There is a new blogger on my links that I encourage everyone with curiosity and a global mindset to read. The Sinocanadian blog will give us some insight into what is happening in China from the perspective of a Canadian with a business and environmental bend.
Welcome to the Blogoshpere Rob.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Fort Chip Cancer Report Says There is a Concern and Calls for More Study and Monitoring
Reading the 91 page Alberta Cancer Board study on cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan one has to remember what the stated limitation of the study were to be sure you have an accurate context.
Those limitations were the small population size, the small number of cancer incidences in the study, migration patterns and impacts were not considered nor was any specific matters of potential unique characteristics of First Nations people in Fort Chip. Finally the study was not designed to determine the causes of cancers in Fort Chip nor if living in Fort Chip elevated cancer levels.
That said, the study found the incidence of overall cancer was higher than expected but could not say if is was due to chance of increased risk in the community. This could be determined by tracking more residents who have lived in the community for the past 20 to 30 years. Such a study would analyze risk factors form lifestyle, family history, occupational and environmental exposures.(emphasis added)
It is interesting that Fort McKay did not want to be used as a comparator in the study. They actually want their own comprehensive health study. They are closer to the oil sand action than Fort Chip is. The other comparison communities had some interesting findings. While Fort Chip had 51 cancer incidences against a statistically expected 39 cases, Fort McMurray and the Northern Lights Health Region had “significantly lower number of cancer cases than expected.” The women in Fort Chip had the same rates of cancer as women in the rest of Alberta but the men had higher incidences.
Detailed study showed that 2 out of the 6 rare kinds of cancer of concern to Dr. O’Connor were confirmed and three of 12 suspected colon cancers were confirmed. The others were not Ft. Chip residents, not cancer or different types of cancer. There were no childhood cancers found, no increases in middle aged or young adult cancers. All the increased incidences were in the 55+ age group and that is a larger than average portion of the Ft. Chip population.
Leukemia and diabetes rates were found to be significantly higher in Ft. Chip residents. Leukemia is 3 times higher than the expected rate. Age again is a factor as is family history. Studies have reported higher incidences of certain kinds of Leukemia where exposure to chemicals for workers in the petroleum, rubber, mining and agriculture industries where they are exposed to solvents, styrene, butadiene and ethylene oxides. Other studies did not report excesses of cancers with such exposure so there is nothing conclusive about these possible causes. Incidences of colon cancer in Ft. Chip were found to be within expected levels.
Other interesting findings from cancer studies that were reported in this study referenced comparing First Nations cancer rates with non-First Nations Alberta. There is no difference between the groups for lung and colon cancer. The lung cancer finding is surprising considering the rate of smoking amongst First Nations Albertans is twice the rate of non-First Nation Albertans. Something else that is counterintuitive is the fact that First Nation Albertans have “…significantly lower rates that non-First Nations for all cancer, leukemia and breast cancer. Conversely, the rate for cholangiocarcinoma, the rare cancers that caused the stir in Ft. Chip in the first place, was found to be “significantly higher” for First Nations than non-First Nations Albertans.
The report goes on to compare U.S. and Ontario studies comparing First Nations and non-First Nations cancer incidences. Interesting stuff that just serves to confirm the Alberta findings in the report. It is noted that a current study on the cancer incidences in Alberta based on this culture difference is in the final stages and will be published next year. That will be interesting reading I am sure.
So we know there are significantly higher cancer incidences, including the rare kind, in Ft. Chip. So what are the reasons? The report says they can and may include all three of chance, increased detection and risk due to lifestyle, occupational and environmental exposures. In discussing increased risk the report notes that Canadian studies up to 2004 showed one in two Canadians will develop cancer in their lifetime. Risk of cancer increases with age and people are living longer and therefore more likely to be diagnosed with cancer. That said, Ft. Chip has a lower proportion of residents in the 55+ age cohort than Alberta as a whole and the aging pattern in Ft. Chip is similar to the rest of the province. So age and even sex cannot explain why there are higher than expected cancer rates.
Lifestyle, socio-economic factors, nutrition and work and environmental exposures all contribute to cancer rates but this study did not deal with any of those causal factors specifically to account for the differences.
So the question of does the oil sands and even uranium deposits in the area contribute to increased incidences of cancer in Ft. Chip is still open. The report references some studies from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and says there is “inadequate evidence to classify crude oil as a human carcinogen, however, there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of crude oil in experimental animals.” That same source notes that two types of certain complex volatile organic compounds of petrochemical hydrocarbons, the stuff of crude oil, “…are probably carcinogenic to humans” and others in this group of organic compounds are also “…possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The reports notes that exposure to these potential carcinogens is usually by “…inhalation, ingestion and skin contact.” The most common non-occupational exposure to this stuff is by tobacco smoke and urban air inhalation.
That said, the report states that few epidemiological studies on cancer risks exist amongst petrochemical workers and residents living in close proximity to oil refineries and no studies exists in reference to oil sands mining. “Information about the occupational history of Fort Chipewyan residents and their possible exposures at work could be very important; however, this could not be collect at this stage of the investigation. Future studies should evaluate the occupational history and employment-related migration pattern of the cancer patients in the community.
Next steps call for on-going monitoring of Ft. Chip residences to see if the past increased incidences were random variances or if there is more to it. Given the extent and the long term nature of oil sands exploitation it seems to me that commitment for on-going monitoring and a deeper and more extensive set of studies is the appropriate course of action.
Dr. O’Connor may feel vindicated on the issue of higher incidences and the rare cancers. At the very least the College ought to get off his back. The community will likely be unconvinced and to a point they are entitled to hold that position because we have insufficient evidence to be conclusive about the causes and context of higher cancer incidences. Lifestyle and environmental/ occupational concerns seem to be the unknowns and worth pursuing for more information. All in all the report is a great start.
Those limitations were the small population size, the small number of cancer incidences in the study, migration patterns and impacts were not considered nor was any specific matters of potential unique characteristics of First Nations people in Fort Chip. Finally the study was not designed to determine the causes of cancers in Fort Chip nor if living in Fort Chip elevated cancer levels.
That said, the study found the incidence of overall cancer was higher than expected but could not say if is was due to chance of increased risk in the community. This could be determined by tracking more residents who have lived in the community for the past 20 to 30 years. Such a study would analyze risk factors form lifestyle, family history, occupational and environmental exposures.(emphasis added)
It is interesting that Fort McKay did not want to be used as a comparator in the study. They actually want their own comprehensive health study. They are closer to the oil sand action than Fort Chip is. The other comparison communities had some interesting findings. While Fort Chip had 51 cancer incidences against a statistically expected 39 cases, Fort McMurray and the Northern Lights Health Region had “significantly lower number of cancer cases than expected.” The women in Fort Chip had the same rates of cancer as women in the rest of Alberta but the men had higher incidences.
Detailed study showed that 2 out of the 6 rare kinds of cancer of concern to Dr. O’Connor were confirmed and three of 12 suspected colon cancers were confirmed. The others were not Ft. Chip residents, not cancer or different types of cancer. There were no childhood cancers found, no increases in middle aged or young adult cancers. All the increased incidences were in the 55+ age group and that is a larger than average portion of the Ft. Chip population.
Leukemia and diabetes rates were found to be significantly higher in Ft. Chip residents. Leukemia is 3 times higher than the expected rate. Age again is a factor as is family history. Studies have reported higher incidences of certain kinds of Leukemia where exposure to chemicals for workers in the petroleum, rubber, mining and agriculture industries where they are exposed to solvents, styrene, butadiene and ethylene oxides. Other studies did not report excesses of cancers with such exposure so there is nothing conclusive about these possible causes. Incidences of colon cancer in Ft. Chip were found to be within expected levels.
Other interesting findings from cancer studies that were reported in this study referenced comparing First Nations cancer rates with non-First Nations Alberta. There is no difference between the groups for lung and colon cancer. The lung cancer finding is surprising considering the rate of smoking amongst First Nations Albertans is twice the rate of non-First Nation Albertans. Something else that is counterintuitive is the fact that First Nation Albertans have “…significantly lower rates that non-First Nations for all cancer, leukemia and breast cancer. Conversely, the rate for cholangiocarcinoma, the rare cancers that caused the stir in Ft. Chip in the first place, was found to be “significantly higher” for First Nations than non-First Nations Albertans.
The report goes on to compare U.S. and Ontario studies comparing First Nations and non-First Nations cancer incidences. Interesting stuff that just serves to confirm the Alberta findings in the report. It is noted that a current study on the cancer incidences in Alberta based on this culture difference is in the final stages and will be published next year. That will be interesting reading I am sure.
So we know there are significantly higher cancer incidences, including the rare kind, in Ft. Chip. So what are the reasons? The report says they can and may include all three of chance, increased detection and risk due to lifestyle, occupational and environmental exposures. In discussing increased risk the report notes that Canadian studies up to 2004 showed one in two Canadians will develop cancer in their lifetime. Risk of cancer increases with age and people are living longer and therefore more likely to be diagnosed with cancer. That said, Ft. Chip has a lower proportion of residents in the 55+ age cohort than Alberta as a whole and the aging pattern in Ft. Chip is similar to the rest of the province. So age and even sex cannot explain why there are higher than expected cancer rates.
Lifestyle, socio-economic factors, nutrition and work and environmental exposures all contribute to cancer rates but this study did not deal with any of those causal factors specifically to account for the differences.
So the question of does the oil sands and even uranium deposits in the area contribute to increased incidences of cancer in Ft. Chip is still open. The report references some studies from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and says there is “inadequate evidence to classify crude oil as a human carcinogen, however, there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of crude oil in experimental animals.” That same source notes that two types of certain complex volatile organic compounds of petrochemical hydrocarbons, the stuff of crude oil, “…are probably carcinogenic to humans” and others in this group of organic compounds are also “…possibly carcinogenic to humans.” The reports notes that exposure to these potential carcinogens is usually by “…inhalation, ingestion and skin contact.” The most common non-occupational exposure to this stuff is by tobacco smoke and urban air inhalation.
That said, the report states that few epidemiological studies on cancer risks exist amongst petrochemical workers and residents living in close proximity to oil refineries and no studies exists in reference to oil sands mining. “Information about the occupational history of Fort Chipewyan residents and their possible exposures at work could be very important; however, this could not be collect at this stage of the investigation. Future studies should evaluate the occupational history and employment-related migration pattern of the cancer patients in the community.
Next steps call for on-going monitoring of Ft. Chip residences to see if the past increased incidences were random variances or if there is more to it. Given the extent and the long term nature of oil sands exploitation it seems to me that commitment for on-going monitoring and a deeper and more extensive set of studies is the appropriate course of action.
Dr. O’Connor may feel vindicated on the issue of higher incidences and the rare cancers. At the very least the College ought to get off his back. The community will likely be unconvinced and to a point they are entitled to hold that position because we have insufficient evidence to be conclusive about the causes and context of higher cancer incidences. Lifestyle and environmental/ occupational concerns seem to be the unknowns and worth pursuing for more information. All in all the report is a great start.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Harper's Defamation Action Folds Like an Old Lawnchair
Prime Minister Harper launched a defamation lawsuit against the opposition Liberal party for alleged comments they made allegedly implicating him in an alleged bribing attempt of deceased Independent MP Chuck Cadman for his vote in the Commons. Late Friday it was announced that the action was dropped by Prime Minister Harper.
Sorry to be using “allegedly” so often in this post but since nothing is proven and the combatants have gone silent as a result of the “settlement” of the lawsuit. We know nothing for sure and I don’t want to be sued on this matter either. Too bad the author Tom Zytaruk who taped the interview with Harper that formed the key evidence in this theatre of the absurd did not get an apology from the PM. He obviously deserves one now that Harper has folded.
We can draw some conclusions and implications from these events. Harper’s dropping the suit hardly makes his claim that the Liberal party comments on the issues and allegations were “the biggest mistake they ever made.” High hubris by Harper then and he has some very cold crow to munch on now.
The damage claim in Harper’s law suit for loss of reputation at $3.5m is now reduced to dick and each part pays their own costs in the action. That means that Harper wins nothing and the Liberals lose nothing and neither party will comment further. The downgrading of a political reputation loss allegation from millions to nothing and in fact costing the Plaintiff money for his own legal fees for pursuing the adventure come off like posturing and puffery at best.
This all may mean the Harper is hankering to govern now that he has to admit and accept that the country is in crisis and to stop bullying the opposition as his primary political goal. Heaven knows the country needs him to make the shift. My money says he has not really made the leap and will now be in leadership limbo and drift into disinterest and do neither.
Sorry to be using “allegedly” so often in this post but since nothing is proven and the combatants have gone silent as a result of the “settlement” of the lawsuit. We know nothing for sure and I don’t want to be sued on this matter either. Too bad the author Tom Zytaruk who taped the interview with Harper that formed the key evidence in this theatre of the absurd did not get an apology from the PM. He obviously deserves one now that Harper has folded.
We can draw some conclusions and implications from these events. Harper’s dropping the suit hardly makes his claim that the Liberal party comments on the issues and allegations were “the biggest mistake they ever made.” High hubris by Harper then and he has some very cold crow to munch on now.
The damage claim in Harper’s law suit for loss of reputation at $3.5m is now reduced to dick and each part pays their own costs in the action. That means that Harper wins nothing and the Liberals lose nothing and neither party will comment further. The downgrading of a political reputation loss allegation from millions to nothing and in fact costing the Plaintiff money for his own legal fees for pursuing the adventure come off like posturing and puffery at best.
This all may mean the Harper is hankering to govern now that he has to admit and accept that the country is in crisis and to stop bullying the opposition as his primary political goal. Heaven knows the country needs him to make the shift. My money says he has not really made the leap and will now be in leadership limbo and drift into disinterest and do neither.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Obama Invited to Alberta
Good move but more needs to be done to make this effort effective. We clearly need to be sharing information, developing a deeper understanding and looking for ways to make the exploitation of this vital resource more responsible and sustainable.
Albertans are up for that but we need our business and policians to catch up to the enlightened consciousness of the citizenship.
I see President Obama is planning a mere 5 hour meeting in Ottawa with Stephen Harper on February 19th. He clearly sees meeting with Harper as not a very productive use of his time. I will do a blog post soon on what I think will be and should be on the agenda.
Alberta Needs to Start Thinking for a Change. Ontario Is!
I am intrigued by the Ontario government’s support for taking advantage of the current economic crisis as an opportunity to transition to a creative economy from a dying industrial age. I guess it helps that Richard Florida who writes on urban cultural creatives has recently moved from the States to Toronto as his preferred city of residence. I like Florida but prefer the deeper insights of Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson’s work “The Cultural Creatives” about similar themes.
Florida has teamed up with Roger Martin the Dean of the U of T’s Rotman School of Business to write a report commissioned by Ontario’s Premier Dalton McGuinty to be released today. The report is Ontario-centric but is said to be transformational and transferable to all provinces and will show how to move from an industrial society to a creative one. Ontario has been studying the link between prosperity and productivity for some time now. They are clearly leading the way to add a creative link as a means to future prosperity as well. I am looking forward to getting a copy of the report and giving it a careful read.
Alberta is in need of this kind of thinking for a change. Alberta is still striving too much to sustain a sense of yesterday. For example we continue to subsidize conventional oil and gas drilling activity by reducing royalties and industry accountability for sound environmental practices and duties to reclaim abandoned sites. We have fragmented the boreal forest with well sites, seismic lies, roads and right of ways so badly that its sustainability for wildlife is under serious threat.
It is not all bad in Alberta but there are few serious signs of any significant transformational shift happening in Alberta anytime soon. We need to quit compromising to conventional industry demands and to embed a new consciousness of innovation and adventure that will take us to a new level of diversification. Examples of that kind of leadership thinking are around but they are sparse and segregated and mostly insignificant.
We have some political champions in Alberta for such a change but they don’t seem to be winning the agenda and priority battles in Cabinet and Caucus. Alberta seems more intent on perfecting yesterday with more and more concessions being granted to the conventional industries from oil and gas, to forestry to agriculture in an effort to try and sustain old models and methods in the conventional economy.
We Albertans have the necessity to adapt and change because fossil fuels have limits that are economic and environmental. We have the fiscal resources to change. We have the institutional and intellectual infrastructure and human ingenuity horsepower in our universities, technical schools and the Alberta Research Council to change.
We have a very creative group of people in our cultural industries and environmental and social services sectors as well. We can transform the province if we choose to. We seem to lack the visionary leadership in politics and business to actually engage in the new world we can see coming. We are too "successful" and complacent to have any sense of urgency and intentionality to get serious about the inevitable changes that are coming. We seem content to passively react rather than actively respond.
This recession is a perfect opportunity to revisit, revise and to shift to a new trajectory and to actively eschew the tyranny of the dead ideas of the past. Speaking of the tyranny of dead ideas, I just bought Matt Miller’s book of the same name. I intend to read it carefully. I will also be rereading Thomas Homer-Dixon’s “The Ingenuity Gap” to find a reframing of my own consciousness about these concerns about the need to rethink and transform our economy.
Time for Alberta to start thinking for a change. Ontario is on to it. Why not us?
Florida has teamed up with Roger Martin the Dean of the U of T’s Rotman School of Business to write a report commissioned by Ontario’s Premier Dalton McGuinty to be released today. The report is Ontario-centric but is said to be transformational and transferable to all provinces and will show how to move from an industrial society to a creative one. Ontario has been studying the link between prosperity and productivity for some time now. They are clearly leading the way to add a creative link as a means to future prosperity as well. I am looking forward to getting a copy of the report and giving it a careful read.
Alberta is in need of this kind of thinking for a change. Alberta is still striving too much to sustain a sense of yesterday. For example we continue to subsidize conventional oil and gas drilling activity by reducing royalties and industry accountability for sound environmental practices and duties to reclaim abandoned sites. We have fragmented the boreal forest with well sites, seismic lies, roads and right of ways so badly that its sustainability for wildlife is under serious threat.
It is not all bad in Alberta but there are few serious signs of any significant transformational shift happening in Alberta anytime soon. We need to quit compromising to conventional industry demands and to embed a new consciousness of innovation and adventure that will take us to a new level of diversification. Examples of that kind of leadership thinking are around but they are sparse and segregated and mostly insignificant.
We have some political champions in Alberta for such a change but they don’t seem to be winning the agenda and priority battles in Cabinet and Caucus. Alberta seems more intent on perfecting yesterday with more and more concessions being granted to the conventional industries from oil and gas, to forestry to agriculture in an effort to try and sustain old models and methods in the conventional economy.
We Albertans have the necessity to adapt and change because fossil fuels have limits that are economic and environmental. We have the fiscal resources to change. We have the institutional and intellectual infrastructure and human ingenuity horsepower in our universities, technical schools and the Alberta Research Council to change.
We have a very creative group of people in our cultural industries and environmental and social services sectors as well. We can transform the province if we choose to. We seem to lack the visionary leadership in politics and business to actually engage in the new world we can see coming. We are too "successful" and complacent to have any sense of urgency and intentionality to get serious about the inevitable changes that are coming. We seem content to passively react rather than actively respond.
This recession is a perfect opportunity to revisit, revise and to shift to a new trajectory and to actively eschew the tyranny of the dead ideas of the past. Speaking of the tyranny of dead ideas, I just bought Matt Miller’s book of the same name. I intend to read it carefully. I will also be rereading Thomas Homer-Dixon’s “The Ingenuity Gap” to find a reframing of my own consciousness about these concerns about the need to rethink and transform our economy.
Time for Alberta to start thinking for a change. Ontario is on to it. Why not us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)