Mortality Rate Of Birds In Tailing Ponds

By Lisa Jones

In comparing the secondary source to its primary source it was apparent that secondary sources are more generalized compared to original reports. The Globe and Mail had stated that Kevin Timoney had expressed that the median figure of bird mortality in tailing ponds was close to 2,000 this in fact was a rounded number in which the news article had calculated. The news article was able to come to this conclusion because the study conducted by Timoney had stated that the mortality rate is approximately between the ranges of 458 to 5,029 birds. Through calculating the median of estimated mortality rates the news article statement that “birds are more likely dying in oil sands tailings pond at least 30 times the rate suggested by industry and government,”(Globe and Mail) this value does not take into consideration the lower range which was given in the original information. When evaluating the lowest extreme of the range of estimated bird deaths, it is at least seven times the rate suggested by industry and government. The two articles were similar when stating quantitative material that was not given in a range both sources had stated that industry had reported that sixty-five birds die each year because of the oil sands. The claim in the study was stronger because it includes sources of error that would alter the number of bird deaths. By including sources of errors it is assumed there is a greater rate of mortality of birds because of times during the day or different season when it is difficult to observe birds. Actions were also reported that included government monitoring by independent scientist to allow for more accurate data which will be vital in the conservation of birds. The news article claim was general it allowed for the public to be aware of issues in northern Alberta. The article however does give a bit of insight on how the government reacted to the given study.

A limitation that the primary document presented was the amount of detailed information. The information presented in the study was in a format that is intended for other scholars and government officials to review and make appropriate decisions on the problem presented in this case the mortality rate of birds in tailing ponds. The overload of information makes it hard for the general public to concentrate on all the information presented to them at once.

News articles are limited by their audience. The author was unable to express the same amount of depth as in the original study because he was delivering information to the general public. The job of a newspaper reporter is to convey their topics message without over whelming its readers. In order to make the study more simplistic numbers and information is lost. The Information that was lost was the names of the companies involved in the original estimate, sources of errors in the estimation of bird mortality maybe resulting in a higher amount of deaths. Suggestions on how to decrease the mortality rates of birds were also not included. Without these facts people are unable to come to a clear conclusion on the topic.

The picture above shows the area in which Timoney had conducted his study upon. This was one of the concerns he raised in his study that the industry and government did not release information on where they had conducted their studies. Being unaware of the locations being monitored means that the public does not know how many sites are being effectively monitored. This is information was not included in the news article if it was it may clarify why industry monitoring is not as effective as government monitoring.

The study and article both had their merits and weaknesses. They both made it possible for the public to be aware of issues that faced the avian population in northern Alberta. In giving a public notice about the effects of tailing ponds on bird’s health allows society to act accordingly to their position. But the amount of detail differed, the newspaper article created a gateway for people that allowed them to research more on the avian population. The study allowed for people to see the bigger picture regarding birds through data and observations conducted by Kevin Timoney. Using a primary and secondary source together filled in the gaps and made clear of the issues that are present to birds in the oil sands.

References:
Secondary source:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/birds-dying-from-oil-sands-byproduct-30-times-more-than-estimated-study/article1698176/
Primary source:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1676/09-181.1