Post by whitesparrow on Jun 2, 2016 11:38:14 GMT -5
Firstly, I'm never real sure where to post things, so please feel free to scooch this to a more appropriate place on the board if there is one
General Info:
As of today, 2 June, 2016, the Horse River fire AKA the Fort McMurray fire is reportedly 581,695 hectares (that's just under 2246 square miles!!!)
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2 June 2016: Fort McMurray Area Update
Thus far, I've found no official cause of the fire. Rumours and theories abound in a wide array of everything from the mundane such as lightning (of which there was none that day), to plausible such as arson, to spooky such as magma, to the ridiculous such as "climate change" and ISIL. Insert various other theories including conspiracy theories here. You get the idea. If they know, they're not tellin'.
For general reference, they're posting status updates and such here: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Wildfire Status Map
Delays, Delays:
Regardless the cause, some things just don't seem to add up about the Fort McMurray fire.
Three areas are specifically named, where they're saying it's not safe for folks to return home: Beacon Hill, Abasand and Waterways.
The Globe Mail, Last updated: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:09AM EDT: The Fort McMurray fire: What’s happening now, and what you’ve missed
Toxins and the like:
They're claiming the ash has a really high pH (alkaline). High enough to make it caustic (like lye is), though the actual pH level does not seem to be specified anywhere.
According to "Recommended pH Guidelines - Mass.Gov": "A pH value of 11 is recommended as an upper do not use/do not drink value" so I can only imagine, based off this, that it must be higher than that.
The natural pH of the soil there was historically anywhere from pretty neutral to kind of acidic (low pH). Seems to be all evergreen, which is fairly acidic (my roses love living under my fir tree).
Alberta Institute of Pedology, University of Alberta, 1970: "Soils of the Fort McMurray Region, Alberta"
The reason I used lye in my previous example is that I know how to make it from scratch (though I've been too much of a chicken to actually try it yet). The old fashioned way involves rinsing ash over and over with the same water until the pH is high enough (how an egg floats in it is how they tested it in the olden days). So yes, ash can increase soil pH, and it does seem the fire started somewhere in that area, so it may have burned hotter there than elsewhere. I have never before, but for argument's sake, let's just say "plausible".
They're also citing toxic substances: "There's also heavy metals like arsenic in these samples. As well, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and furans have been detected at concentrations above what has been recommended for public health."
CBC News, 30 May 2016: "Hundreds of undamaged Fort McMurray homes declared unsafe due to toxic ash"
Reuters, 30 May 2016: "Ash and debris delays return for 2,000 Fort McMurray evacuees"
While there is native arsenic (As) found in much of Alberta's acidic soil (especially shale)...
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 18 July 1986: "Accumulation of Native Arsenic in Acid Sulphate Soils in Alberta"
Direct link to the map I'm referring to is here: "Plant shutdowns in Northern Alberta's oil sands since May 4th"
Theoretically, the increased arsenic could have come from the Oil Sands operation,
Scientific American, 8 August, 2013: High Levels of Arsenic Found in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites
but then why is it the areas further from it that have this issue?
Furthermore, the claim seems to be that while at least one work camp is reported to have been destroyed and over a dozen oil work camps have been evacuated, "none of its (Suncor's) assets have been damaged".
Edmonton Sun, 17 May, 2016: "Fort McMurray wildfire destroys work camp, encroaches on oil and gas facilities"
There's a map of the operations here: "City at the Heart of Alberta Tar Sands is Burning to the Ground"
Similar questions go for the other chemicals reported.
Briefly, the other substances mentioned are:
Buried Whispers of the Past:
Okay, multiple areas burned, and burned hot, and it seems illogical that the issues preventing people from returning to certain areas wouldn't exist in the other areas similarly hit. So what makes Beacon Hill, Abasand and Waterways different from the rest?
It couldn't possibly be related to, say, radioactive waste buried there, could it?
Watershed Sentinel, 9 May 2016: Historic Radioactive Waste stored near Fort McMurray
Euronews, 18 May 2016: "The Nuclear Waste Site at the Heart of Canada's Wildfires"
Nah, couldn't be. Uranium and Radium are totally safe, and there's no such thing as a ground fire! *cough*bullhockey*cough*
Edmonton Journal, 10 May 2016: "Good news: wildfires deemed no threat to Fort McMurray radioactive waste site"
Of course, nobody's reporting any actual Geiger counter readings. Seems to me they'd post it proudly if it were truly "safe", eh? I've checked multiple radiation tracking sites, and haven't found any anywhere near there.
Where's Wald... oh, no, erm... Where's the Bee... fiddlesticks... um... Where's the Facts?
To me, it seems a mishmash of factors with the probability (near certainty?) of radioactive contamination being downplayed (as always), and a lot of vague information without any actual data (pH? Particulate ppm of arsenic, etc? Rems?) to back it up in any direction. Without solid data, including numbers and references, how can residents have any sense that they're being told the truth, let alone make educated decisions regarding whether or not they should feel safe going home in any of the evacuated areas?
What do you think?
General Info:
As of today, 2 June, 2016, the Horse River fire AKA the Fort McMurray fire is reportedly 581,695 hectares (that's just under 2246 square miles!!!)
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, 2 June 2016: Fort McMurray Area Update
Thus far, I've found no official cause of the fire. Rumours and theories abound in a wide array of everything from the mundane such as lightning (of which there was none that day), to plausible such as arson, to spooky such as magma, to the ridiculous such as "climate change" and ISIL. Insert various other theories including conspiracy theories here. You get the idea. If they know, they're not tellin'.
For general reference, they're posting status updates and such here: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Wildfire Status Map
Delays, Delays:
Regardless the cause, some things just don't seem to add up about the Fort McMurray fire.
Three areas are specifically named, where they're saying it's not safe for folks to return home: Beacon Hill, Abasand and Waterways.
The Globe Mail, Last updated: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:09AM EDT: The Fort McMurray fire: What’s happening now, and what you’ve missed
Toxins and the like:
They're claiming the ash has a really high pH (alkaline). High enough to make it caustic (like lye is), though the actual pH level does not seem to be specified anywhere.
According to "Recommended pH Guidelines - Mass.Gov": "A pH value of 11 is recommended as an upper do not use/do not drink value" so I can only imagine, based off this, that it must be higher than that.
The natural pH of the soil there was historically anywhere from pretty neutral to kind of acidic (low pH). Seems to be all evergreen, which is fairly acidic (my roses love living under my fir tree).
Alberta Institute of Pedology, University of Alberta, 1970: "Soils of the Fort McMurray Region, Alberta"
The reason I used lye in my previous example is that I know how to make it from scratch (though I've been too much of a chicken to actually try it yet). The old fashioned way involves rinsing ash over and over with the same water until the pH is high enough (how an egg floats in it is how they tested it in the olden days). So yes, ash can increase soil pH, and it does seem the fire started somewhere in that area, so it may have burned hotter there than elsewhere. I have never before, but for argument's sake, let's just say "plausible".
They're also citing toxic substances: "There's also heavy metals like arsenic in these samples. As well, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and furans have been detected at concentrations above what has been recommended for public health."
CBC News, 30 May 2016: "Hundreds of undamaged Fort McMurray homes declared unsafe due to toxic ash"
Reuters, 30 May 2016: "Ash and debris delays return for 2,000 Fort McMurray evacuees"
While there is native arsenic (As) found in much of Alberta's acidic soil (especially shale)...
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 18 July 1986: "Accumulation of Native Arsenic in Acid Sulphate Soils in Alberta"
Direct link to the map I'm referring to is here: "Plant shutdowns in Northern Alberta's oil sands since May 4th"
Theoretically, the increased arsenic could have come from the Oil Sands operation,
Scientific American, 8 August, 2013: High Levels of Arsenic Found in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites
but then why is it the areas further from it that have this issue?
Furthermore, the claim seems to be that while at least one work camp is reported to have been destroyed and over a dozen oil work camps have been evacuated, "none of its (Suncor's) assets have been damaged".
Edmonton Sun, 17 May, 2016: "Fort McMurray wildfire destroys work camp, encroaches on oil and gas facilities"
There's a map of the operations here: "City at the Heart of Alberta Tar Sands is Burning to the Ground"
Similar questions go for the other chemicals reported.
Briefly, the other substances mentioned are:
- Polyaromatic hydrocarbons: are "...formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas..."
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry: "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)"
Then why isn't this a bigger problem where the Oilsands operation is more concentrated? - Dioxins and furans: "...may be created during burning of forests..."
Buried Whispers of the Past:
Okay, multiple areas burned, and burned hot, and it seems illogical that the issues preventing people from returning to certain areas wouldn't exist in the other areas similarly hit. So what makes Beacon Hill, Abasand and Waterways different from the rest?
It couldn't possibly be related to, say, radioactive waste buried there, could it?
Watershed Sentinel, 9 May 2016: Historic Radioactive Waste stored near Fort McMurray
Euronews, 18 May 2016: "The Nuclear Waste Site at the Heart of Canada's Wildfires"
Nah, couldn't be. Uranium and Radium are totally safe, and there's no such thing as a ground fire! *cough*bullhockey*cough*
Edmonton Journal, 10 May 2016: "Good news: wildfires deemed no threat to Fort McMurray radioactive waste site"
Of course, nobody's reporting any actual Geiger counter readings. Seems to me they'd post it proudly if it were truly "safe", eh? I've checked multiple radiation tracking sites, and haven't found any anywhere near there.
Where's Wald... oh, no, erm... Where's the Bee... fiddlesticks... um... Where's the Facts?
To me, it seems a mishmash of factors with the probability (near certainty?) of radioactive contamination being downplayed (as always), and a lot of vague information without any actual data (pH? Particulate ppm of arsenic, etc? Rems?) to back it up in any direction. Without solid data, including numbers and references, how can residents have any sense that they're being told the truth, let alone make educated decisions regarding whether or not they should feel safe going home in any of the evacuated areas?
What do you think?