CBC - 60-Site Study Shows PACs Downstream From Tar Sands - Toxic In Parts Per Trillion

[hatrack]

A study of water quality at 60 sites along the Athabasca River and its tributaries makes it clear the oilsands have added cancer-causing toxins to the environment, a scientist at the University of Alberta says.

The highest levels of polycyclic aromatic compounds , which are known to contain carcinogens, were found within 50 kilometres of two major oilsands upgraders, David Schindler said Monday. "We wanted to test the hypothesis that all of this is coming from natural sources, which is what we hear from industry all the time," Schindler said of the study conducted in the winter and summer of 2008.

"We found PACs in parts per trillion, but they are toxic at parts per trillion." At those levels, fish eggs and embryos can be damaged, which could explain the abnormalities reported by fishermen downstream, he said.

Schindler said it was no surprise that industry had an impact on the river water, but was surprised at the amount of airborne pollution. "It was quite a big cloud — we could track it chemically out to around 50 kilometres from the sources," he said. "We think, just based on the signature, that it's in part dust blowing off the surfaces of these big, expanses of mines. "I hate to speculate about the consequences for humans downstream, but it's not as though industry isn't putting these things in the river, they clearly are."

EDIT

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/12/07/edmonton-schindler-oil-sands-toxin.html

[NobleCynic]

1. Toxic at parts per trillion?

I wasn't aware anything could be toxic at such a low concentration. If true, yikes. If not, hyperbole is dangerous cause it makes people doubt the threat tar sand developments pose to the environment.

I thought the EPA set standards in water at +/- 0.2 parts per billion for PAC's. But that is a maximum allowable, and the EPA has been known to set higher maximums than is suggestible.

[CHIMO]

2. Checked The Paper

Nowhere in the published article does in mention parts per trillion.

Another newspaper item has an industry spokesperson stating that these parts per trillion were ok.

Oil sands emissions polluting waterways, study finds
Preston McEachern, a spokesman on the oil sands for Alberta's Ministry of Environment, said bitumen extraction is done in the areas with the highest amounts of petrochemicals in the ground, which in turn explains high levels detected in nearby rivers. He said the concentrations detected, in the parts per trillion, weren't high enough to be a concern.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-sands-pollution-much-higher-than-official-estimates-study/article1391749/actions.jsp

The paper can be downloaded from here.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0912050106.full.pdf+html

After reading through the article all I can find are concentrations expressed as micro gm/L. Which would make the values as parts per million (m/m)
Perhaps someone is getting things mixed up and additionally missing their units in explanations? ie 6 ppm (m/m)

Or ppm (m/m)

The CBC news item has parts per trillion in quotes so on the one hand Schindler is saying that they are toxic at these levels and the government saying they are OK.

[NobleCynic]

5. Normally i don't like siding with industry

but parts per trillion did seem a little crazy. The article expresses concentrations in ppm, I'm just glad that we haven't unleashed something that truly toxic.

I wonder if there is significant concentration upward through the food chain or if Schindler is crying wolf on this.

[tom_paine]

3. Exxon says PACs are good for you. Tasty and nutritious and they make our coats all shiny.

[pscot]

4. We certainly are thorough

We're going to contaminate every square inch of this place before we take ourselves out. We poison the earth and everything in it. If the race survives, science is likely to become a cultural taboo that will prevail for millenia.