterloo's position that Uniroyal were the sole source of contaminants to the Municipal aquifer in Elmira. History proved Uniroyal correct and the others wrong simply with the public inclusion of Nutrite (Yara) in 2000.
"One concern which has been raised in previous monitoring reports is the possibility of offsite sources. Without the accurate definition of these contaminant sources, any predictions concerning contaminant fate is less than accurate. Presently several lines of evidence suggest that an offsite source(s) could be responsible for much of the groundwater contam,ination experienced in the area." To the present date (2011) there has been no "accurate definition of these contaminat sources". The above quote is on page 19 of this report as is the following. "The contamination identified in the Howard St. drain had some compounds whose concentrations exceeded those on the Varnicolor property. Contaminant concentrations can be expected to be diluted by moving further away from the source." ..."A number of other compounds detected in the Howard St. drain such as chlorobenzene, some halogenated phenolic compounds, herbicides and pesticides indicate that other sources of contamination in the area could be responsible for degradation of the groundwater."
Added to the above evidence are two points. Firstly the M.O.E. claimed that zero chlorobenzene was found in Varnicolor's on-site groundwater whereas it was found on their property line ie. the Howard St. drain which runs between Varnicolor and Borg Textiles. Secondly Free Phase DNAPL consisting of Chlorobenzene was found 100 feet below ground behind Varnicolor and across from Borg Textiles (near the water tower) in 1998. This final evidence was buried in a Uniroyal (Chemtura) report and yours truly only found it a little over a year and a half ago and made it public. Again as of this date (Feb. 2011) the Region of Waterloo, the M.O.E. and Chemtura have refused to comment or confirm. All three are still in denial mode. Quoting Aldous Huxley and the North Perth Advocate website " Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored".
Saturday, February 19, 2011
ANCIENT RIVERBED BETWEEN HERE AND LAKE ONTARIO
O.K. now this is a little weird on several fronts. Yesterday's Kitchener-Waterloo Record carried this story: "Ancient riverbed hints at big storehouse of water". So after reading this article why am I confused? First of all our surface water in Waterloo Region generally follows our surface topography. In other words you will notice that the Grand River flows GENERALLY from north of Waterloo Region (Dundalk) southwards until it discharges in Lake Erie at Dunnville. Our shallow or Upper Aquifers generally flow and discharge into all the little streams and creeks which end up in the Grand. Think of the Canagagigue here in Elmira, the Nith, the Speed River and Conestogo River. Granted with all the turning and twisting of all these rivers it is quite possible to have shallow aquifers literally flowing either north, south or east and west. Now I might be prepared to believe that eons ago the surface drainage from here swung easterly towards Lake Ontario versus southerly towards Lake Erie. So perhaps there are scattered patches of sand and gravel underground between here and lake Ontario.
For me the bigger problem is the alleged depth of these sand and gravel aquifers. This article claims that they are 80 metres underground. That's more than 250 feet for the metrically challenged. That is ridiculous. I have studied groundwater as well as geology for the past twenty plus years. I have carefully examined drilled boreholes and stratigraphic logs throughout Waterloo Region. Here in Elmira our overburden (sand/gravel/clay/silt) is approximately 100 feet (32 metres) thick. Then you hit bedrock. Just north and east of here in the Elora and Fergus area you can see outcrops of the Bedrock right at the surface. South of here in Kitchener-Waterloo again there are areas with the overburden 100 feet thick but nearer the Grand River this overburden thins quickly. Then in Cambridge you will find dramatically thinner overburden. This is why contrary to Kitchener, Waterloo and Elmira area, most of the Municipal wells in Cambridge are drilled into and screened in the limestone and dolomite Bedrock. Now you can see my problem. If this article suggested that these aquifers were fractured Bedrock Aquifers then 250 feet down wouldn't surprise me. But to claim that there are sand and gravel aquifers at that depth is astounding . It is possible that this article is simply very vague and not telling us that these sand and gravel aquifers are entombed within the Bedrock. Conversely I wonder if it's a simple typographical error. Could it be possible that these articles should have said that these aquifers are 80 feet below surface? Regardless the better technically informed one is, the more likely to find major errors in nespaper stories. This absolutely is not a general slam at papers or reporters. They are writers first and technical people second. Whatever the cause I do hope that future stories about this potential source of water will be clearer.
O.K. now this is a little weird on several fronts. Yesterday's Kitchener-Waterloo Record carried this story: "Ancient riverbed hints at big storehouse of water". So after reading this article why am I confused? First of all our surface water in Waterloo Region generally follows our surface topography. In other words you will notice that the Grand River flows GENERALLY from north of Waterloo Region (Dundalk) southwards until it discharges in Lake Erie at Dunnville. Our shallow or Upper Aquifers generally flow and discharge into all the little streams and creeks which end up in the Grand. Think of the Canagagigue here in Elmira, the Nith, the Speed River and Conestogo River. Granted with all the turning and twisting of all these rivers it is quite possible to have shallow aquifers literally flowing either north, south or east and west. Now I might be prepared to believe that eons ago the surface drainage from here swung easterly towards Lake Ontario versus southerly towards Lake Erie. So perhaps there are scattered patches of sand and gravel underground between here and lake Ontario.
For me the bigger problem is the alleged depth of these sand and gravel aquifers. This article claims that they are 80 metres underground. That's more than 250 feet for the metrically challenged. That is ridiculous. I have studied groundwater as well as geology for the past twenty plus years. I have carefully examined drilled boreholes and stratigraphic logs throughout Waterloo Region. Here in Elmira our overburden (sand/gravel/clay/silt) is approximately 100 feet (32 metres) thick. Then you hit bedrock. Just north and east of here in the Elora and Fergus area you can see outcrops of the Bedrock right at the surface. South of here in Kitchener-Waterloo again there are areas with the overburden 100 feet thick but nearer the Grand River this overburden thins quickly. Then in Cambridge you will find dramatically thinner overburden. This is why contrary to Kitchener, Waterloo and Elmira area, most of the Municipal wells in Cambridge are drilled into and screened in the limestone and dolomite Bedrock. Now you can see my problem. If this article suggested that these aquifers were fractured Bedrock Aquifers then 250 feet down wouldn't surprise me. But to claim that there are sand and gravel aquifers at that depth is astounding . It is possible that this article is simply very vague and not telling us that these sand and gravel aquifers are entombed within the Bedrock. Conversely I wonder if it's a simple typographical error. Could it be possible that these articles should have said that these aquifers are 80 feet below surface? Regardless the better technically informed one is, the more likely to find major errors in nespaper stories. This absolutely is not a general slam at papers or reporters. They are writers first and technical people second. Whatever the cause I do hope that future stories about this potential source of water will be clearer.
Friday, February 18, 2011
HUMAN STUPIDITY IS PERVASIVE & THREATENING TO THE WORLD
Many years ago Time magazine carried a story and photographs of children born in Vietnam, years after the U.S. had stopped spraying Agent Orange on the jungles. As you can imagine the birth defects were horrific. If the photograph of the running child, burned by U.S. napalm wasn't enough to shorten the war, imagine if these horrific photographs had been available at the time.
Fast forward to today and the K-W Record have published a story about Agent Orange being used right here in Ontario in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The title of the story is "Agent Orange once used on Ontario trees". Over the past couple of years there has been publicity regarding Canadian military personnel exposed to Agent Orange around military bases in New Brunswick. This latest public offerring revolves around forestry workers in Northern Ontario. Apparently Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company in Kapuskasing were responsible for the spraying of these herbicides although with the blessing of the government of the day.
Two things which we would do well to remember. Agent Orange was manufactured right here in Elmira, Ontario courtesy of Uniroyal Chemical, now Chemtura. Secondly our governments are elected by a majority (sort of) of our citizens but they have long been co-opted by a tiny minority with money and influence. Hence government approval of industrial and commercial enterprises must always be watched with extreme care. Most government's list of priorities have the protection of the health and safety of their citizens way behind their political requirements of keeping the wealthy and influential minority happy.
Many years ago Time magazine carried a story and photographs of children born in Vietnam, years after the U.S. had stopped spraying Agent Orange on the jungles. As you can imagine the birth defects were horrific. If the photograph of the running child, burned by U.S. napalm wasn't enough to shorten the war, imagine if these horrific photographs had been available at the time.
Fast forward to today and the K-W Record have published a story about Agent Orange being used right here in Ontario in the 50's, 60's and 70's. The title of the story is "Agent Orange once used on Ontario trees". Over the past couple of years there has been publicity regarding Canadian military personnel exposed to Agent Orange around military bases in New Brunswick. This latest public offerring revolves around forestry workers in Northern Ontario. Apparently Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company in Kapuskasing were responsible for the spraying of these herbicides although with the blessing of the government of the day.
Two things which we would do well to remember. Agent Orange was manufactured right here in Elmira, Ontario courtesy of Uniroyal Chemical, now Chemtura. Secondly our governments are elected by a majority (sort of) of our citizens but they have long been co-opted by a tiny minority with money and influence. Hence government approval of industrial and commercial enterprises must always be watched with extreme care. Most government's list of priorities have the protection of the health and safety of their citizens way behind their political requirements of keeping the wealthy and influential minority happy.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
CPAC AGAIN IS FRONT PAGE NEWS
Yesterday's Elmira Independent carrys the following front page headlines: "CPAC member withdraws application" The sub title is "Hydrogeologist concerned about lack of consultation with advisory body". Does any of this sound even vaguely familiar with what occurred at CPAC three years ago? At that time Wilf Ruland (hydrogeologist) submitted his resignation to Woolwich Council claiming that he could no longer work with yours truly, one Al Marshall. Although it is the same characters behind both strategies, there are some differences. First of all, Wilf Ruland was not a voting member of CPAC. He was a part, part time hydrogeological consultant. Secondly he was an accredited hydrogeologist (groundwater specialist) whereas I am positive that Richard Petrone who joined CPAC about fifteen months ago at the same time as Ken Driedger and Sandra Bair, was put forth as a Hydrologist (surface water specialist).
More importantly are Mr. Petrone's credentials as a voting CPAC member. Richard Who should be his name. In this article he is spouting off about subjects with which he is grossly unqualified. For example he complains about the Terms of Reference being ignored. There have been two or three Terms of Reference over the last twenty years. Mr. Petrone who ostensibly has been a voting member of CPAC for the last fifteen months hasn't got the decency or respect to even show up for meetings. I met him once fifteen months ago at CPAC and haven't seen him since. There have been public meetings of CPAC that lacked a quorum and Mr. Petrone is one of the dedicated, reliable members responsible for that. If he couldn't be bothered showing up for meetings are we to truly believe he's up to date on the Terms of Reference? By the way these Terms of Reference have been updated (?) and rewritten by FORMER Chair Pat McLean. Possibly she was assisted by Susan Bryant. I've got copies of the old Terms of Reference but I'm seriously in the dark about "... a past chair, vice-chair and secretary-treasurer...". Have these newer Terms of Reference ever seen the light of day at a public CPAC meeting?
The hypocrisy and sour grapes in this article are stunning. Gee I wonder who gave the "resignation" letter to the Independent. My guess is Pat Mclean and or Susan Bryant. The past Terms of Reference were explicit that a Council member MUST be the Chair of this Committee of Council (CPAC). The only time there was an exception to this was four years ago when Sandy Shantz was appointed as Council's representative on CPAC and former Mayor Bill Strauss O.K.'d his long time colleague Pat McLean staying as Chair. This was contrary to the Terms of Reference yet nobody objected . Further hypocrisy surrounds Mr. Petrone's comment "My big concern was how they were treating some long-time volunteers". Really? You didn't care enough to either show up at meetings or give a good reason why you weren't there, but now you are concerned about your fellow members.
Then we have Pat Mclean, former Councillor, former CPAC Chair and unsucessful candidate for Mayor. "The process certainly has not been respectful of the volunteers, I think, of the long serving and dedicated volunteers". Pat's ability to conveniently forget facts is second to none. How much respect did she have for this long serving and dedicated volunteer, yours truly? I've been actively involved doing research, attending public meetings and holding Chemtura's and The Ministry of the Environment's feet to the fire for over twenty years. She and Susan Bryant, for self serving reasons, unceremoniously had me dumped from CPAC in the middle of a four year term. Now she is whining about proper process not being followed at the end of the appropriate term of CPAC which follows the terms of Council.
Finally I must comment on Susan Bryant's claim that Richard Petrone's experience "has come in handy when reviewing Chemtura's current request to reduce the number of test wells it monitors for signs of contamination". This is first class, outrageous bullshit from Susan. Richard has no experience with Chemtura. He couldn't possibly begin to even find particular test wells on or off site, of the literally hundreds of wells in existence. He hasn't a clue as to the monitoring history of individual wells. He has virtually no idea of which wells in which aquifer, whether on or off site, have always had high readings of contaminants and of which contaminants. Similar to Wilf Ruland, Susan is simply using his credentials to back up CPAC's long time granting of monitoring ($$$) concessions to Chemtura. These concessions are neither based on science nor on common sense.
So what is going on? WHY are Susan and Pat behaving this way? What have they got to hide? Why are they so desperate to stay on CPAC, a volunteer, time consuming organization? Yours truly in the past twenty years has been a formal voting member of CPAC for about ten years and a non member but extremely active citizen attending and participating in these public meetings for another ten years. From 1994 till 2000 I was a non member by choice. Then as now CPAC was nothing but a cheering squad for Uniroyal/Chemtura. This desperate move to use the resignation of a non attending NEW member of CPAC to embarass Council into reappointing them, is insane. The only conjecture left to me is that they are both afraid that a brand new CPAC, without them, may find other private concessions to Chemtura. Specifically my suspicions are that private deals have been made to let Chemtura off the hook in regards to onsite removal of DNAPLs (dense non aqueous phase liquids). This would save Chemtura millions of dollars. If this has occurred it will be exposed by a new CPAC.
Yesterday's Elmira Independent carrys the following front page headlines: "CPAC member withdraws application" The sub title is "Hydrogeologist concerned about lack of consultation with advisory body". Does any of this sound even vaguely familiar with what occurred at CPAC three years ago? At that time Wilf Ruland (hydrogeologist) submitted his resignation to Woolwich Council claiming that he could no longer work with yours truly, one Al Marshall. Although it is the same characters behind both strategies, there are some differences. First of all, Wilf Ruland was not a voting member of CPAC. He was a part, part time hydrogeological consultant. Secondly he was an accredited hydrogeologist (groundwater specialist) whereas I am positive that Richard Petrone who joined CPAC about fifteen months ago at the same time as Ken Driedger and Sandra Bair, was put forth as a Hydrologist (surface water specialist).
More importantly are Mr. Petrone's credentials as a voting CPAC member. Richard Who should be his name. In this article he is spouting off about subjects with which he is grossly unqualified. For example he complains about the Terms of Reference being ignored. There have been two or three Terms of Reference over the last twenty years. Mr. Petrone who ostensibly has been a voting member of CPAC for the last fifteen months hasn't got the decency or respect to even show up for meetings. I met him once fifteen months ago at CPAC and haven't seen him since. There have been public meetings of CPAC that lacked a quorum and Mr. Petrone is one of the dedicated, reliable members responsible for that. If he couldn't be bothered showing up for meetings are we to truly believe he's up to date on the Terms of Reference? By the way these Terms of Reference have been updated (?) and rewritten by FORMER Chair Pat McLean. Possibly she was assisted by Susan Bryant. I've got copies of the old Terms of Reference but I'm seriously in the dark about "... a past chair, vice-chair and secretary-treasurer...". Have these newer Terms of Reference ever seen the light of day at a public CPAC meeting?
The hypocrisy and sour grapes in this article are stunning. Gee I wonder who gave the "resignation" letter to the Independent. My guess is Pat Mclean and or Susan Bryant. The past Terms of Reference were explicit that a Council member MUST be the Chair of this Committee of Council (CPAC). The only time there was an exception to this was four years ago when Sandy Shantz was appointed as Council's representative on CPAC and former Mayor Bill Strauss O.K.'d his long time colleague Pat McLean staying as Chair. This was contrary to the Terms of Reference yet nobody objected . Further hypocrisy surrounds Mr. Petrone's comment "My big concern was how they were treating some long-time volunteers". Really? You didn't care enough to either show up at meetings or give a good reason why you weren't there, but now you are concerned about your fellow members.
Then we have Pat Mclean, former Councillor, former CPAC Chair and unsucessful candidate for Mayor. "The process certainly has not been respectful of the volunteers, I think, of the long serving and dedicated volunteers". Pat's ability to conveniently forget facts is second to none. How much respect did she have for this long serving and dedicated volunteer, yours truly? I've been actively involved doing research, attending public meetings and holding Chemtura's and The Ministry of the Environment's feet to the fire for over twenty years. She and Susan Bryant, for self serving reasons, unceremoniously had me dumped from CPAC in the middle of a four year term. Now she is whining about proper process not being followed at the end of the appropriate term of CPAC which follows the terms of Council.
Finally I must comment on Susan Bryant's claim that Richard Petrone's experience "has come in handy when reviewing Chemtura's current request to reduce the number of test wells it monitors for signs of contamination". This is first class, outrageous bullshit from Susan. Richard has no experience with Chemtura. He couldn't possibly begin to even find particular test wells on or off site, of the literally hundreds of wells in existence. He hasn't a clue as to the monitoring history of individual wells. He has virtually no idea of which wells in which aquifer, whether on or off site, have always had high readings of contaminants and of which contaminants. Similar to Wilf Ruland, Susan is simply using his credentials to back up CPAC's long time granting of monitoring ($$$) concessions to Chemtura. These concessions are neither based on science nor on common sense.
So what is going on? WHY are Susan and Pat behaving this way? What have they got to hide? Why are they so desperate to stay on CPAC, a volunteer, time consuming organization? Yours truly in the past twenty years has been a formal voting member of CPAC for about ten years and a non member but extremely active citizen attending and participating in these public meetings for another ten years. From 1994 till 2000 I was a non member by choice. Then as now CPAC was nothing but a cheering squad for Uniroyal/Chemtura. This desperate move to use the resignation of a non attending NEW member of CPAC to embarass Council into reappointing them, is insane. The only conjecture left to me is that they are both afraid that a brand new CPAC, without them, may find other private concessions to Chemtura. Specifically my suspicions are that private deals have been made to let Chemtura off the hook in regards to onsite removal of DNAPLs (dense non aqueous phase liquids). This would save Chemtura millions of dollars. If this has occurred it will be exposed by a new CPAC.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
A REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AROUND WIND TURBINES
Two days ago (Mon. Feb. 14/11) I posted here in regards to wind turbines and in the comment section I asked my daughter Kate (PHD. candidate Biology) if she could send me any scientific literature regarding health effects of wind turbines. Well she has done so specifically "Evaluation of the Scientific Literature on the Health Effects Associated with Wind Turbines and Low Frequency Sound" by DRs. Mark and Jennifer Roberts of Wood Dale Illinois. This study was prepared for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
Conclusions pg.44 " Based on the literature review that was conducted for this white paper, there was not any scientifically peer-reviewed information found demonstrating a link between wind turbines and negative health effects".
Well I admit I'm somewhat taken aback. In the paper itself there are numerous references to the "annoyance" effect of wind turbines. Clearly there are both physiological as well as psychological effects caused by low frequency wind turbines. However as per the Executive Summary: " It is clear that some people respond negatively to the noise qualities generated by the operation of wind turbines, but there is no peer-reviewed, scientific data to support a claim that wind turbines are causing disease or specific health conditions".
I have never disputed "anecdotal" evidence nor am I comfortable suggesting that someone experiencing first hand negative symptoms are wrong, incorrect or misguided. That being said either new scientific evidence is required or perhaps the opponents of wind turbines may have to frame their arguments a little differently. As of this point in time it does not appear that science is supportive of health related claims against wind turbines.
Two days ago (Mon. Feb. 14/11) I posted here in regards to wind turbines and in the comment section I asked my daughter Kate (PHD. candidate Biology) if she could send me any scientific literature regarding health effects of wind turbines. Well she has done so specifically "Evaluation of the Scientific Literature on the Health Effects Associated with Wind Turbines and Low Frequency Sound" by DRs. Mark and Jennifer Roberts of Wood Dale Illinois. This study was prepared for the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
Conclusions pg.44 " Based on the literature review that was conducted for this white paper, there was not any scientifically peer-reviewed information found demonstrating a link between wind turbines and negative health effects".
Well I admit I'm somewhat taken aback. In the paper itself there are numerous references to the "annoyance" effect of wind turbines. Clearly there are both physiological as well as psychological effects caused by low frequency wind turbines. However as per the Executive Summary: " It is clear that some people respond negatively to the noise qualities generated by the operation of wind turbines, but there is no peer-reviewed, scientific data to support a claim that wind turbines are causing disease or specific health conditions".
I have never disputed "anecdotal" evidence nor am I comfortable suggesting that someone experiencing first hand negative symptoms are wrong, incorrect or misguided. That being said either new scientific evidence is required or perhaps the opponents of wind turbines may have to frame their arguments a little differently. As of this point in time it does not appear that science is supportive of health related claims against wind turbines.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
TOWARDS BETTER MANAGEMENT OF TEXTILE MILL EFFLUENTS
This is the title of an Environment Canada factsheet dated August 2001. If one were to google textile mill effluents, one would find a library of reports and studies. Another report I've been studying is titled Identification and Reduction of Toxic Pollutants in Textile Mill Effluents by Brent Smith of North Carolina State University, Raleigh North Carolina. The other interesting tidbit is that the Canadian government has a Priority Substances List which indicates which chemicals or groups of chemicals are considered toxic. TME's, short for Textile mill Effluents are on that list and are designated as toxic.
Clearly the effluents from textile mills have historically been both obvious visually as well as in regards to their effects on aquatic life. Also any instances of on site dumping or disposal without major treatment would also have serious negative effects on groundwater and drinking water. I've gone through two old Varnicolor Chemical hydrogeological reports dated October 1990 and 90 06 08 (June 8, 1990 ?). Literally for years I've been aware of a myriad of chemicals in Varnicolor's groundwater which did not seem to fit in with fuels (gasoline, diesel, keresene etc.), nor with solvents both chloinated and non chlorinated. Finally there are also some chemicals in Varnicolor's groundwater which are Uniroyal signature chemicals.
What I have found is a large list of textile mill effluents in Varnicolor's groundwater. These include a number of cyclohexanes, thiobis methane, linear alcohol ethoxylate, alkylbenzenes, methyl benzoate, trimethylcyclohexanone and more. There are at least two possible interpretations. It is possible that contaminated shallow groundwater from Borg Textiles found it's way across Howard Ave. to Varnicolor. Also similar to my belief that Uniroyal legally used Varnicolor's hazardous waste services is the possibility that Borg was a former client of Varnicolor Chemical's. Once again proper shallow and deep groundwater testing could determine which or possibly both interpretations are most accurate. Perhaps even more significant is why the M.O.E. have absolutely NEVER suggested or looked at Borg Textiles as a possible source of drinking water contamination in Elmira. Based on the long known published scientific knowledge of the inherent dangers of TME's, this makes no sense.
This is the title of an Environment Canada factsheet dated August 2001. If one were to google textile mill effluents, one would find a library of reports and studies. Another report I've been studying is titled Identification and Reduction of Toxic Pollutants in Textile Mill Effluents by Brent Smith of North Carolina State University, Raleigh North Carolina. The other interesting tidbit is that the Canadian government has a Priority Substances List which indicates which chemicals or groups of chemicals are considered toxic. TME's, short for Textile mill Effluents are on that list and are designated as toxic.
Clearly the effluents from textile mills have historically been both obvious visually as well as in regards to their effects on aquatic life. Also any instances of on site dumping or disposal without major treatment would also have serious negative effects on groundwater and drinking water. I've gone through two old Varnicolor Chemical hydrogeological reports dated October 1990 and 90 06 08 (June 8, 1990 ?). Literally for years I've been aware of a myriad of chemicals in Varnicolor's groundwater which did not seem to fit in with fuels (gasoline, diesel, keresene etc.), nor with solvents both chloinated and non chlorinated. Finally there are also some chemicals in Varnicolor's groundwater which are Uniroyal signature chemicals.
What I have found is a large list of textile mill effluents in Varnicolor's groundwater. These include a number of cyclohexanes, thiobis methane, linear alcohol ethoxylate, alkylbenzenes, methyl benzoate, trimethylcyclohexanone and more. There are at least two possible interpretations. It is possible that contaminated shallow groundwater from Borg Textiles found it's way across Howard Ave. to Varnicolor. Also similar to my belief that Uniroyal legally used Varnicolor's hazardous waste services is the possibility that Borg was a former client of Varnicolor Chemical's. Once again proper shallow and deep groundwater testing could determine which or possibly both interpretations are most accurate. Perhaps even more significant is why the M.O.E. have absolutely NEVER suggested or looked at Borg Textiles as a possible source of drinking water contamination in Elmira. Based on the long known published scientific knowledge of the inherent dangers of TME's, this makes no sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
