Canada’s Dark Secret

Canada continues to mine asbestos and export the fibers to this day, in spite of many health concerns.

by

Eric Stevenson

Asbestos was a highly used and valuable mineral; now most countries consider it to be anything but that. It first mined in the great white north in the 1870’s and continued on to help cities thrive off the resource into the next century. Miners started to contract terminal illnesses such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis in the 1900’s after developing an initial shortness of breath on the mining sites.

The exposure to asbestos has since been revealed as the main cause for some of these diseases. The asbestos exposure affects a thin lining of the lungs, chest, abdomen, and heart. Perhaps the worst part about this type of exposure is the fact that mesothelioma symptoms lay dormant in a latency period that can sometimes last up to 50 years.

Diagnosis often comes late in life, with such a long latency period. The mesothelioma life expectancy is an average of between eight to 14 months following diagnosis.

Canada continues to mine asbestos and export the fibers to this day, in spite of many health concerns. The country tried to mend its image in the 1980’s and save the industry when many customers began removing the mineral from their products. America announced its intention to ban the mineral due to health risks. The possibility of legal action on businesses made using the mineral a massive economic liability, even though the US couldn’t ban asbestos right away.

The world health organization has also banned asbestos, citing it as a carcinogenic. The mineral is also banned in all 27 European Union member countries. While other countries have taken this stance, Canada continues to promote the controlled use of asbestos. They even continue the fight to keep the mineral off a U.N. list of dangerous substances.

Asbestos is only used in Canada in particularly exceptional circumstances today. Much of Canada’s own medical associations don’t support the difference and hypocrisy in Canada’s own standards of asbestos use with the countries they’re exporting it to. Right now it’s considered a hazardous substance within the country and only used under precaution.

Perhaps the worst thing about the situation is the types of countries to which the asbestos are dumped onto are third world countries with little or no health and safety regulations. These countries are exposed to a high number of hazardous exposures and have very little resources in helping those affected.

The Canadian government has a certain interest in keeping this trade alive as 95 percent of the 240 tons mined per year is exported out. The country is the fourth largest exporter of asbestos in the world, putting itself at the forefront of western support for the mineral.

Just recently, a high amount of criticism has been brought on towards Canada’s prominent role in the global asbestos industry. Through different media outlets, documentaries, and reports, the country is continuing to come under fire for its exporting practices.

While many Canadians are against the mining of this mineral and speak up to have it stopped, it’s clear that there is still a faction completely behind asbestos exporting due to its monetary value. With the spread of related illnesses and the controversy surrounding the mineral, hopefully this type of exporting comes to end in the near future. There’s certainly an opportunity to impact a rather hypocritical policy where Canada exports asbestos to other countries but actively tries to remove it from its own.

Geobotanical methods for prospecting uranium deposits.

Plants can also help us in finding uranium.
by

Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi

Fig. Aster Venusta

Name of the plant in the figure below is Astraqualus sp.

Geobotanical methods of prospecting involve the use of vegetation for identification of the nature and properties of the substrate. Paradoxically, these methods are among the easiest to execute and yet the most difficult to interpret of all the methods of exploration available at the present time. In terms of execution, the basic requirement is merely a pair of human eyes; but in the interpretation of the visual (or photographic) image, some knowledge is required of a number of different disciplines such as biochemistry, botany, chemistry, ecology, geology, and plant physiology.

Geobotanical methods of prospecting are based on the visual observation and identification of vegetation or plant cover that may reveal the presence of a specific type of sub-surface mineralization. In this method, it is presumed that a particular variety of plant species is an indicator of a sub-surface uranium molecules. In recent years, geobotanical methods have become useful in the identification of uranium- ore deposits particularly in areas of dense vegetation.

The method dates back to the eight or ninth century, when the Chinese had observed the association of certain plant species with mineral deposits. In the early nineteenth century, the Russian geologist, Karpinsky observed that different plants or plant communities could be indicators of rock formations and that the characteristics of the plants of an area could be used to decipher the geology of the area. The method has evolved over the years and now more than a hundred species have been recognized as indicators of the presence of a number of elements, including ore metals.

Two distinct approaches to geobotanical prospecting for uranium have been developed to cope with specific problems of exploration. The first method is based upon the presence of uranium in all plants in small but measurable amounts. It has been observed that the uranium content of plants rooted in mineralized ground is detectably higher than the uranium content of plants rooted in unmineralized ground. Plant ash is analyzed directly for the determination of uranium content. The uranium content of the ash of plants growing above unmineralized formations is generally less than 1 ppm, whereas that of the plants rooted in ore bodies contain several parts per million (ppm). This technique helps in the broad outlining of mineralized areas.

The second method involves mapping the distribution of certain indicator plants growing in ecologically favourable areas. A plant may be used as an indicator, provided it is established that its growth is controlled by certain factors which are related to the chemistry of the ore deposit. The sandstone type of uranium deposit contains an appreciable amount of selenium and sulphur. The distribution pattern of plants, which require one of these elements for normal growth, may indicate favourable ground for sub-surface uranium mineralization. Plant morphology and physiology are profoundly influenced by the chemical composition of sub-surface ore bodies and groundwater regime.

This method has been used in the USA for locating sandstone type of uranium deposits, particularly in areas where surface expression is lacking. Astragalus pattersoni, which thrives on the direct intake of selenium from ore bodies located up to a depth of 75 feet, was identified as one of the indicator plants for uranium.

Prospecting by both plant analysis and indicator plant mapping in widely separated areas of the Colorado plateau has shown a positive correlation between botanically favourable ground and major ore deposits.

Geobotanical surveys have been carried out in the Satpura-Gondwana basin of Madhya Pradesh and the foot hills of the Himalayas to demarcate mineralized (uranium) sandstone facies. Surveys conducted in the Kangoo basin of Hamirpur district in Himachal Pradesh revealed uranium values in plant ash samples ranging from 4.3 ppm to 96 ppm. Two- fern plants belonging to Adiantum venustum analyzed uranium values of 194 and 634 ppm respectively.

Perhaps the most obvious of all plant mutations is that of changes in the colour of the flowers. Colour changes in flowers are usually the result of either radioactivity or of the presence of certain elements in the soils.

Metal ions as well as radioactivity can affect the colour of flowers. The gardener’s trick of adding iron or aluminium to red hydrangeas to turn them blue is of course well known. The theory behind such colour changes is interesting and may have bearing on mineral exploration.

The majority of flower colours are produced by a surprisingly small number of pigments. Apart from Carotenoids, which are important in yellow and orange flowers, it is mainly the anthocyanins that are responsible for the colour range from orange to deep blue. It was suggested that in the absence of certain metals, the anthocyanins for red oxonium salts which become blue when they are complexed with excessive amounts of iron, aluminium, or other elements.

Besides iron and aluminium, other elements such as chromium and uranium can form stable complexes with anthocyanins. It is therefore possible that excessive amounts of some of these metals could produce a blue tint in flowers that are normally red or pink, and this could be useful field guide in prospecting.

Unusual and unpredictable changes of form are produced by radioactivity. The first result of mild doses of radioactivity is a stimulatory effect on the vegetation. After the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima, exceptional yields of various crops were obtained.

Fortunately, however, natural radiation is never as high as that encountered at Hiroshima in 1945 and levels normally encountered are therefore seldom sufficient to produce an obvious stimulatory effect on vegetation. There is, however, ample evidence that even fairly low levels of radiation can produce morphological changes in plants over a prolonged period. Variations was found in fruit of the bog bilberry ( vaccinium uliginosum) growing in a radioactive area at Great Bear Lake in Canada.

Plants are the only parts of the prospecting prism which extend through several of the layers simultaneously. It is claimed that the main advantage of biogeochemical prospecting compared with other geochemical methods lies in its power of penetration through a non mineralized over burden.

Reference:

Brooks, R.R., 1972. Geobotany and biogeochemistry in mineral exploration. Harper and Row publishers, New York.

Virnave, S.N. 1999. Nuclear geology and atomic mineral resources. Bharati Bhavan, Patna.

BREAKING – activists drop 70′ banner off of NIAGARA FALLS to tell Canadian PM: NO TAR SANDS oil!

Published by Joshua Kahn Russell, September 15th, 2009

Before dawn this morning, a small team of climate and Native Rights activists rappelled from the US observation deck at Niagara Falls. Dangling hundreds of feet above the ground, they sent a special welcome message to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper ahead of his first official visit to the White House to push dirty Tar Sands oil.

Not that he’s feeling so welcome anyway. Obama limited the meeting to just one hour. While some have called it a slap in the face, Aides say Harper will turn the other cheek. “The economy, and the clean-energy dialogue,” one aide told the Globe and Mail, “will dominate the discussions.” Obama needed to dodge controversy over oil imports from Canada’s tar sands in the midst of the Climate Legislation debate. Harper needed a story to go with his photo-op.

During Harper’s first official trip to meet Obama in the U.S., the two leaders are expected to discuss climate change and energy policy ahead of the upcoming G20 Summit. Canada supplies 19% of U.S. oil imports, more than half of which now comes from the tar sands, making the region the largest single source of U.S. oil imports. The expansion of the tar sands will strip mine an area the size of Florida. Complete with skyrocketing rates of cancer (by 400%!) for First Nations communities living downstream, broken treaties, toxic belching lakes so large you can see them from outer space, churning up ancient boreal forest, destroyed air and water quality, the tar sands have been called the most destructive project on Earth.

Tomorrow’s visit to the U.S. by Prime Minister Harper is the latest attempt by Canadian Federal and Provincial officials to lock in subsidies for 22 new and expanded refinery projects and oil pipelines crisscrossing 28 states, which would transport and process the dirty tar sands oil. Many are concerned that Prime Minister Harper wants to protect the tar sands oil industry from climate regulation, even though it is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

“Climate change, one of the biggest security threats of our time, is something Canada and the United States face together. Extracting tar sands oil, which sends three times more climate-changing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than conventional oil, puts us all at risk,” said Eriel Deranger a member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Rainforest Action Network’s Tar Sands Campaigner in Alberta.

As this oil spills into the U.S., communities living near oil refineries face increased air and water pollution, which contains 11 times more sulfur and nickel and five times more lead than conventional oil.

Opposition to tar sands oil has been rising on both sides of the border. Just last month, four Native American and environmental groups sued Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Deputy Secretary James Steinberg and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over Enbridge Energy’s Alberta Clipper pipeline. If built, the 1,375 mile pipeline would pump 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Northern Alberta to Midwestern refineries. On the Canadian, Native activists escalated pressure on the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) for their funding of the tar sands a few weeks ago.

Canada has no regulations to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and the federal government’s climate change plan would allow total pollution from the tar sands to increase almost 70 percent by 2020. Tar sands oil production is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and was recently cited as one of the most important reasons Canada will miss its Kyoto targets by over 30%.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) used to be the centerpiece of Harper’s pitch. Global warming pollution from coal and tar sands “can be solved by technology,” declared Obama. Not to be outdone, Harper’s office announced that “A strengthened U.S.-Canada partnership on carbon sequestration will help accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale, near-zero-carbon coal facilities to promote climate and energy security.”

Half a year and billions of wasted tax dollars later, though, CCS is still a pipe dream. FutureGen, North America’s supposed proving ground for the unproven technology, can’t keep private investors to save it’s life. Two of its biggest private backers, Southern Co. and AEP, jumped ship last June. Around the same time, sponsors lowered the goal-post on the project to just 60% less carbon. So much for near-zero-carbon facility. Projects promised in the tar sands are fairing even worse.

No matter. Harper is back, hat in hand, looking for legislative handouts to an industry destined to ruin the climate.

So here’s our welcome to you, Prime Minister Harper. Now, please, go home.

And take your dirty tar sands with you.