nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Californian fire – a classic case of how the media damps down nuclear radiation risks.

With the wildfires still raging in the area of the Santa Susana nuclear disaster, the mainstream media does what it always does –   tries to reassure people, make the public comfortable that there is no radiation danger.

The government and nuclear experts can be depended on to do what they always do in such situations –   make sure that no genuine measuring  or assessment of the radiation risk is made.

Then they can say with confidence  “There is no evidence of any danger” –  having made sure to not look for any evidence.

Experts Say Rumors of “Radioactive Ash” from the Woolsey Fire Are Unsubstantiated  “……. authorities from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control who oversee the site say there is no evidence that smoke from the area around the SSFL is any more dangerous than other wildfire smoke……….“Our scientists and toxicologists have reviewed information about the fire’s location and do not believe the fire has caused any releases of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to people exposed to the smoke,”……

The responding fire agencies from Ventura and Los Angeles Counties also consulted independent hazardous materials coordinators who agreed with the conclusion that toxic material from the site was unlikely to have been spread due to the fire…….”  more  https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/santa-susana-woolsey-fire/

 

BUT – readers of this article were not impressed:  below some samples of the comments 

Los Angeles Magazine must print a correction – this article is filled with errors and misinformation:

1) There is no need to put quotes around “significantly contaminated” – SSFL is one of the most contaminated sites in the nation, subject of a promised but long-delayed state and federal cleanup; it is heavily contaminated with well documented nuclear and chemical contamination, from, among other things, a partial nuclear meltdown.

2) The claim in the first hours of the fire by DTSC, an agency that has no public confidence to the point that the state legislature commissioned an Independent Review Panel to investigate its failings (which include the Exide fiasco in Vernon,) that it didn’t “believe” there was a risk is cover for its failure to live up to its cleanup commitments (it had promised the site would be cleaned up by 2017 and the cleanup hasn’t even begun). It is pure conjecture. DTSC does not have have any scientific data to back up the claim. It based the spurious assertion on its claim that the fire in its first hours was not in areas where contamination could be released, but the state fire department now shows almost all of the contaminated site as within the fire boundary.

3) DTSC did not release it’s statement in response to the Forbes article, it released it the night before, when virtually nothing was known about the extent of the fire at SSFL

4) SSFL is NEVER referred to as Area IV – that is simply one area in the site, the area where most of the nuclear activity occurred

5) Given the extent of contamination in the site’s soil and vegetation, it is indeed possible and likely that contamination from the site was spread further from the fire in smoke, dust, and ash. The bottom line is it irresponsible to claim that SSFL contamination was not spread further by the fire.

See our press release here http://bit.ly/SSFLfire
Also, Los Angeles Magazine may wish to read its own cover story from 1998: “HOT ZONE – Rocketdyne’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory was on the front lines of the Cold War. Now some who lived near ‘The Hill’ say they share two distinctions: chronic illness and the unswerving belief that the lab caused it” [https://www.enviroreporter.com/hotzone]

Karen Nickel

I don’t see anywhere that they are actually doing real time monitoring for radioactive particles…did I miss it?

Robbin Ellison Dailey

Nope, you didnt miss a thing, Karen Nickel! They’re trusting other’s data…what ever that means.
Do not believe to have spread..unlikely to have spread.
All conjecture, no testing verification

Melissa Bumstead

I spoke with South Coast Air Quality and they said there wasn’t any monitoring done and it would be through the EPA. We spoke with CalEPA and they didn’t even know what areas of the site were burned yet. #DTSClies

Melissa Bumstead

The DTSC has lied to the community for years. You didn’t mention the 60% cancer incident rates for residents within two miles of the site, or the above average pediatric cancers, or invasive breast cancer rates 20% above the rest of CA, or that 9 out of 10 would get cancer if they lived there- and yet DTSC says that site poses no risk to the public. Why did you only interview them for this article. It seems very biased to me when we have experts backing up the claims against the DTSC. www.SSFLworkgroup.org

…….and there are more

Advertisements

November 11, 2018 - Posted by | media

1 Comment »

  1. If anyone has the capability, watch for a huge rise in intractible lung infections in children. Watch it in adults, in the greater LA area this winter as well.

    Comment by Ken | November 12, 2018 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: