This article is more than 11 years old
Dr. David Schindler, the scientist who sounded the alarm on tar sands contamination back in 2010, has suddenly found his research backed by an Environment Canada study recently published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The federal study, which confirmed Schindler’s hotly-contested research, has reignited concerns over the pace and scale of development in the Athabasca region, an area now beset with a host of ecological and human health concerns.
Environment Canada scientists Jane Kirk, David Muir and Joanne Parrott confirmed Schindler’s conclusion that hydrocarbon-derived contaminants, known as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), have polluted the landscape surrounding tar sands operations. The new study found high concentrations of PAHs in areas
more than 100 kilometers away from Fort McMurray, an area dominated with open-pit mines and bitumen refineries.
In early 2012 DeSmog traveled to Fort McMurray with photographer Kris Krug. This image, taken of refineries that border the area's open pit mines, shows only a fraction of the impact industrial development has had on the surrounding landscape.
Dr. Schindler told DeSmog that what the research really demonstrates is the extent to which industry and government have failed to monitor – and mitigate – the negative environmental affects of tar sands development.
“Both background studies and environmental impact assessments have been shoddy, and could not really even be called science,” he said. “This must change.”
If there is a hint of frustration in Schindler’s candid remarks on the topic, it isn’t without warrant. In 2010, after the release of his
original research on tar sands pollution, the
Alberta government accused him of scientific bias, calling the legitimacy of his research and his professional credibility into question. The provincial government at the time stood firmly by the line that any present contamination in the watershed was
naturally occurring.
When asked if management of the tar sands has been based on sound science, Schindler’s answer is definitive: “No.” Both industry and government, he says, have failed to monitor the environmental impact of bitumen mining and production.
“The studies that have been done have been very poor, using poor statistical design, inadequate sampling, and chemical methods with poor limits of detection.”
Because of this, says Schindler, local wildlife is suffering. “
Caribou are in decline, and probably not recoverable. Many predatory mammals and boreal song birds are also in decline.”
Numerous reports of
deformed fish in waterways downstream of tar sands operations, most notably in
Fort Chipewyan, may also be related, says Schindler.
“Earlier studies by Environment Canada and Queen’s University scientists showed that fish eggs hatched on bitumen contaminated sediments had high mortalities, and that the few survivors had malformations, which were described as like those observed in adult fish caught near Fort Chipewyan.
“When contaminated snow melts and runs off, it is toxic. I think a connection is very probable.”
Schindler says similar malformations have occurred downstream of other polluted areas in the Great Lakes Basin and known Superfund sites.
Fort Chipewyan also suffers from elevated rates of cancer. Schindler says the link between the poor health of local communities and oil production is impossible to make “without considerable further study.” He adds: “The most likely carcinogens are some of the poorly studied polycyclic aromatic compounds.”
The need for health studies in the region is crucial, according to Schindler, and also long-overdue.
“A health study of Fort Chipewyan was recommended in the final report of the Northern River Basins study in 1996, and it has still not been done.”
