Deformed fish in Alberta

Oilsands and Experimental Lakes Area stories...together at last!

So the former director of the ELA wants his playground back, along with money,
to investigate oil and fish in Ontario.

While the sands are in Alberta.


I don't see an agenda here.






Nature imitating art ?

The thing is that Harper isn't going to get his pipeline anywhere as long as the public perception of his government as environmental laggards continues. Closing research facilities like the ELA is one of the reasons that perception continues.

Just because it's a big issue for you, doesn't make it a big issue for the majority of Canadians.

Just because it's a big issue for you, doesn't make it a big issue for the majority of Canadians.

It's not a big issue for most Canadians because they don't understand the magnitude of the decision. Just like they don't understand exactly what is lost by not having a mandatory long form Census.

A few years back we had a similar event in California where frogs were found that were deformed and the usual 'experts' trotted out their conclusions that global warming and pollution were absolutely to blame.

And then an actual scientist did some actual research and found out that the culprit was a parasite that infected tadpoles and altered the process that changes them from a tadpole to a frog (the exact word escapes me at the moment).

State Fish & Game sprayed the areas affected for the parasite and the issue ended.

My guess here is that it may well be the same thing: a parasite.

But don't anyone let that stop them from jumping to conclusions about how this is a portent of the End Times. Oh, no. It's much more fun to sit back and watch the doomsayers issue their prophecies.

(Metamorphosis?)

And that's exactly what Canada and the World is losing with the Experimental Lakes area. They test the long term effects of chemicals in the environment such as the chemical cocktail found in the Athabasca, and see if it really does cause mutations in fish. Or they can determine if the source is natural or not, or if it's genetic or not.

Without a pristine 'lab' to test things in, we only can guess at the causes of symptoms. And guesses lead to bad science.

Sometimes you say the stupidest things

(Metamorphosis?)

Thank you!



The problem I see with the ELA is it's not really a controlled environment. The result then that they could test a chemical while simultaneously a passing bird drops a parasite into the environment and the symptoms of the parasite could be blamed on the chemical.

I'm not sure how you'd truly replicate an environment in a controlled situation but unless they're willng to do that then their results are always going to be suspect.

The problem I see with the ELA is it's not really a controlled environment. The result then that they could test a chemical while simultaneously a passing bird drops a parasite into the environment and the symptoms of the parasite could be blamed on the chemical.

I'm not sure how you'd truly replicate an environment in a controlled situation but unless they're willng to do that then their results are always going to be suspect.

It's as controlled as can be, and still be 'natural'. It's pretty tough in this day and age to find an area of fresh water and an entire dependent ecosystem that is untouched by human pollution. That's what make it so good for dumping a controlled amount of chemical 'X' and observing it's effects over decades. Unless we do that, we'll never know if fish deformities like these are caused by natural or man derived processes.

Without the Lake Area to test with, we'll never know 'safe' levels of compounds in waters that let us derive legislation for pollution content. We'll never know actual cause and effect of pollution. Everything will just be guessing, and we may end up doing more harm than good.

Sometimes you say the stupidest things





Any of it not true, or are you just embarrassed that is got caught out so quick ?

Tell you what; I'll state.. spilling oil into the environment is bad.

There, all the research you need.

Happy now ?

You're probably right, but having the former director writing around inventing new
projects to get things reopened after they have been closed is... you know.

Here's what's not true:
1) Referring to a world renowned research facility as merely the "playground" of one person (a person who hasn't worked there in almost a quarter century!)
2) Completely inventing the notion that the scientist, himself world renowned, somehow has some personal financial motive (again - hasn't worked at ELA since 1989)
3) Falsely implying that nothing can be learned about Alberta fish from research in Ontario. Did we not already mention that scientists from all over the world have for decades come to do research at ELA?

I agree, Bart. People, including scientists, are always too quick to blame pollution. Parasites are often the culrpit. Sometimes there's just natural background levels of contaminants that were here long before the industrial age that affect fish. You can't jump to conclusions.

This is an issue in the oil sands. The natural level of hydrocarbons, metals and host of other suspects are very high there. Why? Well, because they're the oil sands; they contain all these things in the geology of the area.

But, then I'd say that's the importance of science to find out what's going on. With no science, then it's all speculation.

I had a scientist buddy testing the toxic effects of selenium on fish. He had a control population (not exposed) and a test population (subject to selenium). He ran his tests, but both sets showed signs of deformities (dual spines, fins on their heads, etc). It turns out that the soil in the area is naturally high in selenium. He was feeding the fish worms that had done nothing but eat high-selenium soil. Still, if we hadn't run those tests, we might not have known that.