Water is of growing concern to people in the Great Lakes region, especially after this summer’s widespread drought. Now researchers are testing a device that could help Midwest farmers decide the best way to manage their water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
Water is of growing concern to people in the Great Lakes region, especially after this summer’s widespread drought. Now, researchers are testing a device that could help Midwest farmers decide the best way to manage their water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has more:
The device is called an electron moisture sensor. It measures the amount of moisture in soil, as deep as 3 feet below the surface. The sensor is hooked up to a hand-held computer that brings together soil data with information about weather and the type of crop being raised.
Rich Hoddup is an agriculture extension agent with Michigan State University. This year, he recruited several farmers to test the moisture sensor. He says the farmers are reacting to the system with optimistic caution.
“They’re looking at it and saying, well, it’s kinda nice to be able to understand what’s going on below the soil profile, rather than waiting until that crop begins to show symptoms of drought.”
Rich Hoddup thinks the sensors may allow farmers to increase their yields, by telling them when and where to add water to their crops. He plans to continue his research to see if the benefits to farmers will outweigh the high cost of the system.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, things we used to take for granted as being safe are now being questioned. Resources essential to life can be used as vehicles for terrorists’ attacks. Even drinking water is among those things now considered vulnerable. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, things we used to take for granted as
being safe are now being questioned. Resources essential to life can be
used as vehicles for terrorists’ attacks. Even drinking water is among
those things now considered vulnerable. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
In Afghanistan, as U.S. intelligence agencies began sifting through the
material left behind by cells of the Al Qaeda network, the United States
government became more concerned. It looked as though the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon were just the beginning of targets in
America.
When President Bush gave his State of the Union address at the
beginning of this year, he told the public about some of the disturbing
evidence the members of Al Qaeda were holding.
“And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the
destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear
power plants and public water facilities.”
While the President revealed that water systems were a possible target,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was
assuring groups that the nation’s water supplies were safe. Christie
Todd Whitman told a group of environmental journalists that with
everybody on heightened alert, it was unlikely a terrorist would be able
to contaminate a water source with chemicals or biological agents.
“It would be extremely difficult for someone to perform
this kind of act, taking a truckload – and that’s what it would be, a
tanker truckload – up to a reservoir and dumping it in, given the
heightened security we have today.”
But an expert on the risk of attacks on water supplies says it wouldn’t
have to take a tanker truck… or anything close to that given the nasty
nature of some of the contaminants available to terrorists.
Jim Snyder was a member of a presidential commission assigned to
look at infrastructure and its vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
“If you put a backpack or a couple of backpacks of that
material in a ten-million gallon reservoir, which would be a medium
sized above ground tank, you would kill half the people who drank one
cup.”
And Snyder says it wouldn’t even take that much to cause
wide-spread panic… to raise the so-called ‘fear factor.’
“You don’t have to put enough stuff in the water to kill people.
You have to put enough stuff in the water so that people can’t
drink or use the water. If somebody says they put something in your
water, you’re not going to drink the water.”
Still, the government tries to assure the public there’s not much to fear.
Again, EPA Administrator Whitman…
“The vast majority of contaminants about which we’re worried, we know
how to treat. We know what steps to take. And those where we’re not sure
of what we need to do, we’re working with the CDC to develop a protocol to
respond.”
But the tests conducted daily at a water purification plant don’t look
for the kinds of contaminants that a terrorist would likely use. Jim
Snyder says the first clue that anything was wrong with the water would
likely be sick or dying people.
While the EPA continues to reassure the public, the agency knows of
the shortcomings of security at the thousands of water systems across
the nation. But treating contaminated water would not be the
government’s first choice. It would rather try to prevent an attack.
That’s why it’s offering the water systems grants to figure out the best
way to make their systems less likely to be targeted by terrorists. Again,
Jim Snyder…
“So, right now, you’ve got water systems all over the country
performing or getting ready to perform fairly sophisticated
vulnerability analyses which lead to recommendations on which
components need to be secured and how they should be secured and
what kind of risk reduction one could expect from adding levels of
security.”
Some things are easy, such as locking access gates, and patrolling
lakes and reservoirs. Others are more expensive and challenging. They
might include changes in how the water plants operate, using less
volatile chemicals in the purification process. Jim Snyder says
probably it will take years to beef up security… but even then a
determined terrorist could still strike.
Another terrorism prevention expert, Peter Beering with the City of
Indianapolis, says people should not be too alarmed about the
possibility that their water source could be poisoned. He says of all the
things to attack, water is probably low on the list.
“The good news is that these are comparatively uninteresting targets to
an aggressor. And, as we learned, unfortunately, in New York
and in Washington, that certainly there are much higher profile targets
that are of much greater interest to people who are upset with the
United States.”
But, Beering notes that water systems across the nation still should
take prudent measures to protect the public’s water supplies… just in
case.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The Braidwood nuclear power plant is
50 miles from Chicago. Industry, government, and
environmental groups are trying to determine what kinds
of risks the plants might face from terrorist attacks.
After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there have been all kinds of speculation about the next target. One of the worst case scenarios conjured up is crashing a jet into a nuclear power plant. Since September 11th, the nuclear power industry and regulators have been trying to determine what other kinds of threats the plants might face. However, progress has been slow. No one seems sure how far to take the security issue. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
there have been all kinds of speculation about the next target. One of
the worst case scenarios conjured up is crashing a jet into a nuclear
power plant. Since September 11th, the nuclear power industry and
regulators have been trying to determine what other kinds of threats
the plants might face. However, progress has been slow. No one seems
sure how far to take the security issue. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The idea of a radioactive release from a nuclear power plant is chilling.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has always required plant
operators to keep security tight and the plant owners generally thought
of the security requirements as a necessary evil… a costly regulatory
requirement. That changed on September 11th.
Jack Skolds is the President of Exelon Nuclear, which operates 17
reactors in the U.S. He says the nuclear power industry’s opinions
about security have changed. Now, it’s seen as not just a regulatory
requirement, but as absolutely essential for the safety of the plants.
“And I didn’t believe this necessarily before September 11th.
I believe there are people out there who want to inflict some kind of
harm to nuclear power plants somewhere in the world. And one of those
plants might be one of ours. So, we take this very seriously and we’re
going to do everything that we need to do to protect the security of the
plants.”
Exelon, just as other nuclear power plant operators, has increased
spending on security by about 25 percent. Security guards are better
armed. There are more inspections of people and cars going in and out
of plants. Barricades have been put up. But, Skolds concedes that
nuclear power plants can’t defend against everything.
“I wouldn’t call anything impenetrable. I think that would be a stretch.
But, I would tell you I know of no other civilian industry
that has as high a degree of security as the nuclear power industry
does.”
But no one is testing that security. The government used to conduct
mock attacks – so-called force-on-force tests – against plants to test
security. Since September 11th, there have been no force-on-force drills.
The government says it’s still trying to figure out what kind of threats a
group of terrorist might present. So, the nuclear power plants are
waiting. They’re waiting for the government to come up with likely
terrorism scenarios and strategies to defend against them. Once that’s
complete, then there will likely be a discussion about who pays for
those defenses, the nuclear power industry or the government.
David Lochbaum is the nuclear safety engineer for the Union of
Concerned Scientists. He says that if there’s an attack against a plant,
the nuclear power industry and government need to be able to tell the
public that they did everything they could to prevent it. The Union of
Concerned Scientists says that should start with bringing back
force-on-force drills… and then focus on the possibility of insider
sabotage by giving lie detector tests to nuclear power plant employees.
But, those things aren’t happening…
“So, we think there are shortfalls that would prevent officials from reassuring the American public that everything that can reasonably be done has been done.”
Lochbaum adds that the government needs to work faster to develop
likely attack scenarios and defenses so that the nuclear power plants
know the best ways to beef up security.
The power plants are not the only ones waiting for those scenarios.
Agencies responsible for evacuating areas around a plant are also
waiting. Thomas Ortciger is the Director of the Illinois Department of
Nuclear Safety. Illinois has more reactors than any other state. He says
while his staff is trying to come up with plans to react to the most likely
situations and looking for federal government guidance… they’re
getting pressure to do something… or , actually, everything… and do it
right now.
“There are various outside groups, particularly “anti-” groups that have developed scenarios that are absolutely bizzare. I mean, there are so many things that
would have to happen at a plant. I mean, this is hysteria at its best. You know,
cut it out guys. Let’s talk in real terms. Let’s try to help one another make this thing work.”
Ortciger says the evacuation plans already in place appear to be enough, but it’s difficult to know. These plans weren’t designed with terrorist attacks in mind.
“What we need to see is whether or not there are any credible scenarios where the time we believe we have to implement an evacuation would be shortened. But, we have not seen a credible argument for that yet.”
And so state and local emergency agencies and the nuclear industry are
all waiting for the same thing: information. Exelon Nuclear’s Jack
Skolds says he doesn’t know where or how or even if they should
increase security further.
“So, whether we have enough or not, I can’t answer because
we haven’t reached a conclusion yet on what the perceived threat is.”
Recent studies by the National Research Council, the Electric Power
Research Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission all look at perceived threats, especially the
threat of a jet crash into the reactor containment building. The studies
only look at what kind of damage such a crash would likely cause. They
agree it would cause a lot of disruption, but probably would not cause a
melt down. But none of the studies looks at what to do to stop an air
attack.
David Lochbaum at the Union of Concerned Scientists says that’s the
problem. Study and planning to defend against a terrorist attack are
just going too slowly.
“Things aren’t looking real good that we’re going to be able to beat the
next terrorist attack. We’re still trying to figure out where the lines are
drawn, who does what, who pays for the problems. We haven’t responded
with a lot of urgency to this challenge.”
Given that the worst case scenario in the back of every expert’s mind is
something like the Chernobyl plant radioactive release. A similar
release from a nuclear power plant such as Exelon’s Braidwood plant,
just 50 miles from Chicago is haunting. Lochbaum says it’s clear that
the challenge of securing nuclear power plants from a terrorist attack
is significant and should be urgent. But the studies take time… and it
could be one to three years before defense plans are outlined.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus
mosquito - one of the mosquitoes responsible for the transmission of West Nile virus. Photo courtesy of the USGS.
The West Nile virus has claimed 28 lives and at least 550 people have been infected in the nation so far this summer. And evidence of the virus has already been found in 41 states. The carriers of the virus, mosquitoes, have been a concern and a nuisance for public health officials. Many citizens are demanding more visible action on the officials’ part to get rid of the bad bugs…like spraying chemicals to kill adult mosquitoes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie MacDowell reports:
Transcript
The West Nile virus has claimed 28 lives and at least 550 people have been infected in the nation so far this summer. And evidence of the virus has already been found in 41 states. The carriers of the virus, mosquitoes, have been a concern and a nuisance for public health officials. Many citizens are demanding more visible action on the officials’ part to get rid of the bad bugs…like spraying chemicals to kill adult mosquitoes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie MacDowell reports:
You might not expect to find a breeding ground of controversy in the suburbs, but
then again, you wouldn’t expect to find an exotic disease breeding there, either.
With the West Nile virus threatening any place that has mosquitoes…which is almost
anywhere…people are fighting over whether to spray or not to spray.
Spraying means releasing pesticides into the air to kill adult mosquitoes.
Pro-sprayers say the threat of West Nile virus necessitates this chemical
treatment. But some people who live in spraying districts are worried about the
possible dangers of the pesticides. Dr. Kim Stone is the Executive Director of the
Safer Pest Control Project in Chicago. As we walk around a nature preserve, she
tells me they’ve started spraying in her neighborhood and she’s worried about her
kids. Passing the pond and a grove of trees, she says the pesticides could kill fish
that eat mosquito larvae and birds that eat the adults. But she’s more concerned
about their possible threat to humans.
“I believe that the health impacts of the pesticides are a greater danger than the health impacts of West Nile virus. A local hospital had seen many people who thought that they had West Nile virus, came in with headache, nausea, and the hospital said that they did not have West Nile virus, but suspected that it might be related to the pesticides, because it was the morning after pesticides were sprayed in those neighborhoods.”
Stone recommends a different form of mosquito abatement…larvaecide.
Larvaecide is a preventative form a treatment that kills mosquito larvae before they
hatch. Pellets of larvaecide are dropped into lagoons, or a blower is used to spread
granules over the water. The chemicals are less toxic, she says, and they’re
species-specific. That means they won’t kill other animals. Dr. William Paul is with
the Chicago Department of Public Health. He says the city of Chicago hasn’t started
spraying because larvaecide is much more effective.
“We would really, in terms of mosquito control, want to focus on the long run,
breeding sites, and larval breeding sites, because that’s in the long run what’s going to be more effective. Using sprays for adults to kill the northern house mosquito… it’s challenging, you need tightly spaced applications of the product. And it’s not just a going up and down the streets kind of thing.
But spraying is a more visible treatment than larvaecide. Paul says people like to
see their government doing something to combat the mosquitoes. It makes them
feel better, he says. Other government officials can relate. Dr. Kiahn Liem has
been the head of the South Cook County Mosquito Abatement District in the Chicago area for 28 years. He’s has been working with mosquitoes since he was a little boy. He says watching many of his fathers’ patients die of malaria in his native country led him to his current profession of killing mosquitoes.
“I grew up in Indonesia, and malaria is a big killer of people there. Almost six to ten million people every year get killed by malaria. And there’s probably ten times more mosquitoes there than here.”
Liem uses larvaecide in his district. He hasn’t sprayed since 1977, after the
outbreak of St. Louis encephalitis, another virus carried by mosquitoes. He says
spraying was not effective then, and it still isn’t now, as most mosquitoes hide out in
people’s back yards, in the bushes or under leaves. He says the spray released from
trucks in the street just doesn’t reach them. But many of his citizens demand a
visible fight against the mosquitoes.
“They want to see you working. But if you work and you don’t do anything for them, you’re just fooling them. We have many of them that call us, and say, I want you here, I want you to show me that you’re doing something for my money. And we do that just to appease them.”
If people really want peace of mind, personal protection is what most experts
recommend. They say to wear long sleeves and pants between dusk and dawn
when mosquitoes are out in force. If you’re going outside, use mosquito repellent.
And routinely change standing water on your property, such as kiddie pools and bird
baths, to cut down on available mosquito breeding sites.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium…I’m Annie MacDowell.
