Skip to main content

Groundwater Study Co-Authors Lack Scientific Credentials

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.
  • Jennifer Kim of U.S. PIRG has a degree in history from the University of Michigan;
  • Sean Garren has a degree in Government from Dartmouth.
How this qualifies any of them to publish a study on groundwater is a puzzle to us. In any case, we'll keep an eye on reporting concerning the study, and provide updates if and when they're warranted.


gmax137 said…
While the academic degrees are interesting, I think your criticism of their report should be based on the report itself. Simply saying the authors are unqualified based on their college majors only weakens your argument, and makes you look desperate. I too, believe the report to be hokum, but that's not based upon the Latin on their sheepskins.
Anonymous said…
Please explain how you figure their work qualifies as a "study".
Bob Applebaum said…
I agree with gmax137. To craft your argument around their degrees is a form of logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". What matters are the facts. In this study the only real methodology was collecting historical and population data. The authors then conclude that nuke plants are too dangerous, which is probably what they had concluded prior to undertaking the "study".
Rick A.M. said…
I will respond to gmax137's comments by saying that this is likely to be only the first of NEI's responses to the PIRG report. Let us not forget that the report is being issued today, and that it will take NEI time to review it and to make valid comments. The NEI post today about the authors' credentials serves as a prologue, I think, about the quality that we can expect from the report.
DW said…
Rick, I'm sure we look forward to the NEI's full response. It's very important that this go out beyond the failure of credentials.

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
Brian Mays said…
PIRG is such an easy target (example), it's difficult not to make fun of them.

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.
Anonymous said…
You are all missing the point. The authors aren't writing to a scientific audience. It isn't meant to be a peer-reviewed scholarly article. It is written for the media and a layman audience. They would not mind if people mistook it for a scientific study, but as the previous posters have pointed out, it lacks those merits, and the authors lack scientific credentials. Taken together, it is easy to reach the conclusions noted above.
Brian Mays said…

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.
Anonymous said…
"PIRG is such an easy target (example), it's difficult not to make fun of them."

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?
Rick A.M. said…
Regarding the Jan 25 comment from Anonymous, that is one of the weakest retorts that I've ever read. I think that NEI's point is about junk science, not perfect editing.
The Realist said…
This report needs a thorough debunking. This kind of pseudo-science gives environmentalists a bad name. The jump from risk probability to policy prescription is so random as to defy analysis. This is a fundraising piece, pure and simple, feeding into the biases of an existing anti-nuclear public. We in the environmental movement owe it to the broader public to step up when this shoddy crap is published.
Anonymous said…
It doesn't take a scientist (I'm a senior in chemistry) to see that Fukushima is being covered up, to understand that the NRC has NEVER refused a license for a nuclear facility, and that a large amount of sickness and death has been caused by misinformation from nuclear commercial interests, and cost-cutting measures taken in the manufacture of plants. Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates ( IS a true professional: A Nuclear Engineer who served as an expert witness for the 3-mile island incident. Moreoever, with the introduction of detection devices that can interface with personal computers, independent radiation monitoring is growing each day, and providing objective data on the plumes over EVERY reactor of released radioactive gasses, as an escape vent was integrated as a "safety device" into all reactors, at least of the boiling water type, after 3-mile island. Visit fairewinds, find the independent monitoring sites (there are a few different ones via google), and use this to decide for yourself if the burden of proof should lie with the nuclear industry and it's proponents, or with citizens once they get cancers. "Atomic States of America" is a documentary premeired at sundance, to be released in 2012, and it should be watched by all. Research PWR and BWR, so you can reports on your own. In the meantime, ad-hominem circumstantial discrediting of studies is just that: they don't want you to read the studies. Get the study and send it to a university professor via the internet, ask them for their opinion.
Anonymous said…
Why must comments be approved? This blog is not open, and therefore pointless. One of the central tenets of the scientific theory is openness, how many interesting and poignant comments didn't make it on here?
Rick A.M. said…
Anonymous, with all due respect, you should base your beliefs on other things than junk science. I'm not trying to bully you. Go back and find a book by Dixie Lee Ray called "Trashing the Planet." (Read the "Issues Nuclear" section.) Then move on to Gwyneth Cravens' "Power to Save the World." Like you, I am not a scientist, and I was skeptical of nuclear initially. But I took time to learn about it. The world needs nuclear power. It's dangerous, but then nothing in life has zero risk. Nuclear is a very safe and controlled technology. Please open your mind to look past the snake oil salesmen out there. If you base your conclusions on science, then you will agree that anti-nuclear arguments are flimsy.
Anonymous said…
"I think that NEI's point is about junk science, not perfect editing."

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.
Brian Mays said…
They weren't part of a "Powerpoint slide." Those are real buttons that are available for sale on the Internet.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…