Destructive Lies

Entergy Makes Misleading Statements and is Punished

Recently, the Public Service Board awarded various intervenors (VPIRG and others) financial restitution to be paid by Entergy. The basis for this award was that Entergy had supplied misleading information about its piping, causing the intervenors to be forced to spend money on research and attorney's fees on these issues.

The PSB ruling was somewhat confusing. Here's a quote, edited slightly for length:

However, we further conclude that reasonable attorney's fees and costs of VPIRG, NEC and WRC subsequent to the disclosure of the leaks, and that were and will be incurred as a result of Entergy VY's provision of incorrect information, should be reimbursed by Entergy VY. ..... there is a clear causal connection between the misrepresentations made by Entergy VY and additional expenses that WRC, VPIRG, and NEC would incur, and in fact have incurred, in this docket.....The affidavits supplied by NEC show that its staff person, its technical consultant, and its attorney expended a considerable number of hours to address matters in Docket No. 7440 directly related to the Entergy VY misrepresentations. For example, NEC's technical consultant, Raymond Shadis, affirms that between January 7, 2010, (the date on which the existence of the leaks was publicly disclosed) and March 10, 2010, he spent 172 hours on Docket No. 7440 issues related to piping, soil and decommissioning.

I am not a lawyer. and I don't know why intervenors are paid if they have to do more work due to misleading statements by one of the parties. I also can't get too excited about this. Entergy won't decide to shut down the plant because they had to pay Raymond Shadis. I don't think this ruling is fair, but I also don't think it's a big deal.

What Were the Real-Life Consequences of the Entergy Statements?

Without going through the entire history, from "They Lied" at the potluck to the legal report showing that Entergy statements were careless but unintentional, let's just look at a hypothetical case. Let's say Entergy had said: "Yes, we have some underground piping that carries water with radionuclides. It is the piping that takes the non-condensable gases and some water vapor from the turbines to an advanced condenser. The condenser is also a heat exchanger. The piping returns the condensed water to the plant."

Now, since I noted before, the service water is more of a reliability problem than this off-gas system, this statement might have changed nothing about the review process. On the other hand, it might have changed the inspection protocols. Entergy could have been required to open up the famous tunnel and inspect the pipe at that point. Let's say Entergy had been required to do so, and let's say they discovered the leak before any tritiated water touched the soil. So what?

A great deal of time and trouble would have been avoided. However, in this scenario, the same amount of tritiated water would have been detected in the river or the aquifers below the plant. No tritiated water. Zero. Nada. Below the detection limits.

In other words, Entergy's misstatements gave them a black eye and cost them money, but made no difference to the environment.

The Lies of the Anti-Nukes

I don't know where to start. The constant chorus against Entergy of "tritium is getting into the river and nobody can fish in it now." (No detectable or significant amounts or tritium got into the river, and there is no problem with the fish.) Or "They lied under oath." (No, they didn't.) Or "Oak Ridge Associated Universities does Junk Science" (this was a pre-tritium accusation).

As I pointed out in a recent post, the lies don't stop there. Shumlin, Smith and Klein are quite happy to describe radioactive strontium as "attacking the bones and teeth" of Vermont's children. They describe the tritium leak as Vermont's BP, an environmental disaster!

What Are the Real-Life Consequences of the Lies of the Anti-Nukes?

And what consequences have all these anti-nuke lies had? They have been effective at turning public opinion against the plant, which may have to shut down. I hope not. Still that has been the purpose of the constant accusations and street theater. Of course, they want to shut down the plant, so they like these consequences.

The other real-life consequence is that the constant lies about the amount of radioactivity released into the environment, and its effect on rivers and children...these lies are destroying the Vermont brand. As I noted before, if I lived in the Midwest and saw all the ranking Vermont legislators talking about all the radiation and Vermont's BP and children's teeth...I would never buy a Vermont product again.

The lies of the anti-nukes will cause people to suffer. The anti-nukes don't care about laying off the VY workers. They publicly malign Vermont farmers and food products and destroy the Vermont Brand.

All they want is a hobby horse on which they can ride to election. Scapegoating is an age-old technique, and the anti-nukes are using it.

For these lies, the people of Vermont will end up being punished.

A word about the cartoons.

If you remember, I suggested that pro-nuclear advocates need some political cartoons. I mentioned the Marek Bennett cartoons, Mimi's Doughnuts, some of which I hate (It's Tritty) and some of which I love (Same Words, Different Eras). George Murphy (no, I don't know if that is a pen name) immediately sent me links to Vermont Yankee cartoons that he derived from the original cartoons. Since then, Murphy and I have had quite a correspondence. Since his cartoons are parodies or extensions of political cartoons, they are free and protected speech.

So the question arose: would I run them? They are more hard-hitting than my usual posts, but that is what cartoons are, after all. Hard-hitting. Visceral. Perhaps too honest.

Murphy has more of these. Let me know what you think.

Note: After comments and email exchanges with the original artist (Marek Bennett) the attribution at the base of each cartoon now reads: Fair Use Parody by G. Murphy using original artwork of Marek Bennett. I thank G. Murphy and Marek Bennet for resetting the attributions to everyone's satisfaction.

Hot Air About Jobs

It was no surprise to me that all the Democratic candidates for Vermont Governor are determined to ensure that Vermont Yankee closes down by 2012. If nothing else, I heard them all speak at the Race to Replace in Montpelier in late April. The Race to Replace (replace Vermont Yankee, that is) began the same day that my Coalition For Energy Solutions group gave a press conference releasing our report on Vermont Electric Power in Transition. Listening the the candidates was disheartening: they ranged from attack-dogs like Shumlin to "the renewable future's so bright I have to wear shades" words of Matt Dunne. But they were all eager to shut down Vermont Yankee.

Yesterday, the Burlington Free Press published an article asking the candidates a simple question: "How are you going to replace the jobs lost if Vermont Yankee closes down?" Comment & Debate: Vermont gubernatorial candidates offer ideas to replace jobs if Vermont Yankee closes. The amount of hot air put forward by the Democratic candidates on this question is truly astounding.

A summary below:

• Matt Dunne wants bonds for efficiency projects. He is willing to admit that efficiency costs money.
• Deb Markowitz believes in HydroQuebec.
• Doug Racine gives the usual set of solutions: conservation and renewables. He likes what California did with SMUD. They put up solar panels right on the site of the retired reactor. And by golly, when the sun shines, they have two megawatts of power. (Rancho Seco was 950 megawatts). Of course, you can have this sort of terrific success in sunny California. Here's a video about Rancho Seco and its solar installation.
• Peter Shumlin. Look. Nobody pays me to blog. I don't have to read this one. Sigh. Okay. We expect every blogger to do her duty. Here goes....

Shumlin is concerned that VY will go into SAFESTOR and not immediately provide decommissioning jobs. He plans to prevent SAFESTOR from happening. Shumlin apparently has not read the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approving the sale of VY to Entergy. Article 9 of the MOU specifically allows SAFESTOR.
• Martha Abbott, Progressive Democrat, supports Sarah Edwards (long-time anti-Yankee representative) in her hope that Entergy employees will be retrained for "comparable jobs." Abbott and Edwards apparently believe that the workers lack training, not that Vermont lacks "comparable jobs." Abbott also warns against forces that "pit the VY workers against the environmentalists." Oh dear. Could that really happen?According to Abbottt, it IS happening, due to a conspiracy between Entergy and the Burlington Free Press to cause animosity between the two groups.
• Susan Bartlett believes SAFESTOR will create jobs (how about Bartlett and Shumlin having a little talk?) and also hopes for a biomass plant on the site.

They also interviewed Brian Dubie, Republican candidate for Governor who simply hopes to encourage economic growth by licensing and tax policy. He doesn't have a quick fix. Of course, he also supports the plant continuing to operate.

It's a long article, full of sound and fury, signifying little.

News flash: Three unions have endorsed Doug Racine for governor. The State Employee's Union endorsed him yesterday. I am not sure if that means Racine is the Democratic front-runner. Reading his comments, he seems the most moderate of the Democratic candidates about Vermont Yankee. He speaks about costs and plant management as reasons to close the plant down. He doesn't rant about tritium endangering workers and the public, etc.

I have learned to be grateful for small favors.

The French Brand, the Vermont Brand, and Areva

Areva is a French company that builds some of the most advanced nuclear steam supply systems in the world. Areva also has facilities and skills in every phase of the nuclear fuel cycle, from mines to enrichment to reprocessing to waste vitfrication. For example, Areva supplies recycled MOX fuel rods to several countries, including France, Japan and Germany.

Areva U.S. has its own blog, and takes bloggers seriously as reporters and opinion leaders. Last week, Areva hosted a group of American and Canadian bloggers on a trip to Areva facilities in France. I was one of the bloggers. It was the trip of a lifetime. (Disclosure. Areva paid the expenses for many of us, including my expenses.)

Going to France and visiting the Areva facilities was like visiting the kind of future that I hope will come to this country. High tech nuclear facilities, wonderful food and wine, fast electric trains speeding through the countryside. Outdoor cafes, espresso and conversation.

The French Brand

France has a "brand," and France is easily as proud of its brand as Vermont is proud of its own brand. In wines, the whole concept of appellation d'origine contrôlée came from France, starting with Côtes du Rhône in 1937. This branding helped make French wines world-famous. Or perhaps you might think about food. Has there ever been a cookbook as famous as Mastering the Art of French Cooking? Though Germany has excellent food and amazing pastries, can you imagine a book called Mastering the Art of German Cooking?

And of course, "We'll always have Paris."

French Nuclear

As most people know, 80% of French electricity comes from nuclear power. Nuclear gives France clear skies, high-speed trains, and the kind of technical knowledge that lets France export reactor systems to China and earn money from service contracts with Japan. ( I will blog about this in subsequent posts.)

The French are committed to educating people about nuclear. The picture at the head of this blog is a poster advertising the hours for touring the Flamanville PWR and EPR plants. This poster was in the waiting area of a restaurant. Double-click on the graphic to read the plant tour hours. Tour hours are described for when schools are in session and when they are on vacation. The French clearly expect children and families to tour nuclear facilities.

Cows and sheep graze near the nuclear sites and produce milk for the famous French cheeses. In the south of France, vineyards are just over the fence line from the nuclear facilities. All the facilities have ISO 14001 environmental certifications and do extensive environmental monitoring. The wine and cheese are not radioactive.

Nuclear energy is part of the French brand. Despite the excitement and street theater of nuclear hearings in southern Vermont, Brattleboro anti-nuclear attitudes are not doing the French brand any harm. People still visit the French Riveria, the Loire Valley, the Normandy beaches, and Paris. They eat French foods.

We'll always have Paris.

However, anti-nuke attitudes are destroying the Vermont Brand.

The Vermont Brand

The Vermont Brand is to some extent, a copy of the French brand, adding maple trees and subtracting vineyards. Vermont aims to have high-quality food products and an enviable way of life: clean air, trout streams, unspoiled forests. Vermonters make a concerted effort to be sure Made In Vermont is a symbol of quality for foods.

As I pointed out in a recent post, however, some forces in Vermont are trying to destroy this brand for their own political gain.

Shumlin called the ongoing leakage of tritium, strontium-90, cesium and other radionuclides as the "greatest environmental crisis in Vermont's history."

"This is Vermont's BP," said Shumlin, referencing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico due to an offshore drilling operation gone awry under the watch of British Petroleum.

These recent remarks are not the first such attack on Vermont's brand. I was at a meeting in the fall where Tony Klein, head of the Vermont House Energy and Natural Resources Committee, stated that the existence of Vermont Yankee on Vermont's soil could destroy the Vermont brand.

Whatever people may think of Vermont Yankee and Entergy, the fact remains that the tritium leak was a very small amount of tritium, no hazard to health, and undetectable in any water outside the plant boundaries. There was some strontium in soil near the leak. This soil would fill about two pick-up trucks, and is being removed. The existence of these leaks cannot destroy the Vermont brand.

However, the rhetoric of our politicians might well destroy the brand. If I lived in the Midwest, and saw a TV show in which Vermont leaders were comparing the tritium leak to a massive oil spill, and were describing strontium as "attacking the teeth and bones of children" in Vermont, I would come to the conclusion that Vermont was a radioactive wasteland. I would probably avoid Vermont-made products, and buy New York cheese and New Hampshire maple syrup in the future.

Perhaps our leaders could learn how to attack Vermont Yankee without attacking Vermont's livelihood. Or is that too much to ask? Perhaps the hyperbole of massive spills and children being attacked is just too good to resist. Despite the consequences to the state of Vermont.

As I said in an earlier post: Shumlin, Smith and Klein are crazy. It's the only possible explanation.

Some Links

I wasn't the only blogger in France. Rod Adams has an excellent overview of our trip on his blog. Stephen Aplin compares the situation in France to the situation in Canada in his blog on Canadian Energy Issues. And Areva notes Rod Adams comments in Areva's own blog.

(Reading these posts in almost like being there. Well, actually, it's not. Being there was like being there.)

Meanwhile, Next Big Future has hosted the Fifth Carnival of Nuclear Energy, with links to posts about Republican Energy Strategies and advanced nuclear systems. Worth a look!

The Fourth Blog Carnival

Charles Barton has posted the Fourth Blog Carnival of Nuclear Energy at Nuclear Green. Barton named this Carnival The Vermont Freak shows, and he covers our recent one-gallon-water-spill-equals-giant-oil-spill craziness from several different viewpoints.

Barton also pulled together wonderful blasts from the past. The problem with blogging is that tomorrow there's a new blog. The best and most careful analysis can vanish like a soap bubble. Barton has gathered links to some of the more important blogs of the past, including economist David Bradish's powerful deconstruction of Amory Lovins arguments that nuclear is too costly. Bradish blogs at NEI Nuclear Notes.

Political Cartoons

Charles also includes a political cartoon in favor of thorium energy, by cartoonist Pyar Anderson. As Anderson says in his description of the cartoon: Heavy investment in Thorium energy would staunch the energy crisis, blunt the fears of nuclear proliferation, reduce nuclear waste, and conceivably put nuclear power in vehicles, even. Thor knows it.

I believe that political cartoons are very powerful, and I would like to see more pro-nuclear cartoons. Right now, the PopAtomic Studios group is making nuclear-themed art. A recent post shows how PopAtomic is moving nuclear art into the mainstream. Is there anyone who can do this for pro-nuclear cartoons? While there have been occasional pro-nuclear cartoons in the mainstream, I don't think we should wait for established cartoonists to come around.

In terms of anti-nuclear cartoons, during the tritium issue, I found a Mimi's Doughnuts cartoon far more difficult to confront than anything written in the local papers. It was clear, direct, and emotionally gripping. It was also not true. The tritium levels in any drinking water or the river were too low to measure. But within the context of the cartoon, it was hard to refute. I would have to argue with one single panel of a compelling anti-nuclear story. (Yes, the cartoon was in my local paper.)

Great Job, Charles, in putting together a fascinating Carnival!

A Gallon of Water and Calls for a Shutdown: Vermont's BP!

As reported in the Seven Days blog (and elsewhere) some water with tritium leaked from a pipe at Vermont Yankee. The leak contaminated a one-foot radius of soil, and was perhaps one gallon of water. Then the leak was found and fixed. The pipe from which it leaked is only used at plant start-up.

Naturally, some lawmakers are calling for an immediate shut-down of the plant. Peter Shumlin is more "moderate" and wants a three- month shut-down while they reroute lots of piping. Now Shumlin is an expert on power production methodologies? He learned that Germany doesn't get "30% of its juice from solar" and he's making rapid progress on the technology front.

Fine. This is exactly what I would expect. "Every trickle is seen as a torrent" as a friend of mine put it.

What I simply cannot stand, and am actually too angry to blog about, is the comparison of this incident with the Gulf Disaster.

Here are some quotes:

Shumlin called the ongoing leakage of tritium, strontium-90, cesium and other radionuclides as the "greatest environmental crisis in Vermont's history."

"This is Vermont's BP," said Shumlin, referencing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico due to an offshore drilling operation gone awry under the watch of British Petroleum.

Speaker Shap Smith said one lesson from environmental disasters like the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is to prevent them before they happen. Replacing the pipes at Vermont Yankee would stop more leaks from occurring, he said.

"We've already seen the consequences of what happens when you don't take care of the piping," said Shap Smith, referring to earlier leaks at Vermont Yankee.

You can watch Vermont legislators making these kind of outrageous statements in a WPTZ video.

They claim that one gallon of water, and two pick-up trucks of contaminated soil near an earlier leak...they claim that these things are the equivalent of the on-going disaster in the Gulf.

People who say things like that are just beyond reason. I'm sorry. I simply can't express myself strongly enough on this matter. The Gulf is an environmental disaster. A leak within the plant boundaries is pretty much a non-event. That's all there is to it. Only a crazy person would say the two types of things are the same.

I usually don't call the opponents of the plant "crazy." I assume they have their issues and they have their reasons. Once in a while, however, some of the opponents cross the boundary of sanity.

People who compare in-plant leakage of small amounts of radiation with the Gulf disaster are crazy.

And a thank-you to Rod Adams for his post about Vermont legislators, and for describing me as a gentlewoman!

-------

Note: I will be out of town for a week, starting tomorrow. Blog posts will be infrequent, I suspect, but I will do my best to be responsive about comment moderation.

About the Deepwater Horizon Well

I wrote a letter to the editor and it was published yesterday in the Valley News. In some ways, my thoughts on this topic are a continuation of my thoughts about the strontium-containing fish from yesterday's post.

I'm thinking about the Gulf more and more these days. I think about the time I spent there in the geopressured-geothermal areas. I think about what's happening now. We're all thinking about the Gulf. How can we ignore a tragedy of such magnitude?

Here's my letter to the editor and supplementary material.

-----------

The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion did not have to happen.

I have some experience with geothermal drilling, which uses similar technologies to those used in oil and gas drilling. One of the most important men on a drill site was the Mud Man. He was responsible for formulating a drilling mud which matched many important and sometimes contradictory requirements. The mud had to be heavy: the weight of the mud kept the pressure on the bottom of the well, and the heavy column of mud was the first line of protection against blowouts. The mud also had to flow easily: the consistency of the mud must allow it to circulate and bring up the cut rock from the drilling. If the mud didn't circulate the drill bit could freeze up amidst its own cuttings. The mud had to be capable of withstanding the pressure, temperature, gases, and chemistry of that particular well. It took years of experience to be a mud man, and nobody on a well-site argued with that man about how to formulate or use the mud.

On this rig, it looks like the owners felt they could overrule the mud man and other experts, despite all kinds of problems showing up with the well. They ordered the mud man to substitute light seawater for heavy mud. They didn't take the care necessary for switching from drilling to production. Technical people objected, but BP put "completing the drilling" ahead of the structural integrity of the very platform they were standing on.

I like to give people benefit of the doubt when an accident happens. Not in this case. People died and ecologies will be affected for many many years.

-------

Some background: In the hours before the blast, the drillers and the BP "company man" had this disagreement, reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Brown said Transocean's crew leaders—including the rig operator's top manager, Jimmy W. Harrell—strongly objected to a decision by BP's top representative, or "company man," over how to start removing heavy drilling fluid and replacing it with lighter seawater from a riser pipe connected to the well head. Such pipes act as conduits between the rig and the wellhead at the ocean floor, and carry drilling fluid in and out of the well.

.......

It wasn't clear what Mr. Harrell objected to specifically about BP's instructions, but the rig's primary driller, Dewey Revette, and tool pusher, Miles Randall Ezell, both of Transocean, also disagreed with BP, Mr. Brown said. However, BP was in charge of the operation and the BP representative prevailed, Mr. Brown said.

"The company man was basically saying, 'This is how it's gonna be,' " said Mr. Brown, who didn't recall the name of the BP representative in question.

.......

Mr. Harrell "pretty much grumbled in his manner, 'I guess that is what we have those pinchers for,' " Mr. Brown testified. He said it was a reference to the shear rams on the drilling operation's blowout preventer, which are supposed to sever the main pipe in case of a disaster.

The blowout preventer failed to stop gas from rising to the surface, causing the explosion, BP has said.

Mr. Harrell hasn't testified and declined repeated requests for comment. Donald Vidrine, listed on Transocean's documents as BP's "company man" on April 20, couldn't be reached. Mr. Revette was among the 11 workers who were killed.

A Radioactive Fish Story

The Strontium Fish from the Connecticut River

There was a fish caught in the Connecticut river. It had radioactive strontium in its bones. How much radioactive strontium? The measurement was 59 picocuries per kilogram of fish. Or maybe it was 59 picocuries of strontium per kilogram of fish bones. I couldn't completely understand this sentence:

Irwin said the 59 picocuries per kilogram found in the perch's bones was actually at the low end of measurements taken from fish caught even much farther from nuclear plants.

Bill Irwin made the above statement about the Connecticut River fish. He is the radiological health chief in the Department of Public Health in Vermont.

Meanwhile, the radiological health chief of New Hampshire, Michael Dumond, had this to say about the strontium in the fish:

"It's clearly consistent with the background levels from Chernobyl and weapons testing that went on until 1965."

Similarly, a consultant in radioactive testing, John Till, president of South Carolina-based Risk Assessment Corp. said that the amounts of strontium were too tiny to be a concern. Remembering that a pico is a trillionth of a curie, "tiny" is indeed the correct word.

If there had been 1000 picocuries per kilogram, we would have a billionth of a curie per kilogram in the fish's bones. Thank heavens, there were only 59 picocuries. 59 trillionths! Whew!

As I investigated, by the way, I realized that the confusing sentence about picocuries in fish bones was correct. The reporter referred to picocuries per kilogram of bone. Similar measurements of radioactive strontium in fish from the Hudson River ranged from 200 to 270 picocuries per kg of bone, while measurements of strontium in the flesh ranged of those fish ranged from undetectable to 8 picocuries per kg.

Helen Caldicott

In a rational world, the story might end there. There are incredibly tiny amounts of radioactive strontium in the fish. Three professionals, one from Vermont, one from New Hampshire, and one from a consulting company, said the equivalent of: "Don't worry about eating the fish. The fish are fine." The amounts of strontium are consistent with background radiation from old atomic testing.

However, that would have been a rather one-sided story, so the enterprising AP reporter called Helen Caldicott at her home in Australia.

We all know what Caldicott said: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

(rephrased by me of course, not a quote)

However, I must give one of Caldicott's statements some respect. Irwin said they hadn't been testing the fish in the river until recently, and Caldicott said that since this was the first fish they tested, they didn't have a baseline for comparison of strontium in fish. Caldicott's implication was that the plant is leaking strontium like crazy. Nevertheless, she was right about the baseline. You don't have a baseline when you catch the first fish, and that's a fact.

Getting a baseline for radioactive strontium in fish due to fallout. How hard can it be? I have access to Google. I decided to try.

Update: Arnie Gundersen feels the fish "raises a lot of concerns." A great blogpost, Blinky, on this fish story in Capacity Factor.

Strontium in Fish

How hard can it be? Very hard.

The first thing I noticed is that most of the strontium-in-fish stories were repeats of the same AP story that I referenced above. Google "advanced search" came to the rescue. I looked for strontium in fish without the word "Vermont" in it, and I got some moderately useful results.

The first was the one listed above: fish in the Hudson, near and far from Indian Point. 200 t0 270 picocuries per kilogram in the bone, less than 10 picocuries in the flesh.

Then there was an entire set of literature about tracing fish lives through the strontium in their ear otoliths (who knew?) Turns out that natural strontium isotopes vary in different areas, and you can trace a fish's migration by the measuring the isotopes in the layers of strontium in its ears.

I also learned that strontium is necessary for reef building organisms, and you can buy strontium to add to your advanced aquarium. Similarly, I learned that fish segregate strontium to their bones and their scales, parts of the fish that we rarely eat.

Unfortunately, there really does not seem to be baseline measurements of radioactive strontium in fish. I found fish measured in the Hudson River near Indian Point. I found warnings about removing the bones from fish from the Savannah River before eating them. I even found an article about fish in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. In other words, nobody measures the radioactive strontium in fish unless there's some reason to believe there might be some radioactive strontium in the fish.

Or as my friend Howard said: "Why don't they measure some fish from Lake Champlain for a baseline?" I agree.

Radioactive Strontium and Food

Finally, after all of this, I found radioactive strontium as a toxic substance in the Center for Disease Control archives. A quote from section 1.3 of their toxic assessment:

90Sr is found nearly everywhere in small amounts from past nuclear accidents and fallout from nuclear explosions. You can be exposed to low levels of 90Sr by eating food, drinking water, or accidentally eating soil or dust that contains 90Sr. Food and drinking water are the largest sources of exposure to 90Sr. Because of the nature of 90Sr, some of it gets into fish, vegetables, and livestock. Grain, leafy vegetables, and dairy products contribute the greatest percentage of dietary 90Sr to humans. The concentration of 90Sr in fresh vegetables grown in the United States is less than 9 pCi (or 0.3 Bq) in 1 kg of dried vegetables (in a hot oven). The intake of radioactive strontium for most people will be small.

In other words, the picoCuries of strontium in fresh vegetables (less than 9 picocuries per kilogram) is about the same as in Hudson River fish (less than 10 picocuries/kg in the flesh). Fish are not a source of radioactive strontium in the diet.

The Other Fish Story

This "radioactive" fish was truly Much Ado about Nothing. I wasted my time with fish ear-bones and picocuries. There is no baseline for strontium in fish, but considering the tiny amount of radioactivity present, there probably doesn't need to be a baseline. There's less radioactive strontium in fish flesh than in fresh vegetables. In either case, we are talking about less than ten trillionths of a curie. (1o picocuries).

Meanwhile, the entire Gulf of Mexico is being contaminated by carcinogenic, toxic oil. Fisheries are being wiped out and may not recover for decades. I don't like to knock other technologies (nuclear good! everybody else bad!) There's no free lunch, and everything has its downside. And yet, when I think of the truly horrible devastation in the Gulf, I wonder how Vermonters can waste time and energy on the picocuries in this fish.

I imagine myself back in geothermal energy, at the geopressured zones near Houston. I remember eating the most magnificent seafood I have every had in my life. Houston has restaurants that serve seafood Cajun style, French style, Japanese style. Every style. You name it. That is a city where they know how to cook fish.

Is that world gone forever? And all the people who made a living at catching fish and cooking it and serving it in little tiny restaurants or fancy white-tablecloth restaurants. Is that world gone? Has our thirst for oil destroyed it?

I believe that more nuclear power and less oil and gas drilling would be a very good thing for the world.

--------

Postcard image from the Safe and Green Campaign, aka the Anti-Vermont Yankee walkers. I think the image is supposed to show that Vermont Yankee is ripe for a disaster. To me, it shows that so many other disasters have happened, and all Vermont Yankee has done is release a small amount of radioactivity to the ground within the plant boundaries.