you to all those who have emailed letters of support to stop Dow Legislators
from raising our state dioxin residential direct contact criteria from 90 to
1000 ppt, the highest in the nation!
For those that have not done so yet,
Please oppose this legislation by sending an
e-mail with your name and city of residence to
email@example.com and simply
state in your e-mail that you oppose 1,000ppt. We'll add your name to the
petition OR you can write to
firstname.lastname@example.org and ask for a
copy of the petition which you can have your friends and family
sign. Remember, it doesn't matter where you live in Michigan because these
natural resources belong to all of us. The petition drive began in May
of 2006 and will continue until the bill is defeated, please act today and send off that
e-mail. Click here for the
State MDCH warns schools to limit
children's exposure to
park soils In a letter
dated 12/3/03, the MDEQ notified schools in the area to plan activities so that students
are not in direct contact with dioxin laden soils. The soils of frequently flood
parks located in the Tittabawassee River flood plain have been found by the MDEQ to
contain dioxin contamination with levels almost 38 times the states
Residential Direct Contact Criteria of 90 ppt. Click here
for levels discovered in Phase 2 sampling.
Reduce your the risks to your health when in contaminated areas.
Avoid having CHILDREN play in soils.
Keep everything OUT OF YOUR MOUTH
Consider WEARING A FACE MASK in dusty conditions.
Wash soil particles form items like clothes & tools after each use & STORE
Wash all exposed body surfaces, preferably by SHOWERING, ASAP after
DO NOT EAT UNWASHED produce or other foods while gardening.
Farmers should UTILIZE MINIMUM TILLAGE & DUST REDUCTION practices.
Read and use the methods mentioned published by the MDEQ, MDCH, and MDA
MDEQ issues warning against eating wild game along the Tittabawassee
Michigan Department of Community Health will announce today an advisory against eating
wild turkey meat or deer liver and urge consumers to limit consumption of venison and
squirrel harvested in or near at least 22 miles of the floodplain along the Tittabawassee
River. Although dozens of advisories exist for fish tainted with toxic chemicals, it is
only the second time the state has issued such a warning for terrestrial animals."
Detroit Press Press
"Meat from deer downstream of the complex had dioxin up to seven times higher than
upstream venison, according to a state review of the data. Squirrel meat was up to 40
times higher, turkey meat up to 66 times higher and deer livers up to 118 times
"Chester has insisted that some cleanup should begin immediately, while Dow says a
more" comprehensive plan can be developed after data from several studies are
available in several years.
"People should take notice of this. The whole food web is being contaminated. It's
a watershed issue and a Great Lakes issue," said Tracey Easthope, director of the
Environmental Health Project for the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor. "
"Today's warning is based on a Dow-funded study released in July." [more]
The next time you hear about a Health Study being proposed by ANYONE, read
this editorial and then read the proposal again. There are many design criteria which
can included that make the studies outcome inconclusive before it even starts.
Attend all meetings concerning Health Studies and challenge anyone
proposing plans which sound suspicious.
See through the
Dow hype: 10 points to consider when evaluating Dow misinformation.
Dow and it's fellow accomplices in the chemical industry often site
misinformation about their chemicals and the human health effects that they cause.
The Coming Clean organization, www.come-clean.org,
offers some detailed and referenced scientific facts on the issues. The 10
points below are listed on their site as reasons to join the group, however
the information is useful to everyone interested in cutting through the hype. The
Come-Clean web site also contains useful information about, chemical body burden's, steps
to clean up a community, and more.
are no mandatory health studies required to put a chemical into commerce
Fact: People vary enormously in their
reaction to toxic substances
Fact: The fetus, infants, and children are usually more
vulnerable to toxic exposures.
Fact: Cancer rates are
increasing, particularly for cancers that affect the young
Bogus: "The doses of these toxins are so low
that you'd have to drink 50,000 bathtubs to get a dose that caused any harm in
Bogus: "There is no evidence of human harm from
exposure to X.
Bogus: "That was the old chemical industry. We
have changed our ways.
Bogus: "These are the best-tested chemicals in
Bogus: "Animal studies can't predict human harm
- people are not just big rats.
Bogus: "Exposures are well within safe limits.
Click here for details on the 10 points
above (pdf file).
June 2003: Per the MDEQ, almost all frequently flooded properties within the 100
year flood plain are considered a Hazardous Waste "Facility" by the State of
Michigan. Property owners now have certain obligations in regard to their
properties use and sale as stipulated in Part 2-1 of the states Act 451 of 1994. A
Disclosure that property is a facility: Section 324.20116 of the NREPA requires that a person who has
knowledge or information that his or her property is a facility must disclose to any
person acquiring an interest in the property the general nature and extent of
contamination. Click here to view
law in it's entirety as posted on Michigan Legislature web siste.
"Due Care" responsibilities: Section 324.20107a of the NREPA imposes certain responsibilities on
persons who own or operate contaminated property in order to assure that the use of that
property occurs in a manner that protects public health and safety. Click here to view law in
it's entirety as posted on Michigan Legislature web siste.
Restrictions on relocation of contaminated soil: Section 324.120c. See
DEQ Soil Movement Advisory for details on these regulatory requirements. Click here to view law
in it's entirety as posted on Michigan Legislature web siste
If your property includes land in the Tittabawassee Flood Plain, join the Class Action
Lawsuit against Dow Chemical Co.. Click here
Removing "facility" label may not remove responsibility to
disclose dioxin contamination.
Anyone supporting the movement to remove
the "facilities" label from contaminated properties in Midland and the
Tittabawassee flood plain need to consider all of it's implications. The
following is NOT legal advise, just some opinions. As always, when buying or
selling property, consult your own attorney.
Review the Seller's Disclosure form for
Michigan. The key provision is paragraph 10, which requires the seller to disclose
environmental issues, including contaminated soil. Thus, the form itself would
require that a seller notify the buyer of dioxin contamination, regardless of whether or
not the property is designated a facility.
One possible scenario of a successful removal of the "facility" label and
supporting "resolutions" and petitions.
"Under Michigan law, you must disclose any material defect to a potential buyer.
No where does Michigan law link the definition of a material defect to the
definition of a facility. Whether an existing situation constitutes a material
defect is often decided on a case by case basis, with a jury being the trier of fact as to
whether the condition constitutes a material defect. Thus, the existence of a toxic
substance such as dioxin on a property could well be considered a material defect,
regardless of whether the state has designated the property a "facility" for
regulatory purposes. In fact, there is nothing that says that the presence on a property
of a toxic substance, even in amounts below state action levels, does not constitute a
material defect. That would be a question for a court and jury to answer on a case
by case basis."
"In this instance, the resolution
proposed by some individuals in the township does not, and cannot, under Michigan law,
protect sellers from failing to disclose the presence or likely presence of dioxin on
their properties. In some ways, it actually works against sellers, because an
argument could be made that sellers recognized the potential significance of the presence
of dioxin on their properties, but took affirmative steps, not only not to disclose, but
to actively hide that fact by demanding that a state agency remove a facility label from
their property. This action alone lends strong evidence to an argument that the sellers
knew about the defect, and that such a failure to disclose was not an accident, but was
willful. Thus, it is possible that the resolution could become an exhibit for the purpose
of proving not just a failure to disclose, but affirmative fraud and punitive
Write letters to the editor of Local newspapers to express your concerns.
James Graham District 11 includes James Twp, no email, 989-781-7847
Thomas Basil District 12 includes Saginaw Twp, email@example.com 989-754-6850
Call or write your state and federal Senators and Representatives and make sure they
understand your views. Keep track of their voting records. You can see voting
records of Michigan Senators/Representatives at www.michiganvotes.org
US Senators/Representatives at the League of Conservative Voters
(Enter Michigan in the "Select by State" box)
Sign our "Stop the 1000 ppt dioxin cleanup bill" petition,
Keep an open mind, listen to both sides. Just remember Dow is in the midst of a PR
campaign in an attempt to deflate the situation and avoid responsibility for
anything. TRW has documented proof of behind closed door collusion between the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Dow. Sweetheart Deal Press Release
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE:
Consider alternative approaches to controlling your exposure to toxic
A new principle for guiding human activities, to prevent harm to the environment and to
human health, has been emerging during the past 15 years. It is called the "principle
of precautionary action" or the "precautionary principle" for short. Click here for the entire story.
TRW does not necessarily agree with all of it, but it presents a very logical approach to
a complex situation. It's premise fly's in the face of the Chemical Companies &
regulatory agencies efforts to base everything on "scientific" data, which from
the publics perception, is failing. Maybe this concept or something similar would
actually protect the public instead of the corporations. Without the public's
support, it's unlikely to happen because it "threatens the entire chemical
industry" which has been advised to "mobilize science" against it.
The principle of precautionary action has 4 parts:
1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm.
(As one participant at the Wingspread meeting summarized the essence
of the precautionary principle, "If you have reasonable suspicion that
something bad might be going to happen, you have an obligation to try
to stop it.")
2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process,
activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general
3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting
a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of
alternatives" including the alternative of doing nothing.
4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open,
informed, and democratic" and "must include affected parties."
...current policies such as risk
assessment and cost-benefit analysis give the
benefit of the doubt to new products and technologies, which may later
prove harmful. And when damage occurs, victims and their advocates
have the nearly-impossible task of proving that a particular product or
activity was responsible.
"The role of science [in decision-making] is essential. But the public must be
fully involved. Informed consent is just as essential."
"Current decision-making approaches ask, 'How safe is safe? What level of
is acceptable? How much contamination can a human or ecosystem assimilate
without showing any obvious adverse effects?' The approach stemming from the
precautionary principle asks a different set of questions: 'How much contamination
can be avoided while still maintaining necessary values? What are the alternatives
to this product or activity that achieve the desired goal? Does society need this
activity in the first place?"
Participate in Interim
Priority 1 lessons learned, Priority 2 residents take note
First of all, contrary to media reports, the
Priority 1(P-1) and Priority 2 (P-2) Interim Response Activities (IRA) performed
by Dow and AKT Peerless are NOT a "cleanup" plan. Their original
intent was to temporarily reduce dioxin exposure to residents who live in the
contaminated flood plain, the IRA's are measures that Dow may be required to
repeat time and time again as the river floods redistribute the dioxin
contaminated soils. Based on comments of others who have
participated in the P-1 IRA, it is our opinion that most of these activities are
more of a Dow public relations campaign than anything else. We are not saying you should not participate, some of the activities may
temporarily reduce your exposure if performed properly. Use your own judgment and consider the
following when you make your decision:
Annette Lucas, the AKT Peerless employee who spearheaded the P-1 IRA
last year has left the company. Rumor has it her replacement is
When speaking with a P-1 resident, Melissa indicated that "things will
be different" this year for the P-2 residents and "they" will not be handing
out services to everyone. It's possible the only IRA you receive is
the mailing packet sent out this week.
Not everyone can be "serviced" at once, there are approximately 500 P-2
properties, P-1 had about 140 or so. So start planning early, work stops for
Do NOT assume AKT Peerless will swoop in and take care of everything
without your participation.
AKT Peerless is an Environmental Engineering firm hired by Dow to hire
subcontractors from the area such as lawn care or nursery firms to perform
the actual work.
Before meeting with AKT Peerless, do the following:
Based on how you use your property, determine exactly what you want
done and put them in written form using sketch's/pictures/lists and
express your needs to the AKT Peerless P-2 manager.
If you do not do the following, it's unlikely anything you ask for will
be done properly:
Point out the problem areas to the P-2 manager
Document problem areas with the P-2 manager.
Re-explain the problems in minute detail (show them your documents)
to all work crews that show up. Every time!!
Supervise the work is completed to your satisfaction.
Call the P-2 manager back as often as it takes to get things right.
The MDEQ is overseeing Dow's implementation of these activities, you
may request an audit of the Dow proposal by the MDEQ at any time,
contact Allan Taylor at
If you want dioxin sampling performed on your property, ask for it
otherwise Dow may not even mention it's an option (you have to complete
and sign the "License Agreement" received in your packet, more on that
Be prepared for the following:
Work crews may just show up without notice and have little idea of
what they are actually supposed to do. Patronizing work crew
owners may follow to smooze and shake hands and utter platitudes about
how they "cleaned up" your dioxin problem, indicating it is no longer an
If you are to receive indoor IRA's such as dusting, they will not
move anything out of the way, it's your responsibility. The MDEQ "Reducing
Exposure at Home" brochure recommends "When dusting and cleaning
inside the home, avoid creating airborne dust (to minimize breathing and
swallowing dust) ...".
Observe how the work crews dispose of contaminated material, it is
not acceptable to pour contaminated wash water down your sink, drain, or
toilet as was done at some P-1 properties.
Most members of work crew will know nothing about dioxin or proper
techniques to reduce exposure and will do whatever they think is "good"
or "pretty" if you do not intervene. (Example from P-1: a quarter inch
of new dirt spread over exposed contaminated soil is NOT acceptable).
Do not consider the work crews knowledgeable about the situation,
most of them know nothing of the real facts (the
EPA/ATSDR/CDC/WHO/MDEQ/MDCH versions, not Dow's propaganda) and will
offer opinions that range from gross misinformation to the absurd
(example from P-1: dioxin comes from trees).
Take a controlling stance, instead of just getting out of their way
& expecting the work crews to know what to do.
Take before and after pictures.
The "License Agreement" included in the packet must be completed to be
considered for any P-2 IRA work.
The agreement authorizes Dow to access your property for the
purposes of conducting soil sampling and survey work.
The agreement authorizes the MDEQ to access your property for the
purposes of overseeing the Dow sampling and surveying. Consider
asking that the sampling ALWAYS be supervised by the MDEQ and that the
techniques used meet EPA standards, not Dow's.
Always ask for the names and credentials of everyone who visits your
property, the license states the work will be done "at times convenient
to the Resident".
This is a legal document, you may want your lawyer to review, so do
To be considered for P-2 IRA, you must complete the enclosed
"Residential Property Use Activity Survey" or "Agricultural Property Use
The State officials contributed to the design of the form but
indicate they are not really sure how the information will be used by
Many of the questions require a simple Yes or No answer which in our
opinion cannot be properly answered if you have been following the
States Soil, Fish, and Wildlife advisories/recommendations. To do
so based on your current state may require a NO answer which is
misleading, your want to carry out all these activities on your property
but the contamination prevents it. The form does not provide for
comments or clarifications, will they pay any attention to what you
scribble in the margins or attach as separate documents? If you
answer No, will your property be disqualified? Will the
information be used in other ways at a later date?
Any information provided on the form must be provided to the MDEQ
and therefore may be subject to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request and become publicly available.