On Friday, the Vermont Department of Public Health announced they had caught another fish in the Connecticut River, and it contained background levels of strontium 90 in its bones. The Department of Public Health website says that the fish contained 80 to 100 picocuries per kg in "inedible portions" of the fish. Generally, fish bones are tested for strontium, since strontium behaves similarly to calcium in the body.The Vermont Health Department website made a gallant attempt to put these findings in perspective, noting that: A New York study found background levels of Sr-90 in fish to be in the range of 120 to 360 pCi/kg. Heck, a month ago, I made my own gallant attempt to put strontium levels in perspective in my post, a Radioactive Fish Story.
These Connecticut River fish have the same amount of strontium in them as any other fish.
What They Say
"Perspective" is a weak buttress against the hysteria shown by those who oppose Vermont Yankee. For example, Maggie Gundersen contributes to the Green Mountain Daily blog. Gundersen's post about the fish is thick with innuendo and conspiracy theories. Here are a few quotes:
When the Vermont Department of Health (DOH) does the heavy lifting, Entergy's Vermont Yankee plant doesn't have to lift a finger.(The) DOH was able to post it on their website late on the afternoon prior to one of the region's biggest holidays... NEWS DUMP.No wonder Vermont Yankee did not want to let all the press know about more contaminated fish and needed some DOH help with the NEWS DUMP. Hope folks along the Connecticut River aren't planning any fish fries for the holiday weekend. Best to throw them back.
What They Say, but Translated into English
The confusing quotes above require some translation. To understand them, you have to believe the following:
- The fish in the Connecticut River are dangerously contaminated with radioactive strontium.
- This strontium comes from Vermont Yankee.
- The fish in the Connecticut River should not be eaten.
- The Department of Health and Entergy are in deep collusion. Together, they conspire against the people of Vermont.
- Press releases from the Department of Health reveal terrible things about strontium contamination from Vermont Yankee.
- However, the Department of Health prepares press releases just before holiday weekends, in the hopes that nobody will pay attention to these releases.
- The press releases are issued at low-readership times as a favor to Vermont Yankee.
- The Department of Health's attempts to compare this fish with other fish from other rivers is part of their effort to mislead.
This might seem like a grab-bag of assertions, but there is a set of underlying themes.
Underlying Tactics
The tactics above are simple and well-used. They follow two themes:
- Heavy-duty conspiracy theory: They are all lying to you! Believe only ME!
- Scares and warnings of imminent danger: Hope folks aren't planning any fish fries!
Probably never.
Fear translates directly into donations, and donations are what anti-nuclear groups require.
In the music-hall song, She Was Poor But She Was Honest, the chorus reminds us that:
"It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?"
I would change the words a little.
"It's the same the whole world over
It's the nukes what gets the blame
It's the scares what gets the money
Isn't it a blooming shame?"
Late News
In an article in the Times Argus today, Arnie Gundersen also expresses his belief that any strontium present in these fish must come from Vermont Yankee. He ignores statements from:
- the river steward of the Connecticut River Watershed Council
- the Vermont Department of Health
Both say that the strontium measurements in the fish are background level.
Hmm. I'm wondering if I should have labeled Gundersen's comment "news"? If it is predictable, is it "news"?
-----
The graphic, from Wikimedia Commons, shows the Coat of arms of Narva town, Estonia. It appealed to me because of the conjunction of fishes and weapons of war.
Hi Meredith,
ReplyDeleteI tried to post at the blog you have linked, but I could not find a way to post a comment. I think you are right in your analysis, this breaks down to "you can't trust them." and "be very scared."
This exaggeration of dangers, without comparison to other dangerous areas of life keeps people frightened and could keep them literally in the dark if they follow those fears.
I was talking with a friend from India who specializes in caring for AIDS victims. She said that the stigma is worse than the disease. People are ejected from their homes, and loose their jobs, homes, support and care. Living on the street is very unhealthy and so they die fairly quickly.
Sometimes a stigma is worse than the disease.
Hi Meredith,
ReplyDeleteI tried to post at the blog you have linked, but I could not find a way to post a comment. I think you are right in your analysis, this breaks down to "you can't trust them." and "be very scared."
This exaggeration of dangers, without comparison to other dangerous areas of life keeps people frightened and could keep them literally in the dark if they follow those fears.
I was talking with a friend from India who specializes in caring for AIDS victims. She said that the stigma is worse than the disease. People are ejected from their homes, and loose their jobs, homes, support and care. Living on the street is very unhealthy and so they die fairly quickly.
Sometimes a stigma is worse than the disease.
------
This comment was sent by David, but when I hit "publish comment"on the email I received about it, instead of publishing the comment, I received an error message.
I copied his comment from the email and posted it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete