When Asked for Proof, the Associated Press and Arnie Gundersen Come Up Empty

It's been a full week since we first raised some questions about a claim made by Arnie Gundersen about soil samples he took in Japan recently. Gundersen claims the lab results he obtained indicated that the soil would be classified as radioactive waste here in the U.S. -- a statement that was reported by the Associated Press in a subsequent story. We had our doubts about the story, so NEI decided to do some investigating of its own.

24 hours later, we sent an email to the AP asking questions about how they went about reporting the story. We wanted to know how they were able to verify Gundersen's claims without working with a radiation protection professional who could properly interpret the data. We wanted to know why the story lacked any specifics about the lab results that Gundersen provided to the AP. We were also concerned that the AP identified Gundersen as a "nuclear consultant" when in fact he has long track record as an anti-nuclear activist and is currently employed by the state of Vermont as it seeks to close the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.

AP responded to our note with a one-line response that there would be no correction, but didn't include any additional details concerning their reporting. We sent a followup note asking additional questions, and 48 hours later we've yet to receive any response. Yesterday, we sent a note to Gundersen challenging him to publish his test results so a third party might be able to verify them. We also requested the name of the lab and the name of a contact there so we could ask them some questions too. We heard back from Fairewinds this afternoon, and they're refusing to share the results of the lab tests with us.

So what can we learn from all this? First, when it comes to the AP, there seems to be a surprising lack of consistency in generally accepted standards of journalism. According to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, reporters should "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error." From where we sit, there isn't any proof that the AP did anything to verify Gundersen's claims. Absent any specific test results or the identity of the lab that did the testing, one is almost forced to conclude that nothing was done to provide independent verification of Gundersen's claims at all prior to publication.

That's a pretty serious transgression if you ask me. After all, we're talking about a business where one old adage says, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out." Did Gundersen get a free pass? There's certainly no evidence to the contrary at this point.

POSTSCRIPT: This isn't the first time we've found fault with AP's reporting, and we're not the only ones who've identified flaws in their reporting on nuclear energy issues over the past year. Click here for a critique of the AP's reporting on nuclear energy that appeared recently at the Columbia Journalism Review. Our Chief Nuclear Officer, Tony Pietrangelo, sat down with NEI's John Keeley to discuss that AP series on our YouTube Channel.