Atmospheric Pollution from Mountaintop Coal Mining
News Article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coal-study-mountaintop-contamination-lake-alberta-1.6639875
Scientific Paper:https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00677
I chose the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) article called “Dust from mountaintop coal mine contaminated pristine alpine lake, study shows” which examines a peer-reviewed article called “Transboundary Atmospheric Pollution from Mountaintop Coal Mining” and discusses the resulting big-picture impact. The environmental and local wildlife appear to be majorly affected from atmospheric pollutants being produced from a mountaintop coal mine located in British Columbia, Canada. This unique form of coal mining is being exposed as having the capability to spread fine particulate matter like PACs (polycyclic aromatic compounds) which are a known carcinogen, and other harmful material for hundreds of thousands of kilometers from the actual emission site.
Since the regional air monitoring doesn’t require mine owner and operator Teck Resources Limited to report atmospheric emission of PACs, the peer-reviewed study focused on soil samples instead. The specific region which highlights the distance that this airborne fine particulate matter can travel is seen below: Elkview being the location of the major mountaintop coal mining, and Window Mountain Lake being the area in which scientists sought to determine if this body of water was being affected. Window Mountain Lake is seen as an “ideal receptor of atmospheric deposition.” Despite the lake having a small surface area, it still receives significant deposition due to the fact it is a steeply sloped basin at the high elevation of 2025m. For this study, it is important to note that there are no coal outcrops within the lake basin and the area is unvegetated.
The study analyzed samples in the form of 24cm sediment cores which were recovered from the deepest portion of Window Mountain Lake using an HTH Gravity Corer. This was focused on as scientists were able to identify layers of soil that go all the way back to before the industrial era. These samples were dated using 226Ra, 210Pb, and 137Cs analyses. The data they collected were as follows: polycyclic aromatic compounds (PACs) concentration shot up in the 1970s (right around the time when the nearby mountaintop coal mine was founded), and then doubled from there every 10-20 years. Yet the study acknowledged that the PACs concentration could’ve increased from either fires or fossil fuels, thereby not necessarily condemning the coal mines. But when pyrogenic inputs such as wildfires were the dominant factor, the deposition statistics matched closely to the past occurrences of wildfires, which is no longer the case. The presence of fine particulate matter has increased 10-fold from 2006 to 2019. All this data points directly back to the nearby mountaintop coal mine.
The news article walks the reader through the implications of the peer-reviewed paper in simpler terms. Essentially, it starts with the main conclusions and then highlights quotes from the paper which allows the reader to actually digest the effects: “’(Contamination levels) of surface sediments of otherwise pristine Window Mountain Lake are equivalent to or exceed those observed in lakes downwind of the Canadian oilsands, the world's largest collection of open-pit petrochemical mines,’ the paper says.” The article then follows up with several short paragraphs that present more of the conclusions. Local politics is only briefly brought up to state that government related officials and the coal mining company have not made a statement on the matter.
I found the news article did a great job providing the data in a quick manner with as little fluff as possible. The article also included statements from various other scientists in the field to back up the validity of the peer-reviewed study. But a weakness of this news article was that it was very simplistic. It didn’t explain the actual intricacies of the data, yet still presented the conclusions as is. I think to improve this article, I would include more background that would allow some of the data presented to make more sense. For this reason I would give this article a 7/10 as it provided an accurate representation of the data, but didn’t go deeper into the science.
I agree that not only working off the paper, but getting comments from other scientists in the field improves the communication by giving a variety of perspectives. I agree with you about having the background earlier. In a similar vein having the history of the lake and the mining in its area sooner in the article would be helpful for knowing the context for the duration.
ReplyDeleteYes certainty, I agree with you Katherine. The news article definitely benefited by sharing input from these other experts. I also believe that background history as well as just general knowledge around the geography of the discussion at hand would make this material a lot more understandable.
DeleteI think this article highlights a very critical environmental issue that could not be fully uncovered due to the fact that the amount of emission from the point sources was not transparent to the public. I agree with you that the way it describes the study and brings attention to the atmospheric transport and contamination is straightforward and clear.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, as a reader I find the scientific approach fascinating because they compared the Window Mountain Lake sediment core with the Elk Valley coal and wildfire ash samples. Figure 3 with plain language explanation would be a good visual to show as it described the sediment deposited later, on the top, was more influenced by coal. I think this way it could show more intricacies of the data and encourage audiences to think more scientifically.
I agree, the study basically found another way to go back and review just how much atmospheric pollutants were being produced by the coal mining company. The news article, although not providing a lot of background, did successfully convey what the scientists were doing instead of analyzing emission data.
DeleteThat is a good point. Data about the difference in deposition during a time when the coal mining wasn't occurring compared to a time when it was would solidify the argument on which was causing the deposition at a given time.
Thank you for sharing this with us from where we can understand how can we make it easier for the public to understand complicated environmental problems, like what happens when we mine coal on mountaintops and how it affects pristine nature, especially when news stories often make it sound simpler than it is? The recent pollution of Window Mountain Lake from a coal mine in British Columbia shows how serious the effects of big industry can be on remote nature. The fact that mining companies don't have to tell anyone about the bad stuff they put in the air makes it clear we need stricter rules and more honesty in how we deal with resources like coal. Scientists used a method involving analyzing dirt and mud to prove that pollution got worse when the mine started, and this strongly shows the mine is a big part of the problem. While the news article does a good job summing up the main points, we need to find better ways to explain the science behind these problems in simpler words so more people understand and talk about what's happening to the environment.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, the concept that these soil samples can provide an accurate year by year depiction of how much fine particulate matter was produced and what is the major polluter at each given time is a complex concept to explain. People who are not scientifically inclined yet want to learn more about the matter should have access to resources that give them all the conclusions of the paper, but also give them ample background on what these statistics mean. I think that while the news article ensured the validity of the paper by providing quotes from experts in the field, they would've benefited from explaining more of the background in simpler terms so that the reader themselves can better determine the validity of the study.
DeleteI am shocked that Canada, commonly considered to be more progressive than the US, does not require mines to report their PAC emissions. All this money and effort to uncover the severity of the mine's pollution could have been saved with the swipe of a pen smh
ReplyDeleteI found this shocking as well. The fact that they didn't have to report emissions allowed them to take more and more shortcuts throughout the years to boost their profit rather than mitigate their impact.
DeleteI believe that this study not only was able to uncover this lack of data, but also study what exactly the impact of these emissions are on the surrounding environment and the health of organisms that inhabit these regions.
I think this was a really interesting article and definitely agree with your point that the authors did an excellent job of cutting around the extra stuff and provided the data in a very clear and conscience manner. I think that there is a very thin line between simplicity going straight to the facts on date when writing an article based off a scientific paper and the author of this article was crossing between the line continuously throughout the article. I am also not surprised that Canada does not require their mines to report since Justin has shown his stance on climate change time and time again when it really comes down to it.
ReplyDeleteI agree Damola, while the article did a great job being quick and concise when providing the reader with the facts and conclusions, it was borderline bare bones. Without some of the geographical details on the region, and how these scientific analyzes were being conducted, some of the data is just confusing if you haven't read the paper beforehand.
DeleteIt seems to me as if the opening statement of the news article, "research has found windblown dust from mountaintop removal coal mines has polluted a pristine alpine lake to the point where its waters are as contaminated as lakes downwind from the oil sands," suggests that the scientific paper is comparing Window Mountain Lake to other well studied alpine lakes that are in close proximity to coil mining operations. It was my understanding that the scientific paper used Window Mountain Lake as a case study and only concluded that their results could likely be applied to other alpine lakes that are close to mountaintop mining operations. Were you able to confirm that the news article cited sources from other papers with similar findings? Or perhaps I missed the part in the paper where other lake data was compared to that of Window Mountain Lake. Overall, I agree with you that the new article did a good job communicating the major findings of the paper and I appreciated their interviewing a scientific peer in a similar field.
ReplyDeleteMy largest qualm with this news article is that it groups the several pollutants measured in this paper (ie PACs and Selenium) into one group and states that the compounds had a 30 fold increase compared to pre-industrial area concentrations. The abstract states PACs experienced a 30 fold increase, however, this was not stated for selenium. The actual increase in the concentration of selenium from preindustrial soil samples to surface level samples was not stated in the news article.
ReplyDelete