Here at NEI, my colleagues and I have been batting around a press release from Environment America and U.S. PIRG claiming that nuclear power plants represent a threat ground water from leaks of tritium. The report is titled, “Too Close to Home: Nuclear Power and the Threat to Drinking Water.”
From where we sit, the story seems a lot like one that the AP pushed out in June 2011 about the subject. The public needs to know that there has been no known adverse impact on public health or safety from a tritium release at commercial nuclear power plants.
While we'll have more on that later, it's also important to point out that the four co-authors of this study lack any scientific credentials.
From where we sit, the story seems a lot like one that the AP pushed out in June 2011 about the subject. The public needs to know that there has been no known adverse impact on public health or safety from a tritium release at commercial nuclear power plants.
While we'll have more on that later, it's also important to point out that the four co-authors of this study lack any scientific credentials.
- Jennifer Kim of U.S. PIRG has a degree in history from the University of Michigan;
- According to her own MySpace page, Courtney Abrams of Environment America graduated with a degree in Psychology from Wake Forest;
- Her Environment America colleague Rob Kerth has a BA in history from Yale;
- Sean Garren has a degree in Government from Dartmouth.
Comments
This happened with Marc Cooper(sp?) report on Vermont Yankee. He is a lawyer with no expertise in nuclear but his report, rather important parts of that report, were not always commented on by pronuclear advocates because they dismissed it because they dismissed Cooper. A big mistake, IMO.
David Walters
In any case, this is not a scientific report. Almost all of the references given are to either popular news articles, Op-Ed's, or web pages. A mediocre high-school senior could have written this junk; an above-average high-school senior would have done a better job.
I don't think that anyone is missing the point. This "report" is just more of the usual nonsense published by the various PIRG's.
Let's face it, PIRG really stands for Propaganda, Ignorance, and Recycled Garbage. Or at least, that accurately describes what they advocate.
Of course, nothing the NEI has ever put out has ever had a single typo, right?
But if NEI had ever issued a PowerPoint slide with a typo, would that prove they, too, are ignorant and recycling garbage?
Your standards for challengning your opponents have really gone downhill. Gonna make fun of their haircuts next?
I didn't choose the example of why one can "make fun" of PIRG; Brian Mays did. and the example he chose to prove his point was PIRG's release of a PowerPoint slide that contained a typo.