I find my self in a similar position to Nick, Having recently attempted to join in the eminently sensible LQM workshop designed to make new, peer reviewed SGVs - Temporary alternatives, I found myself a bit overwelmed by the learning I'd have to do to truly understand creation of SGV's.  I withdrew from the workshop - with some feelings of inadequacy, feeling like a competent operator of a PC rather than a softwear engineer- I'm able to assess a risk assessment, not do all the complicated jiggery pokery with programs.  
I must say I hope the LQM event does really well tomorrow and wednesday in Nottingham.  

In my own defence, I do do research and I am doing my dissertation for my M.Sc on an outside/in the ground asbestos SGV type value, so i'm adequate at carrying out research I think?.  The EA and HSE are in negotiations about this at the moment and i'm riding on the back of some research and we have some funds here for investigation a site with asbestos in soil - for which we intend to try several methods for fibre extraction, and publish a useful paper.

I'm drifting a bit, i appologise, I do this, - my point was to be why has so much of the funding for CL been diverted in the EA to flood defence forces when, while i'd been bailing out my friends kitchen last night for an hour, the 7.8 million pound flood warning system siren went off - (ok there is some wall building, greasing palms with slow foot draggin contractors that only work 6 hours on a dry day and some digging up of Tod central park to make a reservoir basin in the costs - all of which had failed...) as you can imagine I found this appropriate timing amusing after the roads in Todmorden were under a foot of dilute foul water (and me up to my thighs in it), which means a lot of wasted money when, in my opinion (I know, more commas needed stella) the more significant threat of contaminated land to the long term health of individuals is being let slide and funding appears to have dried up.

Pics just in case you want to look.

http://www.todchat.com/shadeflood/

Just my opinion.

Ben Crowther, B.Sc, FGS, PGCE, Stud. M.Sc. thinking about CGeol, and a grammar course.

>>> Nik Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> 30/06/2006 16:23 >>>
Having reviewed all the discussion on the perceived risk of toxicological
information, it appears to me that environmental scientists and geologists
are taking on the role of even more of a role of toxicologists than ever. 
The perceived idea of risk should be completed by persons suitably qualified
in the subject that the risk is presented in.  I acknowledge that for
example within the BaP tox report the case for a reduction of risk may be
justified as it is stated that the difference between NOAEL and LOAEL is a
factor of 10 and hence an educated assessment can be made for 'tweeking'
Part IIa assessment parameters for compounds.  

I personally am a qualified geologist (partially under the belt of Grand
Master Privett) and hold no toxicological qualifications (other than
disecting a rat in 1st year at secondary school - biology class).  I have
attended courses provided by Paul N, and reviewed the numerous documents
produced by the EA which have increased my knowledge base, however I would
in no way claim to be a toxicologist.  It would be interesting to determine
how deep non toxicologists are treading with this subject.  It is one thing
to claim interest and a broad understanding of the subject, and another to
go in depth and determine risk factors associated with the chemical affects
of elements and compounds which have many sources.  I personally am willing
to utilise information which has been qualified by a toxicologist, however
am not prepared to enter the discussion as a specialist toxicologist.  If
after reviewing and claiming to understand the information within the
documents an honoury toxicological qualification can be given - fantastic -
unfortunately this is not the case!

Surely this industry requires the Environment Agency to be called to account
to the sluggish manner the whole CLEA/CLR system is being dealt with.  I
think the minimum baseline information we require regarding the CLEA/CLR
scheme is a concise assessment stating catagorically which documents the
Environment Agency, DEFRA, HPA, DoH, and the other associated Government
Bodies are satisfied with, and which require revoking/revising.  There is
currently much conjecture regarding which parameters are considered as
suitable for use within contaminated land assessment.  Lets be frank about
this, this is a big money business with money lost every day by developers
for over conservatism.  We were originally provided several time tables of
sgv and tox report publications which slipped and got lost in the midst of
time.  Local Authorities are being forced to review ever more technical
reports, using ever more technical risk assessments to back up vague
assumptions.  How many local authorities have toxicological back up - my
guessing is none (assuming they don't subcontract to a consultant -
therefore consultants checking consultants)

Are we to wait years for the sgv task force to state that the current system
is not suitable for use/partially suitable for use or suitable for use?  Its
already been 4 years since the CLEA/CLR system was released which replaced
the former ICRCL system established 15 years previously!

Kevin quite rightly has cast significant doubt on the risk factors used in
this field.  It should be noted that according to NASA the risk of a 1.5km
diameter meteriote hitting the Earth and killing 1.5bn people in any given
year is 2 x 10-6 and winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million.  Think i'll
save my pound this week!
#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared 
by MailMarshal, the Council's Content Scanner
#####################################################################################
######################################################################################

Warning

Please note that whilst this e-mail and any attachments originate from Calderdale MBC, 
the views expressed may not necessarily represent the views of Calderdale MBC. 

This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is privileged, 
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.  
They must not be used by, or copied or disclosed to persons other than the intended recipient.  
Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any third party acting, or refraining from acting, 
on any information contained in this e-mail is excluded. 
If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete the e-mail. 

E-mail can never be 100{ secure.}Please bear this in mind and carry out such virus and other checks, as you consider appropriate.  
Calderdale MBC accepts no responsibility in this regard.

Copyright of this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Calderdale MBC.

Should you communicate with anyone at Calderdale MBC by e-mail, you consent to the 
Council monitoring and reading any such correspondence. 

######################################################################################