| Envirowatchers
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
15587 |
|
|
Date: November 17, 2018 at 10:28:07
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site |
URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/16/wolsey-fire-burns-toxic-santa-susana-reactor-site/ |
|
November 16, 2018
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
by John Laforge
“A common denominator, in every single nuclear accident … is that before the specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’ They do this before they themselves know what has happened…”
— Jacque Cousteau
The Woolsey fire in California began Nov. 8 near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), site of a partial reactor meltdown, the consequences of which have never been cleaned up. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control released a statement early Nov. 9 saying its scientists “don’t believe that the fire has caused any releases of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to people exposed to the smoke.”
The fire’s progress through to Oak Park indicates that much of the toxic site burned, according to the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility which has investigated SSFL radiation risks for 30 years.
Use of the phrase “don’t believe” [the fire caused risk] by the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) had to stand in for a clear denial of radiation risk because none of the site’s air monitors had yet been seen by the department. The following words of DTSC’s Nov. 9 announcement were: “There is an air monitoring network around the perimeter of the SSFL site. As soon as access is open we will evaluate the air monitoring stations.” The department seemed to be reading from a script identified by the oceanographer Jacque Cousteau who said, “…before specialists even know what has happened, they rush to the media saying, ‘There’s no danger to the public.’”
The dodgy DTSC language caused outrage and alarm among watchdog groups concerned with cleanup of the SSFL site. University of California-Los Angeles climate scientist and distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology Glen MacDonald, told Democracy Now, Nov. 13: “I would want to see … some monitoring of what was kicked up.”
“We can’t trust anything that DTSC says,” said West Hills resident Melissa Bumstead, whose young daughter twice survived leukemia that Bumstead blames on the SSFL and who has mapped 50 other cases of rare pediatric cancers near the site. Bumstead organized a group called “Parents vs. SSFL” and launched a Change.org petition, now signed by over 410,000 people, demanding full cleanup of SSFL. “DTSC repeatedly minimizes risk from Santa Susana and has broken every promise it ever made about the cleanup. The public has no confidence in this troubled agency,” said Bumstead.
Bumstead told Nukewatch Nov. 13, that DTSC has a history of promoting the financial advantage of the polluters — Boeing, NASA and the Energy Department — rather than the protection of public health.”
The Physicians for Social Responsibility press advisory notes that nuclear reactor accidents, including a famous partial meltdown, tens of thousands of rocket engine tests, and sloppy environmental practices have left SSFL polluted with widespread radioactive and chemical contamination. Government-funded studies indicate increased cancers for offsite populations associated with proximity to the site. In 2010, DTSC signed agreements with the Department of Energy and NASA that committed them to clean up all detectable contamination in their operational areas by 2017. DTSC also in 2010 committed to require Boeing, which owns most of the site, to cleanup to comparable standards. But the cleanup has not yet begun, and DTSC is currently considering proposals that will leave much, if not all, of SSFL’s contamination on site permanently.
Dr. Robert Dodge, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, shares the community’s concerns. “We know what substances are on the site and how hazardous they are. We’re talking about incredibly dangerous radionuclides and toxic chemicals … These toxic materials are in SSFL’s soil and vegetation, and when it burns and becomes airborne in smoke and ash, there is real possibility of heightened exposure for area residents.”
The SSFL, 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, was burned over by the Wolsey fire which by Nov. 13 had consumed 96,000 acres or about 150 square miles.
The July 12, 1959 partial meltdown of the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) was especially dangerous, because, as an experimental reactor, it was built without a “containment structure” — the large concrete and steel dome the covers most nuclear reactors. The SRE loss of control was “the third largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power,” according to Arjun Makhajani, President of the Institute for Energy & Environmental Research.
Like today’s uncontrolled dispersal of contaminants by the Wolsey wildfire, the amount of radioactive materials dispersed by the 1959 accident was never thoroughly measured. The lab’s radiation “monitors went clear off the scale,” according to an employee of Rocketdyne which operated the site. That meltdown was kept secret for 20 years until 1979.
John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[15618] [15589] [15591] [15590] |
|
15618 |
|
|
Date: November 30, 2018 at 10:27:47
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site |
URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/30/woolsey-fire-started-at-santa-susana-field-lab-site-of-fourth-largest-release-of-iodine-131-in-the-history-of-nuclear-power/ |
|
November 30, 2018
Woolsey Fire Started at Santa Susana Field Lab — Site of “[fourth] largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power”
by John Laforge
In my Nov. 16 column, I reported on potential radiation risks posed by California’s Woolsey wildfire having burned over parts or all of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory—south of Simi Valley, Calif., 30 miles outside Los Angeles—site of at least four partial or total nuclear reactor meltdowns.
The field laboratory operated 10 experimental reactors and conducted rocket engine tests. In his 2014 book Atomic Accidents, researcher James Mahaffey writes, “The cores in four experimental reactors on site … melted.” Reactor core melts always result in the release of large amounts of radioactive gases and particles. Clean up of the deeply contaminated site has not been conducted in spite of a 2010 agreement.
Los Angeles’s KABC-7 TV reported Nov. 13 that the Santa Susana lab site “appears to be the origin of the Woolsey Fire” which has torched over 96,000 acres. Southern Calif. Public Radio said, “According to Cal Fire, the Woolsey Fire started on the afternoon of Thursday, Nov. 8 … on the Santa Susana site.” (https://abc7.com/sce-substation-outage-occurred-before-woolsey-fire-reported/4675611/)
In my column I noted that Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy & Environmental Research, estimated that the partial meltdown of the lab’s Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) in 1957, caused “the third largest release of iodine-131 in the history of nuclear power,” according to Gar Smith in his 2012 book Nuclear Roulette. But Makhijani was speaking in 2006, so now of course the SRE meltdown counts as the fourth largest radio-iodine release—after the triple meltdowns at Fukushima in Japan in 2011, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Windscale in England in 1957.
Santa Susana’s operators caused the destruction of the liquid sodium-cooled SRE on July 12, 1959—“showering the downwind hills and meadows of the 2,850-acre site with a fog of chromium and radioactive isotopes, including iodine-131,” according to Smith in Roulette. It was these hills and meadows that were burned so completely by the Woolsey wildfire.
“It [the fog of isotopes] likely spread to nearby communities such as Simi Valley, Chatsworth and Canoga Park,” according to Southern Calif. Public Radio’s Elina Shatkin (“What Happened at the Santa Susana Nuclear Site During the Woolsey Fire?” Nov. 13.) Makhijani calculated that fallout from the meltdown contained “80 to 100 times the amount of iodine-131 released at Three Mile Island” [in Harrisburg, Penn., in 1979], Smith reports in Roulette. Canoga Park Senior High School is one of four Red Cross evacuation centers for the Woolsey Fire.
During the two weeks after the partial meltdown of the SRE, workers tried to repair it. “When they couldn’t, they were ordered to open the reactor’s large door, releasing radiation into the air,” Shatkin reported for public radio.
Radioactive materials released by the meltdown were never accurately measured in part because monitors inside the SRE went off scale. Yet the melting of fuel didn’t cause the only releases of radiation from SRE—just the single largest. In his 2012 book Mad Science, Joe Mangano writes, “Every day, radioactive gases from holding tanks in the reactor building were released into the air—often at night … sometimes twice a day.” In Atomic Accidents, Mahaffey describes the same practice writing, “The fission gases were piped off and compressed into holding tanks for controlled release into the environment…”
After the July meltdown was halted, Atomics International, which ran the SRE, concocted a report for the Atomic Energy Commission on Aug. 29, 1957. The report falsely declared: “No release of radioactive materials to the plant or its environs occurred and operating personnel were not exposed to harmful conditions.”
However, conditions inside the reactor building were extremely dangerous for workers, and radiation levels are estimated to have reached between 10,000 and one million times greater than normal. According to one worker, staff radiation measuring badges were taken away. John Pace, a young trainee at the lab, “Before July 13, we wore film badges, and after then, at some point they [Atomics International] took them away, since they know that the levels would be really high.”
With 10 experimental reactors, radiation routinely released to the air, years of accidents, and four core meltdowns, the “downwind hills and meadows” can be considered permanently compromised with cancer-causing toxins. Dan Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear policy organization told public radio that Santa Susana’s soil has, “a mix of radioactive materials like plutonium, strontium-90 and cesium-137” and perhaps 100 toxic chemicals “such as PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals like mercury and chromium-6 and volatile organic compounds like PCE.” In 2012, the US EPA reported that its soil tests found radioactive cesium-137 at 9,328 times ordinary background levels.
Citizens living in the vicinity of Santa Susana have become harshly critical of the site’s early operators—Boeing, Atomic International and Rocketdyne—who for years burned toxic and radioactive wastes in open pits, endangering all the downwinders. In 2005, Boeing paid $30 million to compensate nearby residents for early mortalities and a range of rare diseases.
John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
15589 |
|
|
Date: November 17, 2018 at 15:54:43
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site |
URL: http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/disasters/messages/10999.html |
|
|
I posted this on Disaster board on the 12th. And glad to see you followed it up with another article.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[15591] [15590] |
|
15591 |
|
|
Date: November 18, 2018 at 22:07:41
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site |
|
|
|
missed them both...thanks...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
15590 |
|
|
Date: November 17, 2018 at 20:20:20
From: Shirley/PA, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site |
URL: http://www.earthboppin.net/talkshop/disasters/messages/11009.html |
|
pamela, I posted it on that Board, too.
Not much in the way of comments though.
Then, too, I see a very big drop off in posts here.
Certainly this is a serious and dangerous situation.
I'm just stunned by the numbers killed but this blowing in the wind offers only more death.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |