ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: When reporting, look at polluters, too

| Friday, March 2, 2018, 5:03 p.m.

Thank you for the article “Springdale awarded $5.5 million loan for water improvements.” It is great that the community is getting this help, but I have some thoughts that I think are also important to consider when reporting on local water-quality issues.

While it is wonderful that Springdale residents will be able to enjoy cleaner water, it is worth noting that a major source of pollution very close to this treatment plant, NRG's coal-fired Cheswick Generating Station, is constantly contaminating the water source. This power plant, for example, was the fourth worst in the country for lead pollution in 2015, having dumped 387 pounds of lead into the Allegheny River that year. It also releases pollutants such as bromide, manganese, selenium and hexavalent chromium (the “Erin Brockovich” chemical).

Maybe the water treatment plant wouldn't have to work so hard, maybe it would be in better shape and maybe these upgrades would last longer if it didn't have to remove so many deeply dangerous pollutants from the river — pollutants that were put there by a corporate polluter. It is a serious concern to me that taxpayer dollars are being used to help clean up the mess that a corporation created.

Laura Jacko


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me