Pope Paul VI Council 7251 - Thamesville
Knights of Columbus Substance Awareness & Abuse Contests Results 2025
For years the Knights of Columbus has been active in the fight against all forms of substance abuse. To further these efforts, our Council sponsors the Knights of Columbus Substance Abuse Awareness Poster Contest.
The purpose of this Contest is twofold:
-To promote local awareness among young people of the major societal problems of alcohol and drug abuse, and:
-To generate ideas for Knights of Columbus anti-substance abuse posters and literature.
The Knights of Columbus Substance Abuse Awareness Poster Contest is open to boys and girls ages 8 through 17. The Contest is conducted at the local level. The entries show the creative talents of the participants.
On the evening of January 28, 2025, the local Contest was held at Good Shepherd School in Thamesville. Seventy entries were received from Good Shepherd School, Our Lady of the Pillar Academy, and St. Charles` Schools.
The judges were Brothers Marcel, Shane, Jason, Henri, Donald, Ron, Ron and Dave.
The winners are, as follows:
Part A - Alcohol Awareness and Abuse - Ages 8 to 10:
First – Zoe Demaiter,
Second – Matthew Connell,
Third – Layna Marsh,
Part B - Drug Awareness and Abuse - Ages 8 to 10:
First – Reese Vanrabaeys,
Second – Stella Wilson,
Third – Tzadok Schmitt,
Part C - Alcohol Awareness and Abuse - Ages 11 – 13:
First – Kaylin Verhelle,
Second – Ella Peckford,
Third – Owen Pumfrey,
Part D - Drug Awareness and Abuse - Ages 11 to 13:
First – Liam Marsh,
Second – Nicole Del Basso,
Third – Sophia Baresich,
Part E – Alcohol Awareness and Abuse – Ages 14 to 17: no entries,
Part F – Drug Awareness and Abuse – Ages 14 to 17:
First – Brayden Verhelle.
.The runners-up were Natalie Demaiter, Olivia Nguyen, Deborah Schmitt, Hannah, Yankovtch, Logan Rodriguez, Kira Verhelle, Aiden Demaiter, Zander DeClerk, Norah Demaiter, Maizie Van Lith, Nyla Allemeersch, Eliya De Clerk, Lochlan Van Lith, Felicity Simpson, Isaac Schaeken, Fiona Rose Jaques, Jude Sansom, Brady Forsten, Della Snow, Cam Vanrabaeys, Alex Demaiter, Emily Vanrabaeys, Ainsley Barnier, Joseph Myers, Elizabeth Simpson, Sarah Bouisset, Sophia Welch, Mackenna Austin, Cullen Carvell, Jackson Davelaar, Rilynn Antolak, Nathan Minten, Ed Batte, Kennedy Galbraith, Andrew Minten, Jeremiah Powley, Josie McFadden, Maria Connell, Leticia Gomes, Lilianna Gosling, Royal Lovell, Evelyn Barnier, Myra De Clerk, Jackson Demaiter, Hayden Prangley, Becca Schmitt, Max Marsh, Parker Liberty, Easton Mezenberg, Kenton Austin, Austin Lambert, Lyla Palucca, Kacie Hauspie, Camille Jaques, Luke Vanrabaeys, Phillip Allemeersch, Cambrie Giroux, and Princess-Thelma Tangah.
All contestants receive a certificate and prize money. First prizes receive twenty-five dollars each, second prizes receive fifteen dollars each, and third prizes receive ten dollars each. The runners-up receive five dollars in recognition of their efforts.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL CONTESTANTS!!!!!!!
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to Phil Sidhwa’s recent letter “Biosolids are the solution, not the problem.”
I contend, in fact, that biosolids are indeed a problem, a very serious problem! They should not be used as fertilizer until such time as we have the ability to remove all toxic contaminants from the human sewage stream. Biosolids contain contaminants such as PFAS (Forever Chemicals), heavy metals, pharmaceuticals and microplastics, to list a few.
Mr. Sidhwa sings the praises of biosolids a little too heartily. It is Mr. Sidhwa’s own revelation that in October 2024 a new regulation came into force that regulates the maximum limits of PFAS chemicals that are to be allowed in biosolids. Therefore, it stands to reason that we have, unfortunately, already been subjected to a virtual “free for all” on the levels of PFAS present in biosolids that have already been applied to farm fields in Ontario. That is extremely concerning!
The PFAS limits of 50 parts per billion (ppb) as set out by the CFIA are only an interim limit at present. This level of 50 ppb was co-opted from the U.S., and was not independently developed in Canada. There are presently concerns in the U.S. that this level set at 50ppb of PFAS may be as much as tenfold in error. That is, to say, that this 50ppb level should be set much lower to be safe.
Another concern is that the CFIA in their new Act only requires that producers of biosolids need to test every six months to establish the PFAS levels in their biosolids. A lot can go wrong in a six-month period of time with respect to the fluctuating levels of PFAS produced within a sewage treatment plant. The sewage stream is not necessarily homogeneous as it relates to PFAS levels. This lack of frequent testing of PFAS levels in the biosolids is alarming to say the least.
Phil Sidhwa’s statement that “the level of regulation has addressed the emerging concern on any possible contamination of fertilizer from so called Forever Chemicals” is one of the most blatantly irresponsible statements concerning the safety of biosolids that one can imagine. This new regulation does not offer any type of blanket protection from the contamination of biosolids with PFAS. It is nothing but an attempt to put a rudimentary check and balance mechanism in place to stop the application of unknown levels of PFAS contaminated biosolids from being applied to farm fields.
In reality, there is no absolute understanding of what levels of PFAS are “safe”. There may be no safe level of this toxic material that when ingested stays permanently in the human body and never breaks down. We need to better understand the levels of PFAS uptake into crops and forages on land fertilized by biosolids before we get too far down this path. We need to better understand the toxicity of PFAS as it relates to humans and animals. I think that it is prudent for the sake of caution that we put an immediate moratorium on the use of biosolids as a fertilizer source until such time as we better understand the risks of their use. Let’s put the brakes on the runaway biosolids train!
Doug McLean
Retired General Manager and current Middlesex Farmer
January 30, 2025
Testing Biosolids for PFAS
Did the CFIA get it right?
The CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) has recently started testing for PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) in biosolids in Canada.
Starting in October 2024 sewage biosolids, imported or produced in Canada, are to be tested for PFAS – for PFOS only (one type of thousands of PFAS), for a limit of 50 ppb (parts per billion) at a time when the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) risk assessment for PFOS in sewage sludge shows that 1 ppb “can present a significant risk to human health”.
It is important to note that this recent PFAS testing requirement in Canada is only for sewage biosolids classified as commercial fertilizer. The testing requirement does not extend to NASM (non-agricultural source material) which is often the type of sewage biosolids being applied to farmland.
It is also interesting to note that PFOS has been banned from manufacture, sale or use in Canada for several years therefore, presumably, it should test low. Is this an appropriate marker to use to test for the cumulative impact of the thousands of chemicals classified as PFAS?
Why test sewage biosolids for PFAS?
Sewage biosolids contain numerous chemicals, including PFAS. This is because municipal sewage includes factory and hospital waste. As quoted in a New York Times article “all of the chemistry that society produces, and is exposed to, is in that sewage”.
PFAS are often referred to as “Forever Chemicals” as they do not breakdown but accumulate over time. Studies of PFAS now show potential harm to our farmland, the environment and human health.
The CFIA has indicated that land application of sewage biosolids “is a key uptake pathway for PFAS into the food chain”.
Did the CFIA get it right?
For more information and links to our source material, email Citizens Concerned About Biosolids at ccab.ontario@gmail.com. Also find us on Facebook: Stop Spreading Sewage.
Heather Horning,
Adelaide Metcalfe Resident
Dear Editor,
Just before the holidays, Premier Ford proposed an inhumane new approach to homeless encampments that punches down on people already suffering and will do nothing to help them – while making the problem of encampments worse.
The so-called “Safer Municipalities Act” would give Ontario cities unnecessary new powers to clear homeless encampments with police force and arrest our neighbours experiencing homelessness.
No one believes a tent in a park is an appropriate place to live, but this is not the answer. It’s ineffective, it’s expensive, and it’s cruel. It’s an unserious plan for a very serious and urgent problem our most vulnerable neighbours are facing.
I don’t support Premier Ford trampling the basic human rights of our neighbours when there are effective evidence-based solutions we can use instead to house people quickly. And it’s high time we got serious about addressing the root cause of this crisis – a lack of affordable housing, something the Ford government has done little to solve.
We should look seriously at projects successfully being implemented in New Brunswick and Manitoba.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Deborah Barnes
London City Resident
debralbarnes5@gmail.com
