Federal lab not testing for oilsands chemicals
The Alberta Government does not want to harm their good relationship with the oil companies that have invested so much of their money in the Tar Sands by doing their own water quality tests in the Athabasca River downstream from the massive operation. Instead, the oil companies can be trusted to keep an eye on things.
Or, maybe they just didn't notice it was there?
Downstream from the Tar Sands operation the Feds do have a water quality testing lab, but it has, since it was set up in 1989, only tested for pollutants from pulp and paper operations.
Article > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/07/f-weston-oilsands.html
Quotes:
Environment Canada has operated a water-quality monitoring station in the area of the oilsands since 1989, located on the Athabasca about 150 kilometres downstream.
The station was originally built to monitor the effects of the pulp-and-paper industry on the water quality and ecosystems of the river.
As the oilsands project grew into a sprawling industrial behemoth, environmentalists and aboriginal bands in the area began to complain about possible pollution of the river, and its impact on everything from fish stocks to human cancer rates.
Despite all the growing oilsands controversy over the past two decades, Environment Canada has been monitoring the Athabasca only for pollutants associated with the pulp-and-paper industry.
Officials who helped prepare the environment commissioner's savage report, speaking on condition of anonymity, admitted Tuesday they had no explanation for the government's lack of testing for possible deadly chemical runoff from the oilsands.
One official told CBC News: "They have been monitoring for certain metals from pulp-and-paper production ... but let's face it, everyone in the world is concerned about the oilsands."
Finally, in 2009, Environment Canada conducted a study of water quality in the area and concluded that it might be useful to start testing for pollutants associated with the oilsands.
But nothing changed.
Three months ago, researchers at the University of Alberta concluded the oilsands are indeed polluting the Athabasca with mercury, arsenic, lead and 10 other potentially deadly elements.
The report contradicted claims by the Alberta government and oil companies that any chemicals in the river occur naturally.
The federal government has been abandoning its responsibilities by deferring to the Alberta government for years. No-one can claim that chemicals occur naturally without effective upstream and downstream monitoring, regardless of who does it.
Water quality is supposed to be a federal matter, partly because of the nature of water in that it flows from one juristiction to another, and ultimately to the oceans. So ya, the Feds have abandoned their responsibilities.
As for Alberta, I heard a spokesman say something along the lines of "not wanting to harm our relationship with the corporations" [by doing the testing, so they just let the oil companies do the water testing]
Fortunatly, Dr. Schindler [of the University of Alberta] has done such testing, both upstream and downstream of the Tar Sands site, and his results show clearly that there are toxins below the Tar Sands operations that do not exist above the Tar Sands operations.
Those toxins are related to the types of cancers that the Ft. Chip population are seeing in their community.
Dr. Schindler's results are not being recognised by either the Alberta or federal government.
if this isn't proof that we don't live in a democracy i don't know what is.
Recently read: the momentous news that none other than the new Minister for the Environment, John Baird announced that he will get right onto this, and have reassurig news about intensive inspections of Tar Patch operations underway for us all early in the new year.
Which brings up the news bit from Green Communities Canada this week about the apparent (?) differences between British and Canadian Conservatism:
"MYSTERY SPEAKER. Who said: "The problem of global climate change affects us all ... we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international cooperative effort"? Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, addressing the UN, 1989. And who said: "I want us to be the greenest government ever"? Current UK PM David Cameron, 14 May 2010, also a Conservative. Meanwhile, back in Canada..."
Is there really still an element of the old landed gentry still at work in British Conservative circles that is more protective of the environment?
George Monbiot would laugh uproariously at the idea, one would think. But isn't the new (not "Progressive") conservatism here, straight out of our American-dominated West, as voraciously neo-liberal as the GC piece suggests?