LAST EVENINGS RAC MEETING

 Well the meeting was very short (35 minutes) of which five to ten was my Delegation  The Agenda had little on it but nevertheless if I or any CPAC members had been present and allowed to speak under the perverted rules there would have been questions for sure. As usual RAC members present (GRCA were absent) were mute. Zero questions of me. Zero questions of Ramin Ansari of Lanxess who presented both on the status of the Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) as well as on the 2022 Work Plan, site containment, expected work in the first quarter of 2023 and lastly about communication.  Gad but that last one was grossly hypocritical. Ramin basically patted himself, RAC and TAG on the back for their mutual discussion, comments and working together bullsh.t. This is at the same time as Lanxess & the MECP have handpicked who they want and who they don't want on those two committees. It's also hypocritical as RAC had no questions on some outstandingly bad issues that Ramin glossed over in his presentation such as awful on-site hydraulic containment for more than a year now. Not a peep about any of that from RAC. 

Wilson Lau  (TAG) on the other hand did make an interesting comment regarding Ramin's tactical slip up in describing the HHERA as completed. He reminded Ramin that there were some steps, comments and discussion still pending. Ramin of course immediately backed up and confirmed Wilson's comments. All very interesting because as far as I have seen TAG do have a number of appropriate, unresolved concerns that I fully expect will be given lip service treatment at best by Lanxess before they move the HHERA on to completion . 

Lisa, the Support Person for RAC & TAG, has already confirmed to me receipt of my written Delegation which I presented last evening. It will be included in the Minutes of last night's public, virtual meeting such that it can be ignored and mostly unread by those who I have somewhat jokingly referred to as "not preaching to the converted, but preaching to the perverted."  I will say that certain participants who have been rude and harassing in the past have finally figured out that the process is so tilted and biased in favour of the polluter, that Lanxess need no further procedural or other assistance. Hence as a cartoon long ago in the Woolwich Observer noted there will be no nasty dissent, debate or discord at these public meetings since the advent of RAC and TAG.   

TONITE'S 5:30 PM. RAC DELEGATION - MORE OF THE SAME NONSENSE

 The meeting first of all is virtual? Why? I believe because it is so much easier for the "guilty" parties to control dissent and disagreement. One word, perhaps as harsh as "dang" and you can be cut off. An attempted rebuttal to an improper interruption by the Chair or anyone else and you can be cut off. See where I'm going with this?

The Report that I will be commenting on is poorly written in spots. It clearly has not been properly edited for spelling and grammar. It is not consistent within itself with units of measure as it uses synonyms without clarification. The text sometimes disagrees with the data in Figures and Tables. What data there is basically has a very simple pattern. Upstream above Uniroyal/Lanxess has low to very low concentrations  of toxic chemicals. Downstream however in all contaminants the data shows high to very high concentrations. This Ministry of Environment (MECP) report is not satisfied with those obvious patterns. The report grasps at other vague "patterns" throughout. I would characterize this report being as much of a political report as a "scientific" report. The MECP clearly are promoting a narrative. Part of that narrative is the usual: smile, be happy, all is well in the environment and Big Brother loves you and is all knowing and all powerful so if you have any criticisms you will be edited out. 

SIXTY YEARS AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF "SILENT SPRING"

 Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following article on the Opinion Page titled "Celebrating "Silent Spring" at 60" written by John Gibb. This book written by Rachel Carson was a watershed. Her previous three books (1941, 1950,  1955) were also classics and I might add that when I graduated from MacGregor Public School (grade 8 approx. 1962) with the highest mark in the graduating classes in Geography I was presented with Rachel Carson's second book (1950) titled "The Sea Around Us". That book is still in my library today (as is Silent Spring).

Ms. Carson was attacked relentlessly by the chemical industry after 1962 as they were both horrified and incensed that their profits could be construed as wonderful for their shareholders and murderous to so many lifeforms other than intended mosquitoes, ants, cockroaches, weeds etc. Nothing whatsoever has changed regarding the chemical industry's attitudes albeit their strategies have been much more subtle. Furthermore their political lobbying and public relations have become world class.

Ms. Carson was an academic, a writer, a lover of nature and a leading and honest voice for the natural environment. The chemical industry was and is none of those things. They are a profit centre which continues to put those profits ahead of both human health and the health of our environment. Far too many ignorant and or self-serving politicians are proud fellow travellors with them.

 

RESPONSE/CLARIFICATION TO COMMENT ABOUT YESTERDAY'S POST

 First of all thank you for the comment as it was pertinent and well thought out. A few clarifications follow: The "cringeworthy" description of Sandy's new proposed public consultation (RAC & TAG) initially came from none other than councillor Patrick Merlihan who currently is running against Sandy for the Mayor's position. I have Patrick's election sign on my front lawn along with that of Dr. Dan Holt who was the Chair of CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) from 2011- Aug. 2015 and who remains as Chair of CPAC now known as Citizens Public Advisory Committee. Patrick used the term "cringeworthy" because neither RAC nor TAG were either open to comment/questioning from the public who attend their public meetings and particularly in the case of RAC they were populated by bureaucrats and politicians NOT by local Elmira or Woolwich citizens.

The reference in the first sentence of yesterday's post is to Richard Clausi, retired teacher and still a member of CPAC. Richard has been attempting to drag a very recalcitrant Waterloo Region District School Board into the light of transparency and accountability. This in my opinion strongly goes against their core values and private Mission Statement. They do not want to clearly and honestly answer questions as to why they are still in possession of employees and staffs' personal data going back over fifty years.    

The most recent report referenced yesterday from the Ministry of Environment (MECP)  presents them as apologists for pollution in my opinion. Despite concentrations of highly toxic chemical contaminants in the Canagagigue Creek far in excess of provincial and federal criteria and guidelines, they are actually downplaying the seriousness of the situation by comparing either dioxin or DDT contamination at different Ontario locations as being as bad or worse as it is here. The inference being of course that our local pollution is both common and ubiquitous. Gad how to use additional environmental failures as somehow justifying their failures here.

Next month's municipal election (Oct. 24/22) might turn around the longterm disgraceful behaviour of our local councils. Another strong and honest candidate is Bonnie Bryant. Dear God do not elect or throw out Murray Martin based solely upon his comments regarding a rainbow sidewalk. Throw him out for his disparaging comments towards Delegations and citizens appearing before Council over his many terms as a councillor. 

TURNS OUT LANXESS & MECP ARE STILL AFRAID OF US

 Perhaps Richard's most recent foray into spanking the WRDSB has caught their attention. Clearly back in the spring and summer of 2015 Sandy Shantz and Woolwich Council were on the hot seat from Chemtura and the Ministry of Environment.  The company and alleged regulator extracted promises of a "cringe worthy" nature to effectively eliminate CPAC as an ongoing threat to their self-serving narrative about cleaning up the Elmira Aquifers, the Canagagigue Creek and the site itself.

The most recent report from the MECP concerns both sediment and fish tissue testing in the Creek. That creek remains toxic in multiple media whether creekbank soils, floodplain soils, sediments and fish tissues. All provincial and federal criteria remain exceeded more than half a century after the on-site dumping into open pits and ponds was stopped. While vast quantities of their immoral and illegal chemical discharges have left their site and moved into the air, ground and surface water of their neighbours, much still remains on site. As Dr. Gail Krantzberg indicated to CPAC (now Citizens Public Advisory Committee) several years ago everything at Uniroyal Chemical ever dumped, buried , spilled  will eventually migrate off the site.

Fifty plus years of talk, "consultation", investigations and reports have simply been a delaying action. All guilty parties including the Ministry (MECP), Woolwich Township, province of Ontario have been willing to let everything eventually leak off site to continue being shared with their downstream neighbours. People's lives and health have meant nothing to them much less the health of the natural environment. 

What they are afraid of  is exposure to public scrutiny and opinion. They are terrified that the truth will get out, be understood and embraced by the population. They are afraid of the condemnation and pushback possibly including legal repercussions they might face. Dr. Richard Jackson (first TAG Chair) was their worst nightmare from September 2015 to December 2016, even worse than myself and CPAC.   

I WILL BE A DELEGATE AT THE RAC MEETING NEXT THURSDAY (5:30 pm.)

 It's a virtual meeting (still).  You will need to contact Lisa Schaefer before this Tuesday at lschaefer@woolwich.com to get into the meeting. To date I am not on the written Agenda and have sent an e-mail back to Lisa this morning asking why.

The Sediment and Forage Fish (2020) Report just received is proving highly entertaining. Basically it's the same old, tired crap regardless of what the data actually says. I'm beginning to understand why these reports are so poorly done in so many ways. It's basically so the authors can interpret the inadequate, fuzzy data as they please. There is little scientific substance or rigor to them. Different sample depths, different locations, different times of year, low flow, high flow, sampling methodology, different parameters, you name it and drawing strong conclusions is out the window leaving the door wide open for Lanxess, GHD and the MECP to spout whatever nonsense suits their agenda best,  

And the beat goes on.

YET ANOTHER REPORT REGARDING THE CANAGAGIGUE CREEK

 Well this most recent report is dated September 1/22 and I received it last evening September 21 after 8 pm. The next so called public meeting is RAC one week from today. Whether it was the MECP sitting on it or the Township the result is the same namely inadequate time to read it and prepare for the meeting. Keep in mind RAC only meet two to four times a year and I as a member of the unwashed masses can not ask questions or fully participate. I can give a brief verbal Delegation after which the good members of RAC to date have been unable to form any intelligent questions for me. Or conversely they've been told just like TAG not to engage with knowledgeable citizens because you will get burned.

The report is the result of both sediment and fish tissue sampling from two years ago. Yup two years ago. Well at least one can confidently say that the wait times in our hospital emergency departments aren't as bad as they are for MECP reports. Again there are issues with the sampling methodology both for sediments and for fish tissues. So what else is new? 

The results I've read so far are interesting although it is the subjective comments by the writer that really stand out. One fictitious example could be : "Fish are committing mass suicide by leaping out of the Creek water not due to dissolved pollution but more likely due to  fears of long term genetic damage from the Persistent Organic Pollutants present."  O.K. O.K. that's a major bit of writer's creativity on my part but hopefully you get the message. Give us the facts, the monitoring results and the health criteria and then if you can't comment in a neutral fashion then shut the hell up.