9/11 and drinking water security

Richard Forno says:
The following paragraph is taken from a large AP article on the levels of drugs found in US drinking water:

"The drinking water in Dallas has been tested, but officials are awaiting results. Arlington, Texas, acknowledged that traces of a pharmaceutical were detected in its drinking water but cited post-9/11 security concerns in refusing to identify the drug."

...here's yet another case of "security" being invoked that likely does more harm than good. Does telling the local population WHAT IS IN THEIR DRINKING WATER constitute a security danger? I think not. Call me a risk-taker if you like, but I, and I bet a good deal of this country's populace, is more concerned about being "victimized" by poor drinking water in their homes, offices, and communities than the remote possibility of an attack by al-Qaeda or any number of nefarious Hollywood terror plots.

I continue to believe that the outcome of "9/11" has not improved the acceptable definition of "public safety" in America, but rather changed it for the worse. Our various corporate and government entities are building a new definition of "public safety" based on the perpetuance of unfounded fear, civic ignorance and the avoidance of any objective notion of reality (or accountability) in conducting risk analysis or consequence management. Not only are we no more safer from terrorists now than we were 8 years ago, but as a result of how we responded to "9/11" we've become more vulnerable to other, perhaps more sinister and dangerous vulnerabilities -- intentional or otherwise -- within our national infrastructure.

Indeed, we remain our own worst enemy. :(