7 ms·

I'm surprised that there are still new cases of people, especially children, who are getting cancer in the area. High cancer rates surrounding the area has bee

I'm surprised that there are still new cases of people, especially children, who are getting cancer in the area. High cancer rates surrounding the area has been reported for decades and I recall watching local TV news reports about it in the 2000s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory#Medical_claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory#...

defrost 4y ago
Just for anybody caual browsing here; we can't just blame the radiation and isotopic waste: > During its years of operation, highly toxic chemical additives were widely used in order to power over 30,000 rocket engine tests and to clean the rocket test-stands afterwards. > In addition, considerable nuclear research and at least four nuclear accidents occurred, which resulted in the SSFL becoming a seriously contaminated site and an offsite pollution source, requiring a sophisticated multi-agency Cleanup Project
- bb88 4y ago
  - defrost 4y ago
    No. Think of my comment as emphasing the range of the "Choose your toxic pollutant" offered up by lab activities over the decades.
  - icehawk 4y ago
    Given that the GP quotes "nuclear research and at least four nuclear accidents occurred" that's a pretty ungenerous assumption to make. That's not blame shifting, that's blame expansion; all of these causes are activities from the same organization, and the blame should be attributed to them.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    You have to accept that HN has alot of technical/engineering folks who are trained to solve scoped problems. Some are very vocal proponents of nuclear energy, for valid reasons. Because nuclear technology and military requirements go hand in hand, you’re always going to have the dissembling, the misinformation and the propaganda elements tightly aligned with anything nuclear. Nobody ever knows the full story, and advocates can always latch on to some bizarre statistic, like “More people have been killed by cordless drills installing solar panels per gigawatt hour than have ever died from electric generation with nuclear power.”
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Yeah I mean what are the dose rates? You need 100 mSv acute or 300 mSv over a year to get the first small increase of cancer risk from a baseline risk of 40%. Is anyone getting even remotely close to 300 mSv from this in a year? I highly doubt it. At that level every kid with a $50 Geiger counter from Amazon would see it everywhere. You can detect even a single atom decaying. The difference between the threshold of detection and the threshold of damage is astoundingly large in radiation. I'm pretty sure people are overblowing the radiological risks here without being quantitative. Let's talk dose rates in mSv/yr or not talk.
  - defrost 4y ago
    > I'm pretty sure people are overblowing the radiological risks here without being quantitative. > Let's talk dose rates in mSv or not talk. You're only seeing the direct radiation risk here .. chances of being struck by a decaying particle from a hot pile of short half life material breaking down. There is a significant ongoing risk from toxic isotopes that aren't especially radioactive but nonetheless pose a toxic health risk (akin to straight up rare heavy metal poisoning). There is a related risk from 'biological isotopes' that are taken up within the food chain and concentrate in plants, animals and perhaps ultimately human bodies where slow damage is caused by slow breakdown (again, not highly radioactive).
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      I don't think that's a serious concern from a radioactive meltdown of a small core. The major hazard is, was, and will remain measurable radioactive dose. Nuclear engineer here so I'm happy to look into whatever you're referring to. Got any publications describing this concern in more detail?
      - defrost 4y ago
        > I don't think that's a serious concern from a radioactive meltdown of a small core. Was that the only issue over the years at this site though? Others have cited four 'incidents' reported (I have no idea what these were), various experiments and tests, and I imagine there's the implication of a legacy of less than rigorous material handling and storage being possible. From the wikipedia page: > At least four of the ten nuclear reactors had accidents during their operation. > The reactors located on the grounds of SSFL were considered experimental, and therefore had no containment structures. Given all that I'd say the possibilities are wide open. > Got any publications describing this concern in more detail? Your best bet might be to drop Alex Wellerstein a line and ask if he knows of (or knows anyone who knows of) what documents the DOE | NASA have released into the public domain and whether there are whispers of further releases in the wind. I tend to track things of this nature not in central north america. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory [2] https://alexwellerstein.com/writing/books/restricted-data/ https://alexwellerstein.com/writing/books/restricted-data/
CodeWriter23 4y ago
I’m not surprised at all. It was never cleaned up, and now that it has been handed over to UNESCO as a “Heritage” site, it never will be.
bcrosby95 4y ago
It doesn't get much play outside of LA. We moved to the area to be near my wife's family and I had no clue about it. But it's basically an open secret in the local communities. When I found out about it and I mentioned it she said "oh yeah everyone knows about that, lots of people got cancer growing up."
- wahern 4y ago
  The entire LA and San Francisco Bay Area regions were for half a century dumping grounds for far worse stuff than most of the radiological hazards at Santa Susana Field. The worst hazards at Santa Susana Field itself were probably the rocket-related research and associated non-radiological chemicals. This seems confirmed by the Woolsey fire, when nobody was able to detect radioactive contamination. Detection of radionuclides is easy and reliable; detection of all the myriad other industrial chemicals less so. California hosted a disproportionate share of defense and industrial research and production facilities which are known to have released insane amounts of non-radiological hazardous waste, often adjacent to large populations. As cities expanded many communities, rich and poor, now live atop of it. Even just run-of-the-mill lead hazards are pretty bad in California because the state rapidly expanded coincident with peak usage of lead in fuel and paint. Unless you live on a property far outside coastal LA and Bay Area cities, it's not entirely unreasonable to reflexively pave over backyards, etc, especially if you have kids. Alternatively, pay a sizable amount of money for soil testing. Testing soil samples for lead is cheap/free, though, through some government programs; just be prepared to resort to plan A. When we bought our house in the Outer Richmond of San Francisco, I meticulously took samples of our backyard and shipped them off for spectroscopic measurements through one of those programs. Unsurprisingly they all came back near or above the threshold for "absolutely don't garden here". A couple came back near the threshold for "you're required by law to inform the EPA", which was pretty insane because the thresholds for mandatory declaration of soil lead contamination are (at least in non-commercial contexts) way, way, way above recommended safe limits; this is to minimize the economic burden of remediation. A family member of mine develops small and medium size apartment complexes in Southern California and she deliberately avoids soil tests. She assumes any parcel of land in a populated area is contaminated and designs projects accordingly--e.g. cover any common areas where kids might play with known clean soil from elsewhere. She also reminds contractors to follow basic safety measures, like not washing their work clothes in the same wash load as other family members. If she voluntarily tested as a matter of course she'd subject herself to expensive, mandatory remediations, and construction of anything except luxury housing wouldn't be economically viable.

defrost 4y ago

Just for anybody caual browsing here; we can't just blame the radiation and isotopic waste: > During its years of operation, highly toxic chemical additives were widely used in order to power over 30,000 rocket engine tests and to clean the rocket test-stands afterwards. > In addition, considerable nuclear research and at least four nuclear accidents occurred, which resulted in the SSFL becoming a seriously contaminated site and an offsite pollution source, requiring a sophisticated multi-agency Cleanup Project

bb88 4y ago
- defrost 4y ago
  No. Think of my comment as emphasing the range of the "Choose your toxic pollutant" offered up by lab activities over the decades.
- icehawk 4y ago
  Given that the GP quotes "nuclear research and at least four nuclear accidents occurred" that's a pretty ungenerous assumption to make. That's not blame shifting, that's blame expansion; all of these causes are activities from the same organization, and the blame should be attributed to them.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  You have to accept that HN has alot of technical/engineering folks who are trained to solve scoped problems. Some are very vocal proponents of nuclear energy, for valid reasons. Because nuclear technology and military requirements go hand in hand, you’re always going to have the dissembling, the misinformation and the propaganda elements tightly aligned with anything nuclear. Nobody ever knows the full story, and advocates can always latch on to some bizarre statistic, like “More people have been killed by cordless drills installing solar panels per gigawatt hour than have ever died from electric generation with nuclear power.”
acidburnNSA 4y ago
Yeah I mean what are the dose rates? You need 100 mSv acute or 300 mSv over a year to get the first small increase of cancer risk from a baseline risk of 40%. Is anyone getting even remotely close to 300 mSv from this in a year? I highly doubt it. At that level every kid with a $50 Geiger counter from Amazon would see it everywhere. You can detect even a single atom decaying. The difference between the threshold of detection and the threshold of damage is astoundingly large in radiation. I'm pretty sure people are overblowing the radiological risks here without being quantitative. Let's talk dose rates in mSv/yr or not talk.
- defrost 4y ago
  > I'm pretty sure people are overblowing the radiological risks here without being quantitative. > Let's talk dose rates in mSv or not talk. You're only seeing the direct radiation risk here .. chances of being struck by a decaying particle from a hot pile of short half life material breaking down. There is a significant ongoing risk from toxic isotopes that aren't especially radioactive but nonetheless pose a toxic health risk (akin to straight up rare heavy metal poisoning). There is a related risk from 'biological isotopes' that are taken up within the food chain and concentrate in plants, animals and perhaps ultimately human bodies where slow damage is caused by slow breakdown (again, not highly radioactive).
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    I don't think that's a serious concern from a radioactive meltdown of a small core. The major hazard is, was, and will remain measurable radioactive dose. Nuclear engineer here so I'm happy to look into whatever you're referring to. Got any publications describing this concern in more detail?
    - defrost 4y ago
      > I don't think that's a serious concern from a radioactive meltdown of a small core. Was that the only issue over the years at this site though? Others have cited four 'incidents' reported (I have no idea what these were), various experiments and tests, and I imagine there's the implication of a legacy of less than rigorous material handling and storage being possible. From the wikipedia page: > At least four of the ten nuclear reactors had accidents during their operation. > The reactors located on the grounds of SSFL were considered experimental, and therefore had no containment structures. Given all that I'd say the possibilities are wide open. > Got any publications describing this concern in more detail? Your best bet might be to drop Alex Wellerstein a line and ask if he knows of (or knows anyone who knows of) what documents the DOE | NASA have released into the public domain and whether there are whispers of further releases in the wind. I tend to track things of this nature not in central north america. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory [2] https://alexwellerstein.com/writing/books/restricted-data/ https://alexwellerstein.com/writing/books/restricted-data/

CodeWriter23 4y ago

I’m not surprised at all. It was never cleaned up, and now that it has been handed over to UNESCO as a “Heritage” site, it never will be.

bcrosby95 4y ago

It doesn't get much play outside of LA. We moved to the area to be near my wife's family and I had no clue about it. But it's basically an open secret in the local communities. When I found out about it and I mentioned it she said "oh yeah everyone knows about that, lots of people got cancer growing up."

wahern 4y ago
The entire LA and San Francisco Bay Area regions were for half a century dumping grounds for far worse stuff than most of the radiological hazards at Santa Susana Field. The worst hazards at Santa Susana Field itself were probably the rocket-related research and associated non-radiological chemicals. This seems confirmed by the Woolsey fire, when nobody was able to detect radioactive contamination. Detection of radionuclides is easy and reliable; detection of all the myriad other industrial chemicals less so. California hosted a disproportionate share of defense and industrial research and production facilities which are known to have released insane amounts of non-radiological hazardous waste, often adjacent to large populations. As cities expanded many communities, rich and poor, now live atop of it. Even just run-of-the-mill lead hazards are pretty bad in California because the state rapidly expanded coincident with peak usage of lead in fuel and paint. Unless you live on a property far outside coastal LA and Bay Area cities, it's not entirely unreasonable to reflexively pave over backyards, etc, especially if you have kids. Alternatively, pay a sizable amount of money for soil testing. Testing soil samples for lead is cheap/free, though, through some government programs; just be prepared to resort to plan A. When we bought our house in the Outer Richmond of San Francisco, I meticulously took samples of our backyard and shipped them off for spectroscopic measurements through one of those programs. Unsurprisingly they all came back near or above the threshold for "absolutely don't garden here". A couple came back near the threshold for "you're required by law to inform the EPA", which was pretty insane because the thresholds for mandatory declaration of soil lead contamination are (at least in non-commercial contexts) way, way, way above recommended safe limits; this is to minimize the economic burden of remediation. A family member of mine develops small and medium size apartment complexes in Southern California and she deliberately avoids soil tests. She assumes any parcel of land in a populated area is contaminated and designs projects accordingly--e.g. cover any common areas where kids might play with known clean soil from elsewhere. She also reminds contractors to follow basic safety measures, like not washing their work clothes in the same wash load as other family members. If she voluntarily tested as a matter of course she'd subject herself to expensive, mandatory remediations, and construction of anything except luxury housing wouldn't be economically viable.