| | THE USE OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MAKING AND THE |
| | 1,17 | | MB | IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH: A CASE STUDY OF BISMUTH |
| | 103 | | stron | SHOTSHELLS |
| | 6409 | | ID | University of Waterloo |
| | 2005 | | rok |
| | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| | ABSTRACT iii |
| | ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. iv |
| | DEDICATION v |
| | LIST OF FIGURES viii |
| | LIST OF TABLES. x |
| | LIST OF ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS. xi |
| | 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 |
| | 1.1. Health and environmental policy making 1 |
| | 1.2. The use of science in policy making 2 |
| | 1.3. Case study: Approval of bismuth shotshells 6 |
| | 1.4. Research rationale 7 |
| | 1.5. Research questions 8 |
| | 1.6. Organization of the thesis 9 |
| | 2. FATE OF BISMUTH IN THE ENVIRONMENT 10 |
| | 2.1. Methodology 11 |
| | 2.2. Differences between ≤ 1997 and ≥ 1998 bismuth literature 13 |
| | 2.3. Bismuth literature ≤ 1997 15 |
| | 2.3.1. Sanderson studies 15 |
| | 2.3.2. Canadian Wildlife Service toxicity test guidelines 18 |
| | 2.3.3. Sources of bismuth and background levels 20 |
| | 2.3.4. Soil . 22 |
| | 2.3.5. Vegetation 24 |
| | 2.3.6. Animals 25 |
| | 2.3.7. Humans 27 |
| | 2.4. Bismuth literature ≥ 1998 31 |
| | 2.4.1. Soil . 31 |
| | 2.4.2. Vegetation 33 |
| | 2.4.3. Animals 35 |
| | 2.4.4. Humans 38 |
| | 2.5. Summary . 39 |
| | 3. EFFECTS AND FATE OF BISMUTH SHOT PELLETS IN A SOUTHERN ONTARIO WETLAND 40 |
| | |
| | 3.1. Introduction. 40 |
| | 3.2. Materials and methods . 41 |
| | 3.2.1. Site description and treatments . 41 |
| | 3.2.2. Sample collection. 42 |
| | 3.2.3. Sample preparation . 42 |
| | 3.2.4. EAAS analysis of bismuth and lead . 43 |
| | 3.2.5. Soil pH analysis . 44 |
| | 3.2.6. Statistical analysis . 44 |
| | 3.3. Results 46 |
| | 3.3.1. Soil pH . 46 |
| | 3.3.2. Soil mobility of bismuth and lead 46 |
| | 3.3.3. Vegetative uptake of bismuth and lead 48 |
| | 3.4. Discussion 50 |
| | 3.4.1. Soil pH . 50 |
| | 3.4.2. Soil mobility of bismuth and lead 51 |
| | 3.4.3. Vegetative interactions with bismuth and lead 51 |
| | 3.5. Summary . 53 |
| | 4. ADOPTING A POST-NORMAL PERSPECTIVE IN THE CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE 55 |
| | 4.1. Complexity and uncertainty 55 |
| | 4.2. Necessity of a post-normal perspective . 56 |
| | 4.2.1. Normal science 56 |
| | 4.2.2. ‘Normal’ policy 58 |
| | 4.2.3. ‘Post-normal policy’ 59 |
| | 4.2.4. Post-normal science. 61 |
| | 4.3. Employing a post-normal perspective 63 |
| | 4.3.1. Means versus ends . 63 |
| | 4.3.2. Reconciliation framework 64 |
| | 4.3.3. Post-normal governance 64 |
| | 4.3.4. Post-normal perspective in theory and practice 67 |
| | 4.4. Canadian Wildlife Service’s Strategic Plan 2000 69 |
| | 4.4.1. Desire to adopt a post-normal perspective 69 |
| | 4.4.2. Implementing a post-normal perspective. 70 |
| | 4.4.3. Analyzing the CWS strategies 72 |
| | 4.5. Summary . 74 |
| | 5. CONCLUSION 75 |
| | 5.1. Research questions revisited 75 |
| | 5.2. Contributions of the research 81 |
| | 5.3. Areas for further investigation 82 |
| | REFERENCES . 84 |