Contaminated River caused by Oil Sand Mines

By: Jacquelyn Saturno

One of the main focuses of research is getting right to the source and filling in the answers to all our questions. By obtaining this information directly the speculation to whether or not the resource has some exaggerated statements are very minimal; this research being the primary source. That being said, reading up on articles, journals, reports would be our first step; these being secondary sources. Articles contain our topic of interest with facts and studies from the primary source to make it true. The two sources, primary and secondary, are important aspects when doing thorough research.


For this blog I have chosen the article entitled, "Environment Minister to look into oil sand pollution monitoring", September 19, 2010. This article describes the environmental issue regarding the pollution in the Athabasca River, tainted by neighbouring oil and mine companies. Fish deformities and cancer victims have increased over the years due to the compound known as polycyclic aromatic compound, which is found in oil sand. The increase concentration of dissolved polycyclic aromatic compound is more likely poisonous to fish embryos. This article is referring to how the government is getting involved with monitoring the water quality and the controversy on whether or not the neighbouring oil sand mining companies are truly responsible. This article is based off of the study "Oil sands development contributes polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca River and its tributaries" written by David W. Schindler, Eric N. Kelly and few more staff members from the Department of Biological Science at the University of Alberta. This study was published online before print by PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) on December 7, 2009. Keep in mind; this is the study determining the effects of the oil sand development on the Athabasca River. It is research written and evaluated by scientists and contains an immense amount of information.


On the other hand, the article is the resource that brings up issues to inform the public about current affairs. The focus of the article is different from the focus of the report by David Schindler and his colleagues. This news article was wrapped around the topic about the controversy about the truths behind the severity of the contamination. RAMP (Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program) denied any claims that the conditions of the water was getting worse. Also, as stated at the title, the environment minister will be reviewing the RAMP program. Although, some of this information is mentioned in the primary source, it remains irrelevant to the main focus of the primary source. The primary source is the research that the scientists of the University of Alberta worked on and the results that they obtained from their experiments. They discuss the different locations, Althabasca River, its tributaries, the Athabasca Delta, and the Lake Athabasca that they took samples from and tested for polycyclic aromatic compounds. They mentioned the type of methods and forms of technology that were used to give a detailed described to support their results. The article doesn't get into that sort of detail, the focus remained political.



The strengths and limitations of both sources are linked to the detail of information, depending on what the reader is looking for. The primary source hasn't been written to gain public attention but mainly as a new discovery for other scientists, politicians, etc. Its audience is limited in that way. It is structured in an overwhelming format with all of their detailed research displayed in a way that most people would have a difficult time understanding. On the other hand, the fact that the report is detailed gives the reader more information after they have read the article. The secondary report informs the reader, but the primary report gives a thorough background and fills in the holes. The picture on the right is one of the pictures found in the primary report. It gives a thorough idea about the locations the scientists visited and where polycyclic aromatic compounds have been located. This picture wouldn't be found in the secondary report because the image requires a lot of detailed information from the research to grasp the purpose behind it.

Despite lacking an immense amount of detailed research, articles or other secondary sources are not put at a disadvantage. The focus of articles is to gain the interest of its readers and inform them, like I stated before. Not too many people would show much interest in reading up on scientific research and learn about these scientists' studies. Not until this new research is put into effect to solve, in this case, environmental issues. The research from the primary source is used to back up arguments mentioned in this article. The reader will get the gist of the research in order to be able to follow with the argument in the article.

In conclusion, although both sources are significantly different in terms of description and detail, the secondary source used the primary source very well and didn't leave out any important details. The primary source was very informative and gave a great amount of important facts that David Schindler and his colleagues gathered together. The article remained dedicated to the story but still used information from the research when appropriate.

References

Dearing, Stephanie. "Environment Minister to look into oil sand pollution monitoring." www.digitaljournal.com/article/297792 Sept. 19, 2010

Schindler, David., et al. "Oil sands development contributes polycyclic aromatic compounds to the Athabasca River and its tributaries" www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0912050106.full.pdf+html Dec. 7, 2009