Ode to Island Health: Because… Ahhh… Because
O Island Health,
guardian of public health,
keeper of the test kit,
master of the carefully limited answer.
You test for yesterday’s danger
with yesterday’s tools
and call it modern protection.
Bacteria.
Always bacteria.
Because bacteria are easy.
Count them.
Average them.
Post a sign.
Take down the sign.
Beach safe.
Job done.
Do not test the sediment.
Do not test the chemicals.
Do not test the endocrine disruptors,
the hydrocarbons,
the metals,
the PCBs,
the dioxins,
the persistent poisons
that do not politely disappear
when the bacteria count falls.
That sounds expensive.
That sounds complicated.
That sounds like work.
And worse—
someone might be responsible.
So keep the testing narrow.
Keep the questions smaller
than the problem.
Keep the public staring
at one bacterial number
while children dig with bare hands
in contaminated mud.
Let them build castles in it.
Let them smear it on their legs.
Let them wade through it,
swim above it,
fall into it,
and carry it home
under their fingernails.
Then tell their parents:
The water passed.
O Island Health,
Health Canada gave you the instructions.
Excellent instructions.
Inspect the recreational area.
Look at its history.
Identify biological hazards.
Identify physical hazards.
Identify chemical hazards.
Examine the watershed.
Find the outfalls.
Consider the runoff.
Consider the industries.
Consider the contaminated sediment.
Prepare an assessment.
Document the risks.
Do this before encouraging people
to swim, wade and play.
But you ignored the guidance.
Because—
ahhh—
because…
Well…
The guidelines are only guidelines.
Nobody specifically ordered us.
The municipality owns the beach.
The CRD tests the water.
The province handles contaminated sites.
Ottawa wrote the guidelines.
The sediment belongs to somebody else.
The pipe belongs to another department.
The tide came in from federal waters.
The child entered voluntarily.
And besides—
conducting the inspection
might identify a hazard.
Identifying a hazard
might require investigation.
Investigation might produce a report.
A report might require action.
Action might upset somebody.
A municipality.
A developer.
A marina.
A waterfront property owner.
A senior manager.
Someone important enough
to make the telephone ring.
So better not to inspect.
Better not to test.
Better not to document.
Better not to know.
O Island Health,
you have perfected
the public-health dark ages:
Test what was tested before.
Ignore what was ignored before.
Repeat the same procedure
until neglect becomes policy.
Ask about chemical exposure
and you point to the municipality.
Ask about sewage
and you point to the CRD.
Ask about contaminated sediment
and you point to the province.
Ask about federal waters
and you point to Ottawa.
Ask who protects the swimmer
and suddenly everyone
is examining the ceiling.
A beautiful circle of responsibility
with nobody standing in the middle.
Not our mandate.
Not our department.
Not our jurisdiction.
Not our problem.
But somehow—
always our beach.
Always our children.
Always our exposure.
Always our risk.
O Island Health,
you know who is responsible.
You know that public health
does not stop at the waterline.
You know that exposure does not care
who owns the pipe.
You know that poison does not become harmless
because it crossed
an administrative boundary.
You know that a child
does not become safer
because one agency tests the water
while another ignores the mud.
But knowing is dangerous.
Knowing creates duty.
Duty creates paperwork.
Paperwork creates evidence.
Evidence creates responsibility.
And responsibility
sounds like work.
Then the public asks:
Where is the inspection?
Where is the hazard survey?
Where is the chemical assessment?
Where is the sediment review?
Where is the report?
What report?
The report mentioned in the meeting.
The report referenced in the email.
The report supposedly supporting the decision
to encourage swimming.
Perhaps it was never completed.
Perhaps it was only discussed.
Perhaps it exists somewhere
between departments.
Perhaps the person responsible retired.
Perhaps the file was renamed.
Perhaps the computer swallowed it.
Perhaps the public imagined it.
O Island Health,
you are very good
at producing conclusions
without producing evidence.
Very good at reassurance
without investigation.
Very good at declaring
there is no confirmed risk
after confirming almost nothing.
No evidence of harm.
No evidence of contamination.
No evidence of exposure.
No evidence—
because you did not look.
And then comes enforcement.
That frightening word.
Enforcement means somebody
might have to act.
Somebody might have to inspect a beach.
Somebody might have to sample the mud.
Somebody might have to examine an outfall.
Somebody might have to demand records.
Somebody might have to tell a municipality:
No.
You cannot keep discharging this.
No.
You cannot promote swimming here
without assessing the hazards.
No.
A bacteria result does not erase
a century of industrial contamination.
No.
Children are not environmental test equipment.
But enforcement is unpleasant.
It creates conflict.
It might damage a relationship.
It might make the next committee meeting awkward.
So let us collaborate.
Let us consult.
Let us form a working group.
Let us hold another meeting
about the meeting
that discussed the inspection
that was never done
and the report
that cannot be found.
Let us monitor.
Let us review.
Let us defer.
Let us continue
doing absolutely nothing
with great professionalism.
Keep up the good work.
Collect the paycheque.
Pass the file.
Blame somebody else.
Go home.
Tomorrow,
come back refreshed
and explain again
why protecting public health
is somebody else’s responsibility.
O Island Health,
you close beaches for bacteria
and ignore the chemical soup.
You post temporary warnings
for temporary problems
and remain silent
about contamination
that can persist for generations.
You protect the institution
from responsibility
more carefully
than you protect the public
from exposure.
You had the guidance.
You had the history.
You had the contaminated sites.
You had the storm drains.
You had the evidence.
You had the authority
to speak plainly.
But speaking plainly
might upset someone.
So when asked why
you ignored the warnings,
ignored the sediment,
ignored the chemical hazards
and encouraged the public
to swim and play in toxic mud—
you clear your throat,
shuffle the papers,
look toward another department,
and answer:
Because…
ahhh…
because…
not us.
Office 250 383 2086
The Dead Boats Disposal Society
The Veins of Life Watershed Society
"Over 30 years of cleanup and restoration have taught me one truth—if you don’t stop the pollution at its source, you’re just sweeping sand in a windstorm. Source control, source control, source control. Then, and only then, do you restore."
— JR Roe. Amen
oshaku shushaku—mistake upon mistake compounds to become the sum total of one's knowledge.
“Lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets” — i.e., nature (healthy ecosystems) is real wealth, not a trade-off against wealth.
Canada stays strong by standing united—defending democracy, rejecting division, and leading with truth, justice, and integrity. We fight tyranny with resilience, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to a better future.
Public Recreation in Contaminated Waters: A Practical Question from Heavy Industry Experience
I have spent much of my working life in heavy industry. I have worked as a welder, commercial diver, mechanic, supervisor, factory worker, and tradesperson in settings where materials, chemicals, contaminated surfaces, waste streams, and exposure pathways were treated seriously.
In those workplaces, we were trained to read and understand MSDS/SDS sheets. Before handling materials or working in a potentially contaminated environment, we were expected to understand what we were dealing with, what the exposure risks were, what protective equipment was required, how materials could move through air, water, soil, or sediment, and how cleanup and disposal had to be handled. If we worked on land or in the water, the same basic principle applied: identify the hazard, control the exposure, protect the worker, and prevent the contamination from spreading.
That is why I am struggling with how public use of contaminated rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, and tidal waters is currently treated.
In public recreation, the discussion often seems to stop at fecal-indicator testing. Agencies talk about E. coli, enterococci, fecal coliform, beach advisories, and whether bacterial numbers are above or below guideline values. That information matters, but it is not the whole picture.
Fecal indicators are warning lights. They do not identify everything in the water or sediment. They do not tell the public whether there are viruses, pharmaceuticals, endocrine-disrupting compounds, metals, PAHs, PCBs, dioxins/furans, hydrocarbons, contaminated sediments, stormwater contaminants, or legacy industrial pollutants. They also do not answer what happens when sediment is disturbed by construction, cable placement, dredging, prop wash, anchoring, or public activity.
In heavy industry, a known contaminated area would not be treated as safe simply because one narrow indicator passed on one day. A proper hazard review would ask what contaminants are present, how they can be disturbed, how people may be exposed, what protective measures are required, and whether the area should remain open during or after disturbance.
The public system often appears to apply a much narrower standard. A waterbody with historical industrial use, stormwater outfalls, known sediment contamination, sewer cross-connection risk, and active construction may still be treated as suitable for public recreation unless fecal-indicator testing triggers an advisory. That creates a serious gap between industrial exposure-control practice and public recreational-water management.
The concern is not that every beach requires full chemical testing at all times. The concern is that in known contaminated urban waterways, fecal testing should not be treated as a complete public-health assessment. Where there are contaminated sediments, outfalls, legacy industrial activity, and disturbance, a broader human-health and environmental risk review should be completed before public swimming or other direct-contact recreation is encouraged.
The practical question is simple:
Has the area been assessed for all reasonable recreational exposure pathways, including contaminated sediment, stormwater contaminants, fecal contamination, chemical contaminants, and disturbance-related resuspension, or has the decision been based mainly on fecal-indicator testing?
From my experience, society has not fully connected industrial contamination practice with public recreational exposure. Workers are protected through hazard identification, SDS review, PPE, exposure controls, decontamination, and disposal procedures. The public, including children, swimmers, paddlers, shoreline users, and people entering urban tidal waters, should not receive a weaker standard of care in areas already known to be contaminated.
Fecal-indicator compliance is not the same thing as a contaminated-site recreational exposure assessment.
Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality: Understanding and Managing Risks in Recreational Waters
PHYSICAL, AESTHETIC AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS The Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water Quality
No comments:
Post a Comment