This page was last updated on March 31, 2011.
Silent treatment; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 31, 2011.
In summary, the editorial is a petty attack on both Gov. Corbett and nuclear power.
Now that “Pulling the plug” changed the status of Times opposition to nuclear power from unofficial to official, we can expect a steady diet of even more anti-nuclear-power pieces. I hope it doesn’t distract the Times from its jihads on smoking on private property, obesity, et cetera.
The editorial claimed the “rainwater samples [were] collected on Friday at the state’s nuclear power plants.” Not true according to a story by Times writer Patrick O’Shea. In “Rain will contain more radiation than normal,” Mr. O’Shea indicated the samples were taken from “the eastern part of the state.” The press release by the Governor’s office said, “On Friday, rainwater samples were taken in Harrisburg, where levels were 41 pCi/L and at nuclear power plants at TMI and Limerick, where levels were 90 to 100 pCi/L” supports Mr. O’Shea’s reporting. In fairness to the editorial author(s), however, near the beginning the press release also said, “On Friday, concentrations of Iodine-131, likely originating from the events at Japan’s damaged nuclear plants, were found in rainwater samples collected from Pennsylvania’s nuclear power plant facilities.”
FYI, Iodine-131 has a radioactive half-life of about eight days. This means the low levels of Iodine-131 in collected rainwater will drop quickly and become undetectable. As for drinking water, rainwater getting into surface water sources will first be greatly diluted by existing water and then even if detectable levels of Iodine-131 exist, they will quickly become undetectable. As for subsurface water sources like aquifers and wells, it’s unlikely there would be any detectable levels of Iodine-131 in the rainwater by the time it found its way through the ground into the existing water. Even if there were, again the existing water would greatly dilute the rainwater.
Attacking Gov. Corbett for not reporting the data immediately is pretty bogus and shows the Times grasping at straws for things with which to bash Mr. Corbett. Here’s the relevant portion of the editorial: “It wasn’t until Monday morning that Gov. Tom Corbett got around to holding a pop news conference to let residents in on the secret. One excuse for the delay was that the state wanted to analyze drinking water samples from six regions in the commonwealth instead of relying on rainwater samples collected on Friday at the state’s nuclear power plants. But there was no reason to keep Friday’s results under wraps. The radiation levels posed no immediate threat. The public could have handled that.” Note the use of “excuse” instead of “reason” or something similar. As mentioned above, the rainwater samples were not collected “at the state’s nuclear power plants” but instead only in a relatively small section of Southeastern PA (roughly from Harrisburg to a little northwest of Philadelphia).
Had the rainfall results been bad, the Times would have had a reasonable point because our health could have been at risk. The editorial, however, conceded multiple times the “radiation levels posed no immediate threat” or something similar.
As far as I can tell from current reporting, Mr. Corbett and the PA Department of Environmental Protection did the right thing in waiting a couple of days to get the drinking water test results. After all, what would be the first question you would have after hearing about the rainfall test results? You’d want to know about the drinking water in your area, not just about rainfall in a small part of the commonwealth. Had Mr. Corbett not waited for the drinking water test results from samples taken around the state, we’d be reading an editorial bashing him should for not waiting until he could give the whole story. I’m afraid we’re in for another four or eight years of nonsensical Corbett bashing by the Times, even if it has to manufacture an alleged misstep as here.
Getting back to the Times official opposition to nuclear power, I believe it saw a golden opportunity missed. Given its position, it’s probably fair to say the Times wants as much negative publicity about nuclear power as possible. Had Mr. Corbett announced the test results on Friday without being able to give any assurances about drinking water, the story would have percolated in our minds for a weekend and perhaps caused a little distress in some of us. By waiting for the drinking water results, the rainwater results became a nonstory. I suspect this the real problem the Times is upset Mr. Corbett waited to have the whole story.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.