Author: Avnish

Straight Outta Edmonton: Levant on Fort Chip Health Concerns

Last night, Ezra Levant and Ben West of the Wilderness Committee debated the ethics of the Alberta Oilsands in front of a packed house in Vancouver. During the debate, as he also does in his book Ethical Oil, Levant dismissed the health concerns of Fort Chipewyan residents by calling Dr. John O’Connor “a liar” and “alarmist.” Levant cites the complaint brought forward against Dr. O’Connor before the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons as evidence of this. He argues that since Dr. O’Connor was found to have made “inaccurate statements” about certain cancer types being elevated, cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan as whole are not higher than expected.

Levant forcefully made the point that health concerns in Fort Chipewyan are entirely unfounded to all in attendance — including an Aboriginal man from Fort Chipewyan. The man expressed his community’s concerns (comparing Fort Chipewyan’s experience to ‘a holocaust’ — which angered many in attendance because they thought he meant THE Holocaust), which Levant responded to by calling him a “grievance monger” that brought “shame on his community” by preferring they “be on welfare than work” (the Oilsands Industry is by far the largest economic force and job creator in First Nations’ communities in Alberta). Levant attacked this man, similar to Dr. O’Connor, for making unsubstantiated public health claims and creating paranoia.

Many dismiss Fort Chipewyan’s health concerns through similar arguments, albeit through less crass means. Alastair Sweeney, Canadian historian and author makes similar statements in his book Black Bonanza, which examines the Alberta Oilsands Industry (statements he repeated in an Ottawa Citizen opinion piece earlier this year — here was my response). Further, Dr. Wadieh Yacoub, a senior medical officer for Health Canada in Alberta and one of the individuals who brought forth the medical complaint against Dr. O’Connor, has indicated in conversations that Fort Chipewyan’s alleged health concerns are questionable due to Dr. O’Connor’s actions. The Alberta Government has also publicly stated this, as well as the Federal Government.

I don’t intend to defend Dr. O’Connor, as others have. Instead, I want to examine the legitimacy of the arguments of Levant, Sweeney, and Dr. Yacoub, and whether they are valid. They argue that since Dr. O’Connor’s claims of specific cancer types were inaccurate, there are no health issues in Fort Chipewyan and concerns that upstream oilsands industrial activity are having an impact on the community’s health are unfounded.

Let us examine the 2009 health study, Cancer Incidence in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta 1996 — 2006, that found that the specific types of cancers Dr. O’Connor indicated to be at elevated were in fact at normal and expected levels. Below is the study’s conclusion, in its entirety:

Conclusions

The investigation has confirmed a total of two cholangiocarcinoma cases and six colon cancer cases in Fort Chipewyan over the 12-year study period (1995-2006).The observed number of cases of these two types of cancers was within the expected range of cancer occurrence of the community.

The number of cancer cases observed in Fort Chipewyan was higher than expected for all cancers combined and for specific types of cancer, such as biliary tract cancer and cancers in the blood and lymphatic system. In particular, increases were found for biliary tract cancer in men and for lung cancer in women. This increase was based on a small number of cases and could be due to chance or increased detection. The possibility that the increased rate of cancer is due to increased risk in the community, however, cannot be ruled out. An increased number of cases of biliary tract cancers, cancers in the blood and lymphatic system and cancers of unknown primary seen in the most recent six years (2001-2006) compared to the first six years (1995-2000) of the study period warrant closer monitoring of cancer occurrence in upcoming years.

Before epidemiologic studies are used to investigate the causes of the increase, further studies are required in order to evaluate the possible cancer risk posed by living in Fort Chipewyan, by tracking a cohort of residents who have lived in the area within the past 20-30 years.

Whether people living in Fort Chipewyan have an increased risk of developing cancer is still not clear. This study did not investigate the association between the risk of cancer for Fort Chipewyan residents and the effects of possible environmental exposures. Health concerns voiced by the Fort Chipewyan community, the existing evidence about the potential environmental contaminants in the area, along with an absence of a general increase in cancer rates in the comparison communities, justify further investigations that would include the analysis of many potential risk factors, such as lifestyle risk factors, family history, as well as occupational and environmental exposures. Future work on cancer investigation and control needs to be part of the overall assessment of health status in the community.

The first paragraph deals with Dr. O’Connor’s elevated cancer claims, which the study’s authors indicate to be false, and found to be “within the expected range of cancer occurrence of the community.” However, as indicated by the bolded and underlined sections, the overall number of cancer cases in Fort Chipewyan were higher than expected as well as for specific cancers, such as biliary tract cancer and blood & lymphatic system cancers.

Further, although the study did not investigate what was behind the community’s elevated cancer rates, it identified three potential factors: chance, lifestyle choices, and environmental factors. Environmental factors include upstream oilsands industrial activity, which the study’s authors justify to warrant further study due to “existing evidence about the potential environmental contaminants in the area” (a list of these studies can be found here).

The study’s conclusions are clear: cancer rates are elevated, yet the reasons behind these abnormally high rates are currently unknown, though oilsands industrial pollution may have role, along with chance and lifestyle choices. Thus, credible scientific evidence exists to suggest that cancer rates in Fort Chipweyan are elevated (as well as rates of Lupus and other auto-immune diseases) and that oilsands pollution may have a role.

What Levant, Sweeney, Dr. Yacoub, the Alberta and Federal Governments are engaging in when discrediting Fort Chipewyan’s health concerns by arguing that Dr. O’Connor’s elevated cancer claims are unsubstantiated is a classical logical fallacy where a specific inaccurate statement is used to dismiss the wider position it supports. For example:

Position: According to the National Crime Study, City A has a violent crime problem.

Proponent of the Position: City A has the highest rate of rape in the country. This confirms the National Crime Study position that City A has a violent crime problem.

Critic of Position: Proponent said that City A has the highest rate of rape in the country. This is false, because City B was found to have the highest rate of rape in the National Crime Study. Thus, City A does not have a violent crime problem.

Fallacy: City A may not have the highest rate of rape in the country, but it could have other statistics — such as the rate of murder or assault — that would lead the National Crime Study to indicate that it had a violent crime problem.

Just because Dr. O’Connor’s claims were false, it doesn’t mean that there are no health concerns in Fort Chipewyan. Indeed, Alberta Health Services indicated that cancer rates within Fort Chipewyan are 30% higher than expected and oilsands industrial pollution may play a role. Thus, even though credible scientific evidence exists to substantiate Fort Chipewyan’s health concerns, Levant and others try to downplay and dismiss them by attacking Dr. O’Connor’s credibility and characterizing Fort Chipewyan as a community of “liars” and “deadbeats.”

Clearly, this is inaccurate and an attempt to deceive readers rather than to present the whole story and debate the facts. Public health concerns exist in Fort Chipewyan, and if you believe in peer-reviewed, academic science, oilsands industrial activity may have a role. Rather than waging misinformation campaigns, attacking community members, and manipulating the public, why don’t we focus on investigating Fort Chipewyan’s health concerns and uncover what is behind the high rates of cancer, just like the AHS study recommends.

If environmental factors aren’t the cause, great, we can dispel that myth. If it is, let’s clean up the industry and curb pollution by shutting down the tailings ponds. Either way, we have an obligation to Fort Chipewyan residents — as fellow Canadians, Albertans, and human beings — to find out what’s making them sick and, if possible, stop it.

For more information on Public Health Concerns in Fort Chipewyan, please read the Edmonton Journal’s feature on the issue, the CBC Edmonton Feature: Fort Chipewyan Health Concerns, Straight Outta Edmonton’s Public Health Concerns in Fort Chipewyan, Straight Outta Edmonton’s Public Health and Environmental Studies Source List, and other posts on the issue.

Continue reading

Straight Outta Edmonton: Edmonton’s Racism Debate: Lacks Substance and Misses Point

The City of Edmonton has pulled controversial language from its Anti-Racism Campaign after public complaints over a statement on the the campaign’s website regarding “White Privilege.” For more background on the campaign and public uproar, read “City’s Anti-Racism Campaign Targets ‘White Privilege,'” “Race and Racism — Or Putting the ‘You’ in Yeg,'” “Anti-Racism Website Bizarre, Offensive to ‘Real’ Edmontonians,” Edmonton’s Centre for Race and Culture’s “Letter to the Editor,” or watch Alberta Primetime’s “Alberta’s New Anti-Racism Site” and “Indy Future?” segment.

Although I think the messaging should have been revised, I am disappointed at the lack of public debate on the issue. Not only did the media fail to fully represent the views of proponents, but they framed them to be outsiders, with no understanding of Edmonton or its history. In doing so, real, substantive discussion on what is racism, Edmonton’s unique cultural and racial history, how racism manifests in our city today, and how best to address racism, was prevented from happening.

Instead, we received assertions that Edmonton’s unique history made imported American theories on race inapplicable, with no real substantiation. We can all agree that Peggy McIntosh’s views on race were written with the United States’ racial experience in mind, but that does not prove that they have no relevancy in Edmonton today. In fact, many have applied similar notions as what McIntosh discusses to Canadian society (as well as Edmonton).

Further, limited supporting viewpoints were provided, indicating that Edmontonians as a whole were opposed to these ideas and that those who may subscribe to McIntosh are outsiders just like her. This is a false representation, which denies the diversity of views in our city and attempts to discredit opposing views not on substance, but by who expresses it. I don’t agree with the messaging because of who it targets, how it defines racism, how represents “visible minorities” like myself, and what it implies is the solution — not who is proposing it. The public would have been better served if they received all views on this issue, not the most popular.

However, the biggest problem was that though many were willing to condemn the campaign, few were able to recommend alternative policies. Obviously, many didn’t think it was appropriate, but we didn’t get any public discussion of what the campaign should look like. By failing to do so, we missed the real issue: racism is an issue in Edmonton and we need a strategy to address it.

Policy issues are decided by those who show up. In this particular case, those who showed up had views that differed from the majority of Edmontonians. Hopefully, those who were outraged will take initiatives like developing municipal anti-racism policy seriously and participate in the future.

Continue reading

Straight Outta Edmonton: Review: World’s Greenest Oil – Turning the Oil Sands from Black to Green

For Peter Silverstone, cleaning up the oilsands has nothing to do with mitigating the effects of climate change. Rather, it has to do with mitigating the effects climate change has on oilsands.

In the World’s Greenest Oil: Turning the Oil Sands from Black to Green, Silverstone argues that whether or not you believe in human induced climate change, the world is moving in that direction and subsequent market shifts will significantly influence the attractiveness of the oilsands as an energy source.

Silverstone argues this by outlining various issues related to development and assessing their likely impact on the oilsands’ attractiveness. For example, many claim the shift away from open-pit mining to in-situ SAGD production will improve the industry’s international image, as pictures showing development transforming lush ecosystems into barren wastelands will be replaced by those revealing minimal environment impact.

Open-Pit Mining
In-Situ SAGD Production

However, current in-situ methods (SAGD) will actually make Alberta oil “dirtier,” as the process has a larger carbon impact than open-pit mining (though he notes that VAPEX, COGD, THAI, and other extractions methods may lead to significantly less emissions)

Further, Silverstone investigates the claim made by many Albertan politicians that if restrictive environmental legislation is passed in the United States, we could turn to markets in Asia who desperately need our oil. In reality, the transportation infrastructure required for Alberta to export a significant quantity of oil to Asia is decades away from completion and is facing significant opposition by British Columbians.

Even if built, the province wouldn’t come close to exporting the amount slated to be produced within the decade. There is also uncertainty as to whether countries like China and India would want to make major investments in the oilsands, as they are aggressively pursuing alternative energy sources domestically (China is the world’s biggest investor in renewable energy).

The solution, according to Silverstone, is to make Alberta an attractive energy provider by “greening” the oilsands. Specifically, he proposes to change Alberta’s current royalty framework to include economic incentives for industry to decrease its CO2 emissions. This will motivate companies to pursue extraction methods that are less energy intensive and invest in developing renewable energy sources, which can be used to power the extraction, upgrading, and refining of oilsands.

The World’s Greenest Oil is clearly written for an audience that is not familiar with the Alberta Oilsands and is an effective introduction to the issue. For each point he raises, Silverstone tries to provide the range of perspectives held, as well as an exhaustive list of sources, so readers can get a sense of the various positions and where to look for further information. In doing so, he focuses on simplicity and breadth, rather than detail, summarizing the issue and his argument in under 100 pages. Consequently, for people who already have a decent understanding of the Alberta Oilsands, it might be better to skip to the final chapter, where Silverstone introduces his policy proposal, rather than read the entire book.

However, a major limitation is the book’s narrow focus. At the outset, Silverstone clearly states he’s only interested oilsands development policy from a CO2 emissions standpoint, which he believes is the industry’s biggest threat. This may be true, but by ignoring oilsands industrial pollution, tailings ponds, and other factors, readers fail to recognize how these issues are shaping current debates.

For some reason Silverstone, and most other commentators, think they can omit these importance aspects from their discussions and still provide a comprehensive understanding of the issue. In reality, all these social and environmental issues are linked, significantly impacting how the world views the Alberta Oilsands and our subsequent development policy.

Overall though, the World’s Greenest Oil summarizes contemporary debates well and convincingly shows that Alberta needs to take a more proactive stance to ensure environmental issues that have arisen from oilsands development are adequately dealt with. Not only will this have social benefits, but it will also increase the attractiveness of the oilsands as an energy source — something that must be considered as international opposition to the Alberta Oilsands continues to grow.

World’s Greenest Oil: Turning the Oil Sands from Black to Green is available at Audrey’s Bookstore in Edmonton or online.

Update: Peter Silverstone discussing his book with the Edmonton Journal.

Continue reading

Straight Outta Edmonton: Questions Emerge After Alberta Environment Minister Outlines Tailings Pond Safety

I wrote to Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner two weeks ago inquiring what, if any, plan the Alberta Government had to deal with a tailings breach.

Here’s what Minister Renner wrote back:

Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner on Tailings Breaches in Alberta

The answer is not surprising. In the letter, Renner provides few details to support broad statements such as Alberta tailings ponds are carefully regulated and the province has a strategy that can adequately deal with a tailings breach.

This Pembina Institute document (pages 19-24) and blog post outlines the history of tailings breaches in Alberta, what the consequences of a new tailings breach would be, and the lack of government transparency with respect to provincial regulations governing tailings ponds, pond safety and breach response plans. As the chart below clearly indicates, since much of the regulations, safety assessments, and emergency response plans are kept secret, the Alberta Government and Oilsands Industry are the only one who know how safe the tailings ponds are, who’s at risk if a breach occurs, and how prepared we are to respond to a breach.

In an interview I had with renowned ecologist Dr. David Schindler, he stressed that a breach would have catastrophic consequences, particularly if one occurred during the winter. According to Schindler, a breach in winter would allow the toxins to be submerged under the ice for at least four months before any recovery operation could begin. This is because there is no known way to clean a tailings breach under ice.

Consequently, pollutants would easily disperse, being “in Lake Athabasca in about a week, all the way down the Slave within three to four, probably in much of the Mackenzie after that.” Meaning, not only would a tailings breach effect downstream communities in northern Alberta, but also in the Northwest Territories.

(Tar Island 1 is now Wapisiw Lookout)

This is interesting because in his letter, Minister Renner states:

“Under Alberta’s Water Act, oil sands companies are required to document in an Emergency Preparedness Plan the extent of the area that would be affected if a breach of their tailings structures occurred. Potential downstream effects must be identified, as well as the assigned roles and responsibilities of staff to deal with the breach. Each group downstream, with the potential to be affected by the breach, must have a copy of the Emergency Preparedness Plan.” (6th Paragraph)

If all oilsands companies that operate tailings ponds are mandated to provide each “group” downstream (which I interpret to mean oilsands companies — though I’m not sure since the wording is ambiguous) with a copy of their Emergency Preparedness Plan, how come Albertans as a whole are not allowed similar access? As the Pembina Institute points out, current provincial legislation allows companies to keep these plans private.

Shouldn’t downstream communities be aware of the risk they are placed in and what measures oilsands companies have in case of a breach?

Further, if Dr. Schindler is correct and a tailings breach in winter would allow pollutants to travel rapidly without an opportunity to stop the spread for months, should the Alberta Government not share this information with the Northwest Territories?

In the wake of more ducks landing in Northern Alberta tailings ponds this week, many have called on the province and industry to eradicate wet tailings ponds quicker. Seldom attention is paid to the larger consequences of tailings ponds, as well as the risk they pose to surrounding communities — particularly if a breach occurred.

To me, this is a more compelling reason to phase out wet tailings ponds immediately.

UPDATE: Alex Denonville, a reporter with the Slave River Journal, is reporting that the Alberta Government’s Canadian Dam Association: Dam Safety Guidelines is only available for a $60 fee. Why the steep fee when the document is in the public interest? It should be easily accessible by all.

Continue reading