Inconvenient Truth about Oil Sands and Cancer

[Keepitsimple]

“Don’t confuse us with facts.” That’s what opponents of the oilsands seem to be saying about the latest report on alleged links between oilsands development and cancer among First Nations people in northern Alberta.

Their next step will almost certainly be shooting the messenger, James Talbot, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health. Watch for environmental activists and “green” politicians to start claiming Talbot is a puppet of the provincial government or “Big Oil.”

On Monday, Talbot released a study of cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan, a little more than 200 km downstream from the oilsands plants. The report included a look at all cases of cancer in the region between 1992 and 2011. The report found no elevated risk in the area. Whereas a population the size, age and gender of Fort Chip’s should have had 79 cancer cases over the 19 years of the study, Fort Chip had 81. Statistically average.

.......continued

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/03/25/inconvenient-truth-about-oilsands-and-cancer

The story about "downstream cancer" in aboriginal communities has been thrown about for years - and gained a lot of mileage for the activist community with breathless commentary from a pliant media. Lets see how much play the facts get in the Mainstream Media. I won't hold my breath.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

Just last month - the eco-nuts sponsored Dr. John O'Connor to speak to US Senators about Oil Sands and cancer. Why is a "family physician" allowed to speak for Canada in front of the US Senate and spout nonsense? It's totally outrageous. Where's the pushback from our media? Here's what he had to say:

A northern Alberta doctor warned U.S. Senators on what he says have been the devastating health impacts of the tar sands on families – effects, he says, that have been willfully “ignored” by the Canadian and Alberta governments.

“I appeal to you to keep up the pressure – this is an ongoing tragedy. A total disgrace,” said Dr. John O’Connor, Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

He sighted statistics for rare cancers – of the bile duct for example – that have shot up 400 times for what is considered normal for a tiny community, such as Fort Chipewyan – which is downstream, to the north of the oil sands.

“These are published, peer-reviewed studies that indicate that the government of Alberta and Canada have been lying, misrepresenting the impact of industry on the environment,” said O’Connor.

Link: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/alberta-doctor-tells-us-canada-%E2%80%98lying%E2%80%99-about-tar-sands%E2%80%99-health-effects

Edited March 26, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[overthere]

I'm surprised it was only 81 cases of cancer vs a statistical average of 79.

Remote communities tend not to eat or live very healthily in general.

[Bob Macadoo]

I'm surprised it was only 81 cases of cancer vs a statistical average of 79.

Remote communities tend not to eat or live very healthily in general.

Do remote communities have a higher proclivity to developing cancers? Intuitively I would have thought the opposite; less car/factory exhaust, more likely to eat non-preserved/processed foods, more land to maintain therefore less seditentury, etc.

It would be interesting to know the cancer rate for an equivalent aboriginal community without tarsands influence. Size alone does not a correlation necessarily make.

[Accountability Now]

Lets see how much play the facts get in the Mainstream Media. I won't hold my breath.

It did make CBC...http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/higher-cancer-rates-not-found-in-oilsands-community-study-shows-1.2584323

That's positive...right? lol

[overthere]

Do remote communities have a higher proclivity to developing cancers? Intuitively I would have thought the opposite; less car/factory exhaust, more likely to eat non-preserved/processed foods, more land to maintain therefore less seditentury, etc.

It would be interesting to know the cancer rate for an equivalent aboriginal community without tarsands influence. Size alone does not a correlation necessarily make.

Having actually lived in remote communities in AB, SK, NWT and YT, I believe few of those factors you mention actually apply.

Fresh fruit and veggies are the most expensive things to buy if and when they are available at all, and few people get much food off the land.

The outside air is cleaner, true. But with the climate, a lot more time is spend indoors and heating systems using wood or fuel oil don't help indoor air quality. We can date photos, artwork and books on our shelves by how yellowed they are with indoor pollutants.

Land to maintain? There's no farming in the North to speak of. Maintaining my land mostly consisted of cutting trees for firewood. Not many gyms either.....and long winters, Everybody has satellite TV and/or high speed internet now...

It is not a particualrly healthy lifestyle in most remote communities, or rather the isolation does not ensure that it is more likely.

What would make this small sample more useful would be as you say: comapraison with other small communities. What would also be interesting- but probably unavailable for Fort Chip- would be stats prior to about 1965, before any significant oilsands development. Note that Fort Chip has been downstream from a huge bitumen source for a long time. Oil/tar seeps to the surface routinely and is in the water routinely and naturally0- did it affect the health of locals prior to the oilsands development?