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.”
And since you’re here, we have a favour to ask. Our independent, ad-free journalism is made possible because the people who value our work also support it (did we mention our stories are free for all to read, not just those who can afford to pay?).
As a non-profit, reader-funded news organization, our goal isn’t to sell advertising or to please corporate bigwigs — it’s to bring evidence-based news and analysis to the surface for all Canadians. And at a time when most news organizations have been laying off reporters, we’ve hired five journalists over the past year.
Not only are we filling a void in environment coverage, but we’re also telling stories differently — by centring Indigenous voices, by building community and by doing it all as a people-powered, non-profit outlet supported by more than 3,500 members.
The truth is we wouldn’t be here without you. Every single one of you who reads and shares our articles is a crucial part of building a new model for Canadian journalism that puts people before profit.
We know that these days the world’s problems can feel a *touch* overwhelming. It’s easy to feel like what we do doesn’t make any difference, but becoming a member of The Narwhal is one small way you truly can make a difference.
If you believe news organizations should report to their readers, not advertisers or shareholders, please become a monthly member of The Narwhal today for any amount you can afford.