Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 1, 2014
Mounting Evidence that Tar Sands Activity is Causing Health Problems
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer from California has connected the dots and is pointing to growing evidence that communities living near tar sands mining and drilling operations, pipelines, and refineries are showing serious health risks and problems. An issue brief published by NRDC, Tar Sands Crude Oil: Health Effects of a Dirty and Destructive Fuel, profiles some of the latest evidence including scientific research that tar sands activity is causing increasing levels of air and water pollution that are then linked to health problems including cancer. Tar sands development affects communities across North America and includes a network of mining, drilling, and upgrading operations, pipelines and refineries. This network spans from northern Canada to refineries in California, the Gulf Coast, and the Midwest. The science is mounting but state, provincial, and federal governments have done too little to protect public health. This scientific evidence was not considered by the State Department’s environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. This mounting evidence shows there are considerable risks with expanding the tar sands industry.
NRDC’s new issue brief reviews the latest scientific literature on this important issue.
Air pollution from tar sands operations in Alberta
Studies by the National Academy of Sciences have noted that expanding tar sands activities have increased air pollution near Fort McMurray (the epicenter of tar sands development) and just outside Edmonton, Alberta. The most recent 2014 study looked at polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are chemicals known to damage DNA, are carcinogens, or cause developmental impacts. This study found that environmental impact studies drafted by the tar sands industry have systemically underestimated levels of this pollution. A 2013 study noted elevated level of hazardous air pollutants coming from upgrading facilities north of Edmonton noting elevated rates of leukemia and other cancers in areas surrounding these operations north of Edmonton.
Water pollution from tar sands operations
Researchers have confirmed the presence of elevated levels of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which can be traced directly to expansion of tar sands production. Some waters in Alberta exceed Canadian standards for chemicals linked to cancer, genetic damage, birth defects, and organ damage. Scientists have also found that tar sands development is leading to increasing amount of methylmecurcry in Alberta’s waterways including an exponential increase within 30 miles of tar sands upgraders. Methylmercury is a potential neurotoxin causing development and behavioral problems.
Tailings ponds which now cover an area the sized of Washington DC contain multiple toxic chemicals including arsenic, benzene, lead, mercury, naphthenic acid, and ammonia. As much as 2.9 million gallons of toxic tailings leak into the environment every day. A 2014 study showed that extreme concentrations of PAHs present in tailings may be evaporating into the air and then deposited into water. New federal research by Environment Canada released in February 2014 confirms that leaking tailings ponds are leaching into groundwater and then into the Athabasca River.
Rising cancer rates in First Nations communities
Scientists have confirmed increased incidences of cancer in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. There, scientists have noted an increased cancer rate from 1995 to 2009 – 30 percent higher than would be typically expected. Dr. John O’Conner, an Alberta physician, has for years called for further investigation of cancer incidences. To date, there has not been an independent study of these cancers despite repeated called by First Nations. Dr. O’Conner was invited by Senator Boxer to speak in Washington to share his observations.]
Tar sands pipeline spills
Large quantities of tar sands were spilled from leaking pipelines into two communities in Marshall, Michigan in 2010 and Mayflower Arkansas in 2013. After the spill in Michigan, 320 people suffered adverse health effects including cardiovascular, dermal, gastrointestinal, neurologic, ocular, renal and respiratory impacts according to the Michigan Department of Public Health. In Arkansas, air monitoring showed significantly increased levels of benzene. Raw tar sands is mixed with diluting agents to move the substance through pipelines. The specific content of diluting agents are unknown as they are proprietary but most formulations include natural gas liquid condensate containing volatile hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene. So far, the federal government in both Canada and the U.S. has failed to study or adopt regulations to deal with the chemical export of the unique tar sands mixture flowing through pipelines and has not commissioned any studies regarding the long-term human impacts of spills.
Tar sands refinery emissions
Chemicals in tar sands may be released as air pollutants during the refining process. Diluted tar sands contain 102 times more copper, 11 times more nickel and 5 time more lead than conventional crude oil. Diluted bitumen from tar sands has notably higher levels of certain sulfur compounds called mercaptans that are highly volatile and linked to central nervous system problems. Diluted bitumen also contains higher levels of naphthenic acids which can significantly increase the corrosive properties of crude oil at high temperatures during the refining process. Low quality crudes like tar sands have been identified as a contributing factor in a major refinery accidents like the one at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California which sent 15,000 residents to area hospitals and endangered the lives of 19 workers.
Petroleum Coke impacts – a byproduct from tar sands refining
The refining of tar sands creates a by-product called petroleum coke which contains relatively high concentrations of metals including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, selenium, and nickel which people are exposed to when they breathe dust blown from piles of petroleum coke. This metal-laden dust can contaminate nearby homes and yards where it can accumulate. The dust is composed of particulate matter, which is recognized by the U.S. EPA to contribute to a number of negative health effects. Many of the metals in petroleum coke piles are carcinogens and linked to other health problems.
Health Concerns Deserve More Attention
Federal, state, provincial, agencies should evaluate all of the potential impacts of tar sand crude. In Canada, governments should conduct independent investigations into the health impacts on locally affected communities particularly Fort McMurray, Fort Chipewyan, and Edmonton, Alberta. New proposals for tar sands operations and infrastructure including pipelines and refineries must consider human health impacts especially as the tar sands industry seeks to triple production. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline did not adequately consider these issues. Until there is a better understanding of how these projects will cumulatively impact human health, efforts to expand the tar sand industry should stop. This means rejecting the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
12 Comments on "Mounting Evidence that Tar Sands Activity is Causing Health Problems"
bobinget on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 5:09 pm
Hazelwood mine fire: health risks and public health response options
The Hazelwood coal mine fire that has been burning in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley since February 9 is raising major public health issues for those living in and near the town of Morwell.
In the post below, Fay Johnston and Guy Marks from the Centre for Air quality and health Research and Evaluation* consider the health risks for the people of Morwell and the public health response options, including a targeted evacuation of more vulnerable residents.
***
Fay Johnston and Guy Marks write:
We might have survived the summer heatwaves and bushfires around the country but in the Latrobe Valley the environmental health hazards are far from over.
The main problem is the burning Hazelwood open-cut coal mine, which was originally ignited by a grass fire. The mine is located immediately adjacent to the town of Morwell and it is emitting plumes of smoke with high concentrations of particulate matter and, at times, carbon monoxide. A series of health advisories have been issued including a ‘watch and act’ warning from the Country Fire Authority (CFA) on the afternoon of 15 February advising residents to ‘shelter indoors’ because of elevated carbon monoxide readings.
*******************************************************Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.
*******************************************************
Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO21. A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year2.
Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates.
Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.
Other harmful pollutants emitted annually from a typical, uncontrolled coal plant include approximately:
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent3.
720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
1 EIA Data
2 Typical plant assumptions: Capacity=600 MW; Capacity Factor=69%; Heat Rate=10,415; CO2 Emissions Rate=206 pounds of CO2/Million Btu
3 Nescaum. “Control Technologies to Reduce Conventional and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants.” March 31, 2011.
*******************************************************
How Air Pollution Threatens Our Health
In the United States, more than 40 percent of people live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution. Pollution from coal-fired power plants leads to smog (or ozone), a toxic compound and a dangerous irritant. Doctors liken inhaling smog to getting a sunburn on your lungs. It can cause chest pain, coughing, and breathing difficulties. It triggers asthma attacks, and it can lead to irreversible lung damage or even death. Smog exacerbates conditions like bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma—sometimes fatally.
Children are at the greatest health risk from air pollution because they are more likely to be active outdoors and their lungs are still developing. Asthma strikes nearly 1 out of every 10 school children in the United States and is the number-one health issue that causes kids to miss school. On “bad-air days” or “air alert days,” particularly during the warmer summer months, kids with asthma are forced to stay indoors to avoid aggravating their condition.
Meanwhile, soot pollution—a by-product from burning fossil fuels that results in small particles in the air composed of a mixture of metals, chemicals, and acid droplets—is one of the deadliest and most dangerous air pollutants. The smallest soot particles are less than one-thirtieth the width of a human hair. Because of their minuscule size, this fine particulate matter can travel deep into our lungs and even enter the bloodstream. Exposure to soot pollution is extremely dangerous and is linked to premature death, heart attacks, lung damage, and a variety of other significant health problems. Stronger soot standards could avoid up to 35,700 premature deaths, 23,290 visits to the emergency room, and 2.7 million days of missed work or school due to air pollution-caused ailments every year.
Continuing to allow high levels of coal pollution in our air could result in more than $100 billion in annual health costs.
J-Gav on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:06 pm
Can anyone really be surprised by this news?
bobinget on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:06 pm
We could annex Canada’s Western Provinces, there by lessing tensions resulting from IMPORTED nasty oil.
If “tar sands” were domestic, problem solved. XOM, Suncor simply hire coal lobbyists who make correct payments to state lawmakers of “New Canada”.
This annexation is of vital importance to US security as Climate Change’s forced ‘Northern Migration’ takes effect in coming months. Not only will Calgary’s oil and gas will become domestic but BC has fresh water up the yazoo. Washington, Oregon, most of all California economies, populations, jobs will prosper under Exxon’s leadership.
If a few Canadians are uncomfortable living under Exxon/Suncor they are more then welcome to simply pick up and move East. Oh and take that Communist
Health Care with you, America private Health Insurance
for all now.
Dave Thompson on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:23 pm
As the supply of conventional crude diminish expect this catastrophe to continue unabated.
dissident on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:38 pm
No, no, no. We were assured that there would not be any health effects by the industry and their government backers. So this cannot be true. //sarc
eugene on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:45 pm
As I get in my half ton 4×4 to get a bottle of booze, I bear absolutely no responsibility for the ever deepening energy situation nor for problems of any kind that may be associated with developing ever more difficult energy supplies.
No doubt about it, I am a true first world citizen. I have learned to blame others for my problems, leave all solution development to “somebody” and press merrily on with my lifestyle.
sunweb on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 7:41 pm
bobinget
Hazelwood mine fire: health risks and public health response options
bobinget – not sure what your point was. Yes, coal is bad for our environment and our health.
And so are tar sands. Is it a contest?
DC on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 9:41 pm
Bob, you dont have to worry about Canadians living under a Suncor\Exxon govt, they already DO, now. Check out the regime in Ottawa. ‘Alberta’s’ energy reserves are a de-facto uS domestic supply, now, today.In fact, Alberta is basically, US occupied territory now.A formal invasion\annexation would just just change the paperwork slightly.
@@
bobinget on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 11:31 pm
Sunweb: If a contest were offered to measure worldwide pollution from as you might say, ‘tar sands’ up against not just killer coal but ultra deep water ocean drilling, or poorly regulated hydraulic
fracturing (fracing), or fish killing dams, or bird killing
wind machines, or escaped methane during capture process, or demonstrably expensive and dangerous nuclear plants. One either throws up in frustration or
picks a mix of the least undesirable methods of moving goods and people, manufacturing, growing
foods, keeping warm, lighting etc.
What pisses me off ? We are getting 70% of our energy from a fossil fuel that is killing hundreds of thousands
of not fish or birds but people, with it’s solid and gaseous waste products and this is not a major scandal. Coal ash alone has polluted EVERY fresh water
river and creek in America..
When a member of the US Congress comes out against
a single evil, (oil or tar sands) that is currently
instrumental in filling a huge void in US petroleum
supplies, we are more then willingly buying this product at huge discounts to Brent while Eastern Canada imports Arab oil at substantially higher prices, I might add. Politicians only issue such statements
to pacify a base of support. The facts are clear.
The US coal mining industry is getting away with hot murder BECAUSE it is domestic. We have no oil sands in the US of the quality of Canada’s or Venezuela’s.
When importing heavy oil from Venezuela do we question it’s source? When Berry Petroleum uses similar methods, (in situ), in California, should we deny
freeway access to any SUV gobbling up domestic gasoline? Sure. But California is the only state that by law is not importing electric power generated by burning coal. When we get more proactive laws like that or even mild carbon trading rules, then, we can talk about shipping oil sands product to China or India and replacing 1.5 million barrels a day with oil from Saudi Arabia, (if they sell us).
sunweb on Sun, 2nd Mar 2014 12:24 am
bobinget – I agree that they are all harmful. That barring more fukishimas that coal is the more immediate bad guy. But and this is the important point to me. They all will come home to roost. It is the timing for the harm that each will do. It is not a lightning strike but just like coal slow but sure.
It is not throwing up your hands as much as realizing we are quickly painting ourselves into a toxic corner – globally.
It is owning the responsibility. That simple. Most of us compartmentalize the eventuality that sees to be unfolding with the convergence of so many issues/actions (population, climate, air pollution, water pollution, reef dying, acidification of the ocean, fisheries depletion, soil death, species extinctions, etc.) that are necessary certainly for industrial civilization and perhaps continuity of the species.
rollin on Sun, 2nd Mar 2014 1:42 am
I am really glad that some truth is leaking past the suppression by PTB. Those people downstream of that great wound in the planet really do not deserve this. They deserve all the help that can be given.
Cancer is such a nasty disease. Most “cures” often just prolong the agony, wrecking the victim and destroying or eroding the families involved.
DMyers on Sun, 2nd Mar 2014 4:46 am
Methylmercury, arsenic, benzene, lead, mercury, naphthenic acid, and ammonia,
toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene
mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, selenium, and nickel [all mentioned in the article as tar sand or tar sand operations related byproducts]
It’s been forty years since I minored in chemistry, but I retain a sense of the properties of certain elements and chemical compounds. So, even now, reading through the above list, ingesting these things in my imagination, I experience very unpleasant sphincter spasms, high frequency gonad vibrations, and fingernails scratching down the blackboard of my spinal cord. We could even take this list, as is, and plug it in as the definition of “anti- life”, or, in the alternative, “painful death.”
I suppose it’s just an experiment anyway, kind of like that other experiment we’ve been working on for some time: “Determining the Environmental, Economic, and Political Consequences of Burning Half a Ten Million Year Store of Petroleum in One Hundred Years.”
So, join in and find out. Burn a little of that nasty oil condensate, just to see how your engine holds up. No guarantees. Breathe deeply while you’re at it and note any unusual sensations in the throat, stomach, and around the eyes. Tell your doctor if you notice external tumors, loss of sight or hearing, or have any symptom which appears in the “warning signs of cancer” pamphlet.
Eventually, the experiment will lead us to the truth about desperate attempts to obtain low- yield combustible. It won’t be a truth that sets us free, but rather a truth that lets us see.
It was a Faustian Bargain, after all.