« May 2011 | Main | July 2011 »

June 2011

06/25/2011

Senate of Canada Discusses the Constant Oilsands Vilification

In the Senate of Canada, Tarred by Science was brought forward for discussion by Senator Nicole Easton, on June 23, 2011.

The Financial Post reports Senator Eaton's remarks:

Eaton "Honourable senators, I rise today to shine some attention on a recent series in the Financial Post, titled the 13th annual Junk Science Week. This series of articles highlights and exposes the numerous "scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks" who bend facts, exacerbate risks, and by and large warp science with the goal of advancing an agenda....

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to cover some of the interesting pieces on the dangers of lipstick, rubber ducks and apples that, one way or another, may be killing us. However, one of the themes that stood out in a few of the pieces was the constant vilification of our oil sands.

Honourable senators, I believe there is much more at play here than simple scientific fact.

In a well-laid out article, Vivian Krause examined the fallout resulting from a report on pollutants near oil sands projects. As Krause pointed out, this was a case of "how bad media happened to good science."...

Perhaps the most interesting tidbit ignored was how the study was funded. Most of the $500,000 price tag was covered by Tides Canada and the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, both vehement critics of the oil sands. In fact, the Tides foundation finances at least 30 groups that target the oil sands. Furthermore, many organizations that channel funds to the Tides Foundation do so with the explicit goal of slowing the expansion and demand for Canadian oil."

To continue reading, click here.

For the Hansard's of the Senate of Canada for June 23, 2011, click here.

Posted at 09:33 AM | | Comments (0)

|

"I will be very hard to satisfy on oilsands," admits David Schindler

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece titled "Tarred by Science," for the Financial Post.  The question asked in that article is whether all the bad press about the impact of oil sands operations on the Athabasca River, was actually warranted by the research on which the claims were said to be based. In other words, did the research actually show what the scientists and the media said that it did?

The research in question was done by Dr. David Schindler and his graduate students at the University of Alberta. Yesterday, The Financial Post published a letter of response from Dr. Schindler. 

In his comments to the Financial Post, Schindler says, "If they (industry) had funded us and we had written the same report, our findings would probably have been savaged by green groups as being industry biased, because we found only low concentrations of toxic chemicals."  

In admitting that the levels of 'toxic chemicals' that his research team found were low, Schindler proves my main point: the alarming headlines that followed his study were not warranted by the research itself.

Schindler admits that his research "was designed to expose the flaws in the year-round monitoring that had been taking place, and the fact that the governments propaganda has not been based on solid science." No wonder the industry says that Schindler's approach is fault-finding, not fact-finding. How can anyone conduct impartial science when the stated objective from the get-go is to expose flaws?

Schindler admits, "I will be very hard to satisfy on oil sands."  With that out in the open, no one should be surprised if Schindler doesn't approve of government monitoring - no matter how expensive it is. 

Schindler says that I ignored some basic facts about the funding of his study.  Not so.

Schindler says, "In an interview with Ms. Krause, I told her that scientists had tried to get similar research funded by the oil sands industry. However, industry told us that it would cost too much." That's not at all what I have in my notes which, incidentally, I sent by e-mail to Dr. Schindler in order to verify that I was quoting him correctly.  Schindler wrote back saying that he had said or meant to say, "The source of our money would not have affected our results. I was sure this would make the oil sands look bad, based on many past studies of airborne emissions and stripped watersheds."

For a CBC video clip with Schindler's comments about his research funding, click here (34 seconds).

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 08:12 AM | | Comments (0)

|

06/20/2011

20,000 First Time Visitors - Thank you!

Since mid October of 2010, this blog has had about 25,000 "unique" visits of which 20,000 were first-time visits. About 5,770 visitors have come back more than once.  These statistics are from StatCounter.

According to the log of visitors provided by Statcounter, visitors have included, among others, the Canadian House of Commons, the U.S. Congress, Public Works & Government Services, the RCMP, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

Statcounter shows that this blog has also had visits from a number of the U.S. foundations and Canadian organizations that are mentioned here, including Tides Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation. Since January alone, the David Suzuki Foundation has visited 67 times (250 entries).

To all those who have taken time to browse or read, and especially to those who have provided feedback and input, thank you very much!

Note: The data below is only for the first half of June.

Fig & Tab 20,000 Visitors

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 03:29 PM | | Comments (0)

|

06/17/2011

1rst Radio Interview About My Appeal to David Suzuki

DS Face WhyYouShouldn't2

Why am I writing letters to David Suzuki since 2007? Who's funding me? And what is the fish farm fuss really all about?  These are some of the questions that I'm asked by Dave Reynolds, the host of 99.7 The River, in my first radio interview about the science and the money behind the campaign against salmon farming.

Click here: Campbell River Radio Interview

 

Below, here's an excerpt of the letter from David Suzuki that I talk about in the interview. For the whole letter in which David Suzuki falsely says that he uncovered the "fact" that B.C. farmed salmon is heavily contaminated with PCBs and other toxins, click here.

DSF Letter 21May2002 bit highlighted

Related Posts:

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 09:44 AM | | Comments (1)

|

06/13/2011

Tarred by Science

From The Financial Post, June 13, 2011

Cameron Fort Chip Sometime before the end of this month, an expert panel appointed by the Alberta government is expected to unveil recommendations for a “world-class” system for monitoring the environmental impact of oil sands on the Athabasca River Basin. The panel will propose a rock-solid science-based approach that – in the words of its mandate - will cover air, land, water and bio-diversity issues based on “credible data from a science authority, transparent reporting via an information portal, and an exceptional physical monitoring network.”

The question is: Will this costly endeavour satisfy the environmental activists and scientists who have in recent years depicted the oil sands as a carcinogenic scourge and a chemical disaster?

It all began to escalate in 2008 when a team of scientists led by University of Alberta Ecology Professor David Schindler, along with post-doctoral student Erin Kelly, conducted a short-term study to measure pollutants in Athabasca River water and snow. Controversy grew when the paper's findings were featured in a CBC documentary for The Nature of Things with David Suzuki, fuelled in part by a media-hyped visit by Avatar director James Cameron to the Fort Chipewyan native reserve where oil sands chemicals had allegedly caused cancers.

The Alberta government and the oil industry took a beating in the press. Ultimately, both the Alberta government and the federal government appointed scientific panels to review the monitoring of oil sands operations. CBC called this "an extraordinary response for a science paper."

In essence, what we have here isn't a case of bad science. On the contrary, this is a case of how bad media happened to good science, or at least relatively sound science. The heart of the matter is how - and why - the media blew up a small but reasonable study that produced little new information into a major international scandal.

To continue reading, click here.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 07:47 PM | | Comments (1)

|

By Vivian Krause in The Financial Post

Here are links to my articles in The Financial Post:

See also:

Posted at 07:38 PM | | Comments (0)

|

06/03/2011

RE: 23 Press Releases & Web-Pages No Longer On-line. My Response to the David Suzuki Foundation

Mr. Robinson, 

Your article yesterday raises several points. It would have been nice if you would have sent me a copy or somehow let me know that you posted this article.  As it was, I found out on Twitter.

1.  Our Correspondence

You suggest that we have a long history of communication and that last year (eg. 2010), you decided to stop dedicating resources to responding to my correspondence.  Its true that I've been writing letters to David Suzuki for some time, four years, in fact.  However, the only responses that I've received are 1) a brief e-mail from Dr. Suzuki in May of 2007, 2) an e-mail from Jay Ritchlin in June of 2007, and 3) an e-mail from Mr. Ritchlin in June of 2009.

When we met in February of 2010, you said that you would get back to me about the document (46 pages) that I provided. However, I did not receive any response from you.

In light of the above, I don't see how you can say that the David Suzuki Foundation has dedicated much in the way of resources to respond to my inquiries. 

2.  Removed Press Releases & Web-Pages

You say, "all of our formal publications, briefing notes and research remain readily available on our site and are searchable — including our science."  That's not what I find.

As I've said, 23 press releases and web-pages about farmed salmon and salmon farming are no longer on-line at your foundation's web-site. This includes, as far as I can tell, every single one of the press releases that the David Suzuki Foundation issued to publicize research about contaminants in farmed salmon, and sea lice.

If  you disagree that the David Suzuki Foundation removed on-line material about salmon farming, why didn't you say so when I wrote to you about this on January 20, 2011, March 14, 2011,  March 23, 2011, March30, 2011 and May 25, 2011? I e-mailed you specifically to let you know that unless I heard from you otherwise, I would assume that you removed 16 web-pages on Feb. 3 and Feb. 4 of 2010 - the very same day that I posted an open letter to Dr. Suzuki.

Far from broad-siding you, I sent you the entire draft of my op-ed that ran on June 1 in The Financial Post. I sent you that a full week ahead of time so that you could let me know if anything in it was inaccurate. I phoned your executive assistant and spoke with her to verify and ensure that you were indeed receiving my e-mails. If you disagreed with me that your foundation had removed 16 press releases and web-pages on Feb. 3 and Feb. 4, why didn't you ever say so?

You say that web-pages about salmon farming were removed, along with other material, during April and May of 2010.  If so, then I am surprised that six of your press releases about research on farmed salmon and salmon farming were not archived at all, not once, after August 9, 2009. See here, here and here.

You suggest that the Wayback Machine only archives a website every few months. According to my analysis of the archives for the 23 press releases and web-pages that are now no longer on your site, these pages were crawled by the WayBack Machine, on average every 1.3 months.  If, indeed, the David Suzuki Foundation removed these web-pages during April and May of 2010, as you say, then it surprises me that not one of the 16 web-pages that was last archived on Feb. 3 or Feb. 4, was crawled during February, March, or April of 2010.

For a larger version, please click on the image itself:

Tab Way Back Machine Analysis
You say that the David Suzuki Foundation removed web-pages that were more than five years old. As far as I can tell, you also removed your key press release about sea lice research published in the journal SCIENCE, in December of 2007.  That's not five years ago.

With the Cohen Commission ongoing, it seems to me that its not right that your sea lice press releases are now no longer in the public domain, especially since it was largely the alarm over sea lice, fomented by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Farmed and Dangerous campaign, that pressured government into spending more than $15 million on the Cohen Commission. That's money that could have been spent on other priorities.

3.  My Employment with the Salmon Farming Industry in 2002 and 2003

You note that I used to work in the salmon farming industry. That's true. That was in 2002 and 2003, eight years ago. I also did two short consultancies in 2007. For those, I was paid $10,000 and $7,750, respectively.  As I've said many times, since July of 2007 I have not worked for the salmon farming industry in any paid capacity. In January, I was the keynote speaker at the Nova Scotia Annual Aquaculture Conference but apart from my airfare and hotel costs, I was not paid. Over the years, I have also tried to support the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association in small ways but I have not been paid.

To be clear, if anyone has reason to be an adversary of the salmon farming industry, it might be me. After all, I was fired.  And having never supported my research and writing, the industry is now taking advantage of it. The truth is, however, I'm not supported by anyone but my family and personal friends, none of whom are involved in salmon farming in any way.

You refer to me as "hardly an unbiased and self-funded researcher...."  I acknowledge that (despite having been fired!) I am prone to a positive view of salmon farming because of my experience in the industry.  However, in suggesting that I am not self-funded and insinuating that I am working on someone else's dime, you are mistaken. Please take that back.

You say that I regularly misrepresent the work of others.  Please specify or retract that. It is not my intention to misrepresent anyone.

If you would like to know why I am raising questions about the "demarketing" of farmed salmon, and why, perhaps, others aren't, please click here.

In closing, please allow me to re-iterate my appeal to David Suzuki to please clarify that contrary to his claims over the years, the actual research funded and publicized by the David Suzuki Foundation:

  • Does not show and has never shown that farmed salmon is high in PCBs.
  • Does not show and has never shown that sea lice originating from salmon farms cause high levels of mortality among juvenile salmon in the wild.

Lastly, please allow me to suggest that we meet again and talk.  It might be worthwhile.

Sincerely,

Vivian Krause

 

Below, here's the correspondence that I've kept. If I've missed anything, please let me know.

2006

2007

2009

2010

2011

  • e-mail March 23, 2011 RE: when the brochure, "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon" was taken off-line.
  • e-mail June 7, 2011: Request to please ammend the web-site of the David Suzuki Foundation to note that I am self-funded.  I am not "on the dime" of anyone. 

Posted at 07:43 AM | | Comments (5)

|

David Suzuki Foundation Disagrees That It Removed Salmon Farming Press Releases & Web-Pages

In The Case of the Missing Sea Lice, an op-ed published in The Financial Post on June 1, I reported that according to internet archives, the David Suzuki Foundation removed 23 press releases and web-pages about salmon farming. Of these, 14 press releases and web-pages were last registered in internet archives on Feb. 3, 2010. Two more were last archived on the next day, for a total of 16 press releases and web-pages that have not been archived at the David Suzuki Foundation's website, since February of 2010.  

Feb.3, 2010 is the same day that I posted at my blog, an open letter to Dr. Suzuki. In that letter, I asked Dr. Suzuki whether he and his foundation had, in essence, manufactured the salmon farming controversy in order to please the foundation's pro-Alaskan, American funders - who have funded the foundation to the tune of $US 10 million since the late 1990s.

In an article published yesterday on the foundation's web-site, the CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation disagrees that it intentionally removed web-content that was specific to salmon farming.

For the response from the David Suzuki Foundation, please click here.  For my response to the David Suzuki's response, please click here.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 07:43 AM | | Comments (0)

|

06/01/2011

2nd TV Interview: The Fish Farm Fuss & The David Suzuki Foundation's Pro-Alaskan, American Funders

 

From The Financial Post: The Case Of The Missing Sea Lice

What's behind the fish farm fuss?  Is it science? Is it Alaskan salmon marketing?  Is it a bit of both? These are some of the questions that Ezra Levant began to ask me on his show today.  In response, I began by trying to explain that "wild vs. farmed" is a bit of a false choice, a false dichotomy.  

In North America, more than 90 percent of so-called "wild" salmon is Alaskan.  In fact, about half of so-called "wild" Alaskan salmon are actually born in a bucket, hatched in a plastic tray, fed pellets, grown in tanks and raised in net pens as are farmed salmon. These Alaskan salmon are not "wild." These Alaskan salmon are ranched.  In 2010, ranched salmon accounted for nearly half of the so-called "wild" Alaskan salmon harvest.

Ezra and I began to scratch the surface about the elephant in the room, that is, the marketing perspective, and how the publicity of so-called "science" appears to me to have been used as a marketing tactic to sway consumers away from farmed salmon and towards the alternative product, so-called "wild" salmon, most of which is Alaskan.  As we now know from U.S. tax returns, in fact, shifting consumer and retailer demand is precisely what environmental organizations have been paid to do. 

Ezra mentions that the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid more than $1 million by USA foundations. Actually, that figure is more than $10 million.

In today's interview, I mentioned that the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation has granted $64 million to environmental groups in B.C. and that the Hewlett Foundation and the Packard foundation (two separate foundations), have granted more than $70 million ($42 million from Hewlett and $32 million from Packard).

Here's the kicker.... and yet this is what I did not find a way to mention on today's show. When a highly controversial study of contaminants in farmed salmon and another highly controversial study of sea lice were published in the prestigious journal SCIENCE, the editor in chief, Dr. Donald Kennedy, was a trustee of the Packard foundation. The current editor-in-chief, Dr. Bruce Alberts, is a trustee of the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation.

Below, here's the grant for an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and "earned media."  By the way, shortly after I raised concern about this grant for $560,000 from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, this grant and three other grants for $3.6 million were quietly re-written by the Moore Foundation.

SeaWeb's $560,000

Further information:

  • For my open letters to David Suzuki over the past four years, please click here.
  • For my appeal to David Suzuki of May 31, 2011, please click here.
  • For more about the $10 million that the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid by American funders, please click here.
  • For the 46 page document which I outlined my concerns about press releases & web-pages from the David Suzuki Foundation, please click here.
  • For a look back at my meeting in February 2010, with the CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation, Mr. Peter Robinson, please click here.
  • For my first TV interview on the Ezra Levant Show, please click here.

Please read: Copyright Notice & Disclaimer

Posted at 09:43 PM | | Comments (0)

|

Vivian Krause
Vivian Krause

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search

    Basic Info

    Archives

    Categories

    Subscribe to this blog's feed
    Blog powered by Typepad

    Visitors


    Google

    • Google