Entergy says it's no big deal; but what's so great about having tritium leaking into the groundwater? What's so great about finding tritium in the Connecticut River or a fish with strontium in it? What's so great about Vermont Yankee dumping hot water into the Connecticut River undermining the shad population?
Entergy says it's no big deal, again and again.
What's so great about having a rogue corporation suing Vermont to undermine the will of the people? Doesn't seem so great to the people of Vermont or the tri-state community, does it.
Would this be a big deal to Entergy?
Is this what we have to look forward to in 2012?
* * *
What's so great about having the state's radiological health officer, Bill Irwin, say time and again that radiation leaks are nothing to worry about? According to experts, there are no safe levels of radiation. Radiation leaking from any nuclear plant is not a good thing. It's not supposed to happen. So what is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doing? Nothing.
Currently, 37 out of 104 plants are leaking, and the NRC is doing nothing to ensure that the remaining 67 plants don't. It's not a safety issue. Not to NRC; not to Entergy.
And, of course, the state of Vermont and the people can't ever talk about safety, right? Entergy will take us to court. Meanwhile, the NRC commissioners are attacking their chair, Greg Jasczko, because he's attempting to implement safety measures as a result of Fukushima.
Recently, we learned that the tritium - the same tritium leaking from pipes that Entergy officials testified repeatedly did not exist - is now appearing in the Connecticut River. Entergy and Irwin state that it's only a little tritium and it's not harmful, so it's no big deal, right?
Remember that Entergy's spokesman, Larry Smith, stated that if those underground pipes leaked - those pipes that didn't exist - tritium would never be detected in the river.
Remember, tritium has the same characteristics as water and is very, very difficult to detect. The fact that it was found in the river is disturbing.
* * *
Who ever thought it was a good idea to allow this corporation to dump 100-plus-degree water into one of New England's most important waterways? It's compromised the shad population, along with anything else that has a hard time living in heated water.
Why is Entergy heating the river?
Money.
If it couldn't use river water to cool VY, then Entergy would be forced to use its cooling towers year-round. Remember those towers? They are the structures on which Entergy deferred maintenance until one fell down - not once, but twice.
It's understandable why Entergy wants to use our river to cut its operating costs. But why is it good public policy to allow this corporation to do so?
Why is it good public policy to let this corporation contaminate groundwater, heat and contaminate the river, and assure us again and again that none of this matters?
Why is our governor allowing a “What, me worry?” civil servant to serve in a role designed to protect Vermonters?
Instead of Entergy, and some state officials, trying to convince us that this is no big deal, shouldn't the real question be, “What's so good about the cumulative effect of all this?”