Contaminants found near oilsands

[Topaz]

Two scientist have found contaminants in the snow near the oilsand sites and Peter Kent has been known about this and so I'm sure the NDP, will be asking about this in Question Period. It also should give workers, a second thought about the health dangers they may putting themselves in by working there. Only time will tell if cancers and other diseases will spring up on these workers down the road and if lawsuits will appear. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/environment/Federal+testing+backs+study+that+found/7496386/story.html

[eyeball]

“We are comparing the levels of contamination we found in our work to other studies and find that other studies report both higher and lower levels,” said the scripted answers. “These efforts will allow us to better understand deposition patterns and levels of oil sands related contaminants with a view to better identify their sources and ecological risks.”

This is what I often see superimposed over the wording of these sorts of news stories.

“We are comparing the levels of political contamination we found in our work to other studies and find that other studies report both higher and lower levels,” said the scripted answers. “These efforts will allow us to better understand deposition patterns and levels of politically related contaminants with a view to better identify their sources and ideological risks.”

I'm betting these sources are corporate and levels sharply increase around Ottawa and in particular hot-spots located at the PMO, and head offices of Environment Canada and of course DFO. The levels of contamination around DFO are probably off the scale.

[PIK]

And around hydro sites and old factory sites and probably around the train yards and tracks and your back yard.

[wyly]

Two scientist have found contaminants in the snow near the oilsand sites and Peter Kent has been known about this and so I'm sure the NDP, will be asking about this in Question Period. It also should give workers, a second thought about the health dangers they may putting themselves in by working there. Only time will tell if cancers and other diseases will spring up on these workers down the road and if lawsuits will appear. http://www.ottawacit...6386/story.html

it's not a secret I don't why everyone is surprised..it's a fact that tar sand development is polluting the surrounding watershed...

[Fletch 27]

Hmmmm, and tar hasnt been leeching into the Watershed there for thousands of years im guessing.... Isnt "oil" considered a contaminant? Thats like saying you found a french-fry in your order of french fries...

[wyly]

process chemicals...."In natural surface waters in the Athabasca region,naphthenic acids are found at a concentration of 1-2 mg/L. In oil sands talings, naphthenic acids can exceed 100 mg/L" -(S.S. Leung et al, 2003).

• Naphthenic acids are toxic to mammals, causing liver and heart damage and brain hemorrhage at high doses and weight lose and liver enlargement from chronic exposure (Rogers et al, 2002).At lethal doses, naphthenic acids cause nervous system depression, convulsion and respiratory arrest leading to death in mice.
  
• Yellow perch eggs exposed to naphthenic acids showed increased rates of deformity and lower birth size than those not exposed (Peters et al, 2007).
  
• Nestling tree swallows exposed to oil sands tailings containing naphthenic acids show lower weight and are less able to withstand stress than those not exposed, decreasing their chance of survival (M-L Gentes et al, 2006).
  
• Naphthenic acids influence the community structure of aquatic microorganisms at concentrations beginning at 6-20 mg/L (S.S. Leung et al, 2003).
  

http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/default.asp?lang=en&n=AC708134-1

[The_Squid]

Not a surprise at all. It's a well known fact that this is a very polluting industry. The cleanup, environmental and health costs should be born by the companies involved in extracting the resource, and not the taxpayers many years down the road. This would lead to "true pricing" of fossil fuels.

http://news.yahoo.co...-195342090.html

The cost of fossil fuels is artificially low because it does not include the price they incur on society, through air and water pollution and the effects of global warming, such as more extreme weather, Hansen said. His solution: a gradually rising fee attached to all fossil fuels at their mine or port of entry. The fee would then be redistributed to the public.A rising cost on greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels would spur investment in clean alternatives, he said.

Edited November 5, 2012 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

I'm sure they'll clean up after themselves.~

[Moonlight Graham]

Contaminants found near oil extraction site? I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! LOL

My guess of what the contaminants are: oil

[Mighty AC]

I absolutely refuse to believe that massive lakes of toxic waste hemmed in by dykes built of tarsand on the edge of a major river system could possibly contaminate the surroundings.

[The_Squid]

Contaminants found near oil extraction site? I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! LOL

My guess of what the contaminants are: oil

Which is why the cleanup costs, environmental and health costs should be reflected in the price of oil. There would be more money in clean energy if the cost of fossil fuels was actually the true cost!

Edited November 6, 2012 by The_Squid