Tar Sands / Oil Sands
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
English 1130 Academic Writing Case 4: Tar sands/oil sands Reading Log Part One: We’ve discussed the ways Logos arguments (facts, stats, logic) can be used to lend legitimacy and veracity to an argument. However, the presence of facts, stats, data does not inherently mean that an argument is more sound; indeed, the very same facts can be used to support competing arguments. Logos is one strategy among many, and it’s important to distinguish between using Logos as a strategy, and simply assuming that facts and statistics are automatically better than other kinds of argument. Take a look at the first two news releases in the case (“High Cancer Rates Among Fort Chipewyan Residents” and “Fort Chipewyan Cancer Study Findings Released”), and compare the ways each article uses the Alberta Health Services study on cancer in Fort Chipewyan. Both rely on the same data, which you can explore in the executive summary of the study. How does each news release arrive at its version of the story? What differences (in order, placement of information, emphasis) do you see between the two articles? Circle important contrasting details and note down differences in how the articles each use the data: We’ve said that a word or concept can be like a package or a container. It may look small on the outside, but open up a concept and you find there is a lot more inside it than you may have expected before you began. Since we live in a complex world, we need complex, careful thinking to be able to understand what is happening around us. This week a new theme is the ways quality research and argumentation can ‘complicate’ (or nuance) a debate, so that we can think about it in more complex, rigourous ways. Good quality argumentation, the kind respected in scholarly settings, lets us think in these complex ways, using precise ideas that hold together logically and offer nuance and rigour. On the other hand, poor argumentation simplifies and thins the debate, sometimes by using emotional appeal (such as fear or outrage) to shut down other kinds of thought, and sometimes by framing the debate in a simplistic way that renders it harder to think about. Keep this in mind as you read, and look for indicators of complexity, or oversimplification/framing. The rest of the case includes: Part Two: Environmental (Woynillowicz), Indigenous (Poitras and Deranger), and corporate (Morgan) perspectives on the Tar Sands / Oil Sands. These offer genuine concerns and ‘sides’ to consider. Part Three: PR material (Levant) that seeks to ‘frame’ the issue by intentionally employing logical fallacies (false dichotomy and red herring), as an example of intentional manipulation of public opinion. Response pieces (Taber, Nikiforuk, Edmonton Journal) that contextualize and point out these logical issues in Levant’s PR pieces, much the way you might when pointing out logical issues in your naysayers’ articles. 1. In the pieces by Woynillowicz, Poitras, Deranger, and Morgan, note samples of vocabulary worth looking up: 2. Also in the pieces by Woynillowicz, Poitras, Deranger, and Morgan, point out a few rhetorical moves that you find persuasive: 3. Compare the ‘genuine’ conservative pieces (by Morgan) with the intentional abuse of logical fallacies employed by Levant. What are the differences in these approaches? Which of these pieces ‘elevate’ the debate, giving us legitimate arguments to consider, and how? Which of these pieces simplify or ‘thin’ the debate and make it harder to think about clearly, and how? If you were writing an academic paper, Morgan’s articles, although in a popular source, might offer starter ideas for a debate. On the other hand, Levant’s approach would largely disqualify these pieces as ‘legitimate’ sources. Describe what makes this approach inappropriate for use in an academic paper: 4. Find examples in which Levant intentionally uses logical fallacies to attempt to manipulate public opinion: 5. What do you think? Which of the pieces by Woynillowicz, Poitras, Deranger, and Morgan are closest to your own view? Are there other perspectives that these pieces do not cover? What else about this topic interests you? (If you’re not sure, play devil’s advocate): Early release, published at www.cmaj.ca on February 26, 2009. Subject to revision. High Cancer Rates Among Fort Chipewyan Residents Early release, published at www.cmaj.ca the cancer incidence in Fort Chipewyan, ticularly with the report of statistically on Feb. 25, 2009. a largely aboriginal community 600 and clinically elevated rates of rare and kilometres northeast of Edmonton, after environmentally sensitive cancers such wo doctors who raised concerns Dr. John O’Connor went to the media as leukemias, found to be two times about cancer risks for residents reporting a high number of cases of more common than expected, while no T of Fort Chipewyan living near cholangiocarcinoma, a rare bile duct cases occurred in the control group.” Alberta’s oil sands say they feel vindi- cancer. O’Connor and community resi- In releasing the report, Dr. Tony cated by a new report confirming ele- dents linked these and other cancers to Fields, head of Alberta’s cancer serv- vated cancer rates in the community. exposure to environmental contamina- ices, said more study is required to con- An Alberta Health Services study, tions (CMAJ 2008;178[12]:1529). The firm the reasons for the elevated num- released Feb. 6, found 51 cancers in 47 community is on the Athabasca River, ber of cancers. He would not make the people between 1995 and 2006, instead 250 kilometres downstream from the oil link to environmental concerns. of the 39 incidents of cancer that would sands, as well as close to uranium mines But Sauvé says even the provincial have been expected statistically. There and pulp mills. report acknowledges the incidence rate were higher incidents of biliary tract Although the provincial study con- of cholangiocarcinoma in all Alberta cancers (3 cases: 2 of cholangiocarci- firmed only 2 cholangiocarcinoma First Nations is 2 to 3 times higher than noma and 1 of adenocarcinoma of Am- cases, and O’Connor reported 2 con- that in non-First Nations people. He pulla of Vater), cancers of the blood firmed and 3 suspected, O’Connor says raised a link to the amount of tri- and lymphatic system (8 cases — more the study confirms he and his patients halomethanes, toxic chemicals that are than double what was expected), and 2 were right to be alarmed. a byproduct of chlorination. These lev- cases of soft tissue cancers, according “I certainly feel that I’ve been vidi- els were identified in a 1999 Northern to the study, which Dr. Yiqun Chen cated,” O’Connor told CMAJ in an in- River Basins Study Human Monitoring conducted for the province. terview from Clyde River, Nova Sco- Report as being more than twice the The increased incidence of these 3 tia, where he now lives, although he still upper acceptable levels and in the types of cancers “warrant closer moni- commutes to Alberta to see patients. range linked with causing cancer and toring of cancer occurrence in upcom- “I’m definitely interested in looking fetal damage. ing years,” the report states. “Whether into the detail of what defines a biliary “Shouldn’t that send a signal that fur- people living in Fort Chipewyan have tract cancer and a cholangiocarcinoma.” ther studies are needed?” Sauvé asks. an increased risk of developing cancer O’Connor’s colleague in Fort Mac- — Laura Eggertson, CMAJ is still not clear.” Murray, Alberta, Dr. Michel Sauvé, said Alberta Health Services investigated the study also raises new questions, “par- DOI:10.1503/cmaj.090248 CMAJ • MARCH 31, 2009 • 180(7) Online-1 © 2009 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors Fort Chipewyan cancer study findings released | News & Events | Alberta... http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/500.asp Home > News & Events > News Releases > News Release Archive > 2009 News Releases > Fort Chipewyan cancer study findings released Fort Chipewyan cancer study findings released February 06, 2009 EDMONTON, AB – A study of the cancer incidence in Fort Chipewyan finds levels of the rare cancer cholangiocarcinoma are not higher than expected. Of the six suspected cases reported by community physician Dr. John O’Connor, two are confirmed cases of cholangiocarcinoma. Upon review, three of the reported cases were found to be other cancers; another was not a cancer. “The community was seriously concerned,” says Dr. Tony Fields, Vice President, Cancer Corridor, Alberta Health Services. “To address their concerns, Alberta Health Services undertook the most stringent analysis possible. This way, we can follow up on increased levels that are even borderline statistically significant.” Fifty-one cancers in 47 individuals were found in Fort Chipewyan between 1995 and 2006, compared to 39 cancers expected. The cancers that were higher than expected were biliary tract cancers as a whole, cancers of the blood and lymphatic system, and soft tissue cancers. Only when biliary cancers were grouped together did they reach a significant level, three cases over a 12-year period. Other cancers were at or below expected levels. “I believe the community should be reassured that numbers are not as high as reported,” says Fields. “These results were based on a small number of cases - there is no cause for alarm but there is an indication that continued monitoring and analysis are warranted.” An increase in observed cancers over expected could be due to chance, to increased detection, or to increased risk (lifestyle, environmental or occupational) in the community. “We will need to do ongoing monitoring in Fort Chipewyan over the coming years to see if these are continuing trends,” says Fields. The study, conducted by Dr. Yiqun Chen, was reviewed by independent experts from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, as well as two Canadian Aboriginal researchers, one of whom was recommended by the Nunee Health Board Society in Fort Chipewyan.