State Impact (NPR) reports on a You Tube video that questions whether shale gas can increase cancer risks because it may contain radon. The viral video was produced by a group that opposes a pipeline that will transport shale gas from Pennsylvania to New York. Michael Arthur from Penn State says there is not enough information but it is worth studying. PA DEP says that they "don't expect there to be much of an indoor air exposure issue" even though they haven't completed their year-long study that may generate facts to support that assumption. The Marcellus Shale Coalition says that the group's claims "are unsupported by facts and science," all the while failing themselves to produce any studies or data on the group's concerns.
The question to us is which of these groups has access to the data that will answer the question, and why don't they know the answer? The unknown is scary to the public, and yes, there are groups that will exploit that unknown. But the burden here must fall on the industry and government. The industry produces, transports and sells the gas. As with any purveyor of goods, the industry should know what they are selling to the public and be able to answer these public health questions - not simply yell back at those groups like two kids in a playground. And the government, which is now conducting a study more than eight years after it allowed production to proceed full-throttle, hampers its credibility when it makes assertions about public health issues without first having the facts in hand. Let's get the facts and answer the question.
More good news for public health and the environment
The Harrisburg Patriot reports that NRG Energy will shutter two more coal-fired power plants - one in New Jersey and another in Pennsylvania. John Luciew, who wrote the post for the Patriot, adds plenty of commentary to the article - in his first sentence slamming "environmental groups" who he apparently sees cheering for the job losses from these closings while they "don't want fracking for natural gas either."
News flash to Luciew: all "environmental groups" are not built the same. There are several that support the environmentally conscious development of gas so long as that production is part of a comprehensive plan that promotes energy efficiency, conservation and development of renewable energy. The principle of sustainability recognizes that we must meet the needs of the present while planning for and accommodating the needs of future generations.
And though Luciew emphasizes job losses from these plant closings, he does not report on the lives that have been cut short by the pollution spewed out of these aging plants over the years. The true cost of society relying on coal for energy - from acid mine drainage and mercury in our streams, to heart attacks and climate change - has never been fully internalized by the industry. And worse, Pennsylvania continues to subsidize the industry by billions of dollars per year - something our governor refuses to do for alternative energy that would cause much less harm to the public and our environment.
And speaking of which ...
Governor Corbett announced that he recently awarded a whopping $32,880 in energy-efficiency grants to four small businesses "because investment in small business is a cornerstone to economic growth." Hey, it's not $1.65 billion that he's willing to pay for a cracker - apparently a bit larger of a cornerstone - but it's worth what we used to call a "finger nail clap." So this one's for you, governor ...
