Durham Region, back in 2007, promised the public that they would commit to the best of the best regarding emission control technology and monitoring of emissions to protect the health and safety of its citizens. It would all be open and transparent.
But when Chair Anderson found out it would cost another $270,000 or so to implement the monitoring residents had asked for (and been promised), he decided our health and welfare isn't worth it. As did ALL the Durham Councillors on Joint Waste Management Committee (all except one lone York Region Councillor), and as did the usual suspects at the Joint Works and Health and Social Services Committee meeting this week I've been told. These recommendations will go to Regional Council next Wednesday, and what do you think they will do? Of course the majority will again approve this travesty, with no thought to the wishes or the concerns of residents - concerns the Councillors themselves should have.
Now if you think that they're just trying to save the taxpayers money, think again.
They already approved extra spending on the "important" things, such as an additional $9 million on "architectural" features to make the incinerator look nice, $1.25 million for a "viewing deck", and another $512,000 for additional promotional features. Who will these benefit? Why, the industry of course. Promote the heck out of this pig and make the industry happy. The residents? Who cares if we're happy or not? The only time they care about that is at election time, but they seem to be forgetting that they will have to face the music next year. Not soon enough for those of us ready to campaign to defeat those who care more about the industry than they do about our health and safety.
Now ask yourselves why would they not want to do the necessary monitoring, such as ambient air quality monitoring and environmental monitoring? Could it be that they don't want us to know when our air is becoming more and more polluted, or when the accumulation of toxins in our vegetation and agricultural products becomes unacceptably high? Yes that can impact our local farmers when locals don't want to "buy local" because of the dioxins and furans, heavy metals and other pollutants that will be carried from the stack (yes, more than the one km they're saying would be the limit).
Why would they not even consider human biomonitoring?
Could it be that they don't want to be held liable for lawsuits that may very likely turn up against the Region (and even possibly against individuals) in another 10- 15 years? How about class action suits? Or maybe one or two of them have a conscience? They can't use the excuse the weren't warned. Residents and doctors have been warning them for the last couple of years, but they choose only to listen to their paid salesmen who are pushing this through the EA.
Another big promise that has gone the way of most others - "We won't build it if it's not safe". Another broken promise. Already they have changed that instead to, "we won't build it if it is determined that the level of risk is unacceptable". What does that mean? What is acceptable to consultants who live many miles from here may not be acceptable to residents who live within 50 km., or who have family who live in the vicinity. How will the determine whether it is safe if they only do stack testing and don't bother with testing the surrounding air, vegetation, animals or humans? This stuff bioaccumulates in vegetation, in humans, in the environment. It builds up over time.
They promised independent peer reviews but Dr. Kyle's choice to peer review the health studies is Dr. L. Smith, who has been working with and used by Jacques Whitford (consultants) for some time, and not the first time. Getting her to review work she's already reviewed, and accepting a peer review which seems more concerned with spelling and grammar, along with presentation (those nice boxes and pretty graphs) than with content does not inspire confidence. Dr. Smith's 4 page review of the "Final Report - Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities" discusses very little about the flawed conclusions drawn, and even I could find more errors in the final document and conclusions than she did.
They need to hire a truly INDEPENDENT peer reviewer who the public could have faith in. Much credibility was lost by Dr. Smith in 2007 when she was asked at a public PIC in Bowmanville whether dioxins or other hazardous compounds produced from the burning of municipal waste are considered safe, and whether she could say it is SAFE to burn plastics in the waste stream and that doing so will NOT allow dioxins or other hazardous compounds to adhere to any microfine or nanoparticles emitted from the stacks and spread beyond the artificial 1 or 2 km boundary set by the consultants, and she declined to answer saying it was not her "area of expertise". She also changed the text in her original peer review in 2007 without any notation in the new version, and without any notice. It took residents to notice it. Now she's hired again to do more peer reviews on other topics for Dr. Kyle.
If it was not her "area of expertise", then why did she make the statements in her report and why would that be accepted as an expert peer review? She is being considered an expert by Dr. Kyle, Durham Region Council and Staff and Clarington Council, but won't answer questions that are significantly related to the building of an incinerator in our community and to the health and safety of our residents.
She has refused to say "it is safe". She will instead say "the risk is acceptable". Yet our politicians now appear willing to accept something less than a guarantee and statement that "it is safe". Gives you lots of confidence, no?
Now let me see, what other promises have been blatantly broken by our Councillors? There are plenty. Such as the promise when elected that Clarington Councillors would stand up for Clarington at Regional Council. So far that has not happened and we don't expect it will. From watching each regional meeting (they are all televised) it is very easy to see where their loyalties lie (Abernethy, Trim and Novak), and it is not with their "lower tier" little municipality. It is with the big, upper tier, all-important region.
They may be fine with that. But residents are not. And residents will remember this next year at election time. If any of them forget, they will be loudly reminded during the campaign. I fully expect that we will have at least 3 new faces at Clarington Council in 2011. The anger is growing and is becoming palpable.
What do YOU think?
