From Dr Rebecca Warburton, Health Economist and Member of RSTV. (April 2nd 2009)
Feedback message to the CRD: I have just completed the online survey, and was disappointed to see that it presumes treatment is needed and does not give residents any opportunity to tell you whether or not they believe that treatment has been shown to be necessary on scientific or any other grounds. Nor is there any recognition of the likelihood that there would be net environmental harm from moving to land-based treatment, since there would be no significant improvement in the marine environment and there will be significant damage on land. The same is true of risks to human health; none at present versus significant new risks to workers and residents.
To quote from your own materials, handed out at a recent open house:
"ARE FISH AND WHALES BEING HARMED BY THE CRD'S OUTFALLS? No, because fish and marine mammals move extensively through the ocean, seafloor animals are used to monitor any effects to animals up the food chain. Extensive testing of seafloor animals shows no indication of movement of chemical contaminants up the food chain. Levels found are acceptable for human consumption.
WHAT IS THE CRD'S SETAC REPORT? In 2005, the CRD Board commissioned an independent study by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) to review our liquid waste practices. The report found that although there is no evidence of harm to the marine environment, our increasing population may soon require increased treatment. "
The above statements acknowledge no significant negative marine impacts from the current system; then cite the SETAC report without acknowledging that it has never been sent out for independent peer review, as was intended, and that knowledgeable local experts (BC and Washington state) have stated repeatedly that the SETAC report would not pass such a peer review as its conclusions are not based on the scientific evidence.
The SETAC statement about possibly needing treatment "soon" is a) completely vague as to when "soon" is, with no evidence that soon would be as early as 2016; and b) not supported by any evidence in the SETAC report itself. By featuring this statement in handouts, you give it a credence it does not deserve, which misleads citizens - they have a right to know what facts have been established and that statement is not based on fact.