The best way for reporters to bring more clarity to the national dialogue about coal is to engage scientists, rather than activists, as sources. Several groups, including the Society of Environmental Journalists, have called for greater cooperation between scientists and journalists, but acknowledge that the relationship needs work. One session at SEJ’s 2007 conference was entitled “Can This Marriage Be Saved? Why Journalists and Scientists Just Don’t Communicate.”
The energy story is an obvious place for journalists and scientists to strengthen their relationship. Scientists, not advocates, can best explain the realities of clean-coal and green technologies and provide the nuanced picture that so many advocates eschew.
For further analysis of the coverage of coal fly-ash ponds (“From Fly Ash to ‘Clean Coal’: National media slow to expand upon excellent, local reporting after recent spills,” February 20, 2009) and other discussions on science and environment news, please visit The Observatory at CJR.org.
Some corrections to this story are in order.
The article implies that arsenic present in ash is unique to this material. In fact arsenic and other "toxic compounds" are naturally occur in soils around the country at approximately the same level as found in ash.
The description of ash as "toxic" is not backed by any data. The "toxic" description has been loosely applied by media and advocacy groups opposed to coal fired electrical generation. That the EPA has previously determined ash not to be hazardous is evidence that the toxic description does not apply.
There are not 1300 such sites around the U.S.. The site at Kingston is a wet disposal site. There are approximately 300 such sites around the country. The remainder are "dry" disposal sites.
In 2007 there were approximately 130 million tons of coal combustion products generated, not 72 million. Of that total 43% were used beneficially in reducing green house gass emissions, reducing disposal, and reducing mining of virgin materials.
#1 Posted by Thomas H. Adams, CJR on Tue 7 Apr 2009 at 11:12 AM
Because the fly and bottom ash were stored in water for decades, the toxins leached into the water, exceeding the standard for water by tens of times, as EPA reported If it had been kept dry, this would not have happened and the ash would not have been rendered unmarketable.
Mr. Adams is correct to point out that other utilities and TVA sites do store ash dry and recycle it.
That's what makes this "catastrophe" (Tom Kilgore TVA CEO) all the more unacceptable. TVA knew the ash was leaking. Inspections showed that the fixes were not effective in reducing internal water pressure, but they failed to act to prevent this spill.
The press listed, together with the Knoxville News Sentinel and channel 6 WATE have done a commendable job of reporting on the catastrophe, its impact on people, and deserve to be noticed.
#2 Posted by Charlie Smith, CJR on Tue 7 Apr 2009 at 03:06 PM