Athabasca River - no contamination
 

Interesting output from a state of the art lab at the University of Alberta.

http://edmontonjournal.com/technolog...normal-studies

Levels of toxic metals found in Athabasca River is normal: University of Alberta studies
Contrary to previous research, the section of the Athabasca River that runs near Fort McMurray’s oilsands operations does not contain higher-than-usual amounts of toxic metals, say three University of Alberta studies.

Two of the studies were conducted by soil and water researcher William Shotyk at the university’s SWAMP (Soils, Waters, Air, Manures and Plants) lab.

The lab, designed by Shotyk, is “ultra-clean,” made of plastic and filters out any particles in the air inside the cabinet where samples are measured. The lab’s design means researchers can take more accurate measurements of samples with extremely low levels of metal than in previous research.

Using samples from a 125-km stretch of the Athabasca River, Shotyk’s first study tested the river for traces of silver, cadmium, lead, antimony and thallium.

Shotyk compared water samples taken upstream and downstream of oilsands tailings ponds and upgraders in Fort McMurray. He found the samples were not measurably different and did not find significant contamination from the metals.

Shotyk’s second study measured dissolved and particulate lead in snowmelt collected from peat bogs near open-pit mines and upgraders to see if they contribute to pollution of the river.

The study found between two and three parts per trillion of lead dissolved in the meltwater.

“The cleanest ice in the Canadian Arctic, thousands of years old, contains five parts per trillion,” said Shotyk in a release. “So snowmelt in northern Alberta contains really, really low lead levels.”

The studies were conducted because of ongoing concern about the impact of oilsands operations on the water quality in the Athabasca River, said Shotyk.

Shotyk’s first study, Trace Metals in the Dissolved Fraction (b0.45 μm) of the Lower Athabasca River, was published in Science of the Total Environment. His second, Size-Resolved Pb Distribution in the Athabasca River, is published in Scientific Reports.

A third study from the U of A, conducted by graduate student Mark Donner, also found low levels of contaminants. Samples taken upstream and downstream of industry operations showed low levels of arsenic and did not differ significantly.

Donner’s study, Arsenic Speciation in the Lower Athabasca Watershed, was published in Environmental Pollution.

I feel we won't hear much about this report other than what we just read.

Good news!

Thanks! That is really good news. So a person can eat more than one fish a month now....

I'm trying to figure out how this can be such a huge turnaround in a few short years!!:thinking-006:
Cat

Not sure on the eye roll so I will just say that Bill has work that is more than a few years old on this that says the same thing. Not everyone wants to hear this. Bill's lab is very new and is state of the art for NA so the research output follows.

Here is a link to his lab. There are a couple of links to other articles on research on atmospheric lead contamination around the oil sands.

https://swamp.ualberta.ca/

This was the same university that not too long ago stated that there were all kinds of toxins in the water.
Which study is wrong?
Of course heavy metals are only one type of contanement .....
Cat

Uhhh maybe because metals aren't the only contaminants... Obviously it's a good thing that there aren't extremely high levels of heavy metals in the river, however that doesn't leave this place 100% natural. Looks like organic compounds (aka carbon-based) were not taken into account (from me skimming what was posted) since it highlighted a handful of metals. There are other byproducts that's are detrimental that are organically derived. Oh and very fine suspended clay as well is detrimental that is being leaked into the river system.
This is good to hear, but it doesn't mean there's nothing that's happening.

Niether. Contaminants can range from heavy metals to polymers to sediment to algal blooms. All of these can be toxic on different ways :(

Wasn't there a spill in the river a couple of years ago?



http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Billi...180/story.html

Actually there are two researchers with opposing points of view. Research papers are considered independent from the University . Follow the money on who funds the research and then what type of lab they have.

One researcher says the moss around the plants is free from heavy metals. The other researcher says he finds it in the snow cap on top of the moss. How is it in the snow yet not on or in the moss?

I would suggest that if you want to take a tour, see the lab and speak to Bill he is very approachable.

The also has placed a number of people in positions that are guiding the current government. All types of views can and do come out of a University. :)

I have become quite cynical in my old age after being on this river and working
In the tarsands for over 40 years.
I tend to view studies the same as I do polls
Cat

As someone else mentioned - the contaminants that were tested for represent a handful of the thousands of toxins or contaminants that could have been measured - so, to me, it's a small snip-it of good news, but in no way necessarily representative of the whole picture.

All this discussion about the supposed contamination from the oil sands but not a word mentioning the dozen or so lumber and pulp mills on the edge of river, I guess we're just not worried about those...

For anyone who might be interested in the research. Here is the link to the original journal paper.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...69749116310545

Will Ft. McKay and Ft. Chip now drop their demands for more money because their legal and environmental consultants have told them that the oilsands companies are making their river water unusable!!!!

Doesn't fit the narrative. We have been told we need to rely on gov't / union supplied electricity only, as the only energy source.

But really, don't pulp and paper mills produce some pretty nasty by-products?

Don't count on it.

But what about all them stories of being able to go down to the river to drink a cup of water as a child and now you can't? LOL

The final tailings pond at the Alpac mill has been stocked with rainbow trout from day 1. Some of them are monsters, available to employees by angling in summer or through the ice in the winter. Apparently their studies indicated that trout are the fish most susceptible to death, if the mill effluent prior to going back to the Athabasca, contains contaminants. I do not know what the mills upstream have in place.

I am more concerned with Dioxins from the pulp mills. Huge issue but dead silent in Alberta.

or this?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1319819/

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22346.long

Studies get proved false all the time due to poor methodology. That is why studies have a detailed methodology section so that other researchers can follow the same path and see if the same conclusion occurs. Likewise they can spot flaws that changes the conclusions.

Science is a series of growth steps. Usually two steps forward and one step back. Rarely magic bullets.