SoCal Fire May Have Ejected "Incredibly Dangerous" Radioactive Particles Into The Atmosphere

SoCal Fire May Have Ejected "Incredibly Dangerous" Radioactive Particles Into The Atmosphere

The 95,000 acre Woolsey fire which has coated Southern California with an apocalyptic orange glow may have released a toxic stew of radioactive particles and toxic chemicals into the air, after scorching the land on closed-down government weapons testing facility in Simi Hills known to be heavily contaminated from decades of experiments.

Commencing operation in 1947 for Rockwell's Rocketdyne Division, a government contractor for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL) has a checkered safety record, to put it lightly. In addition to several nuclear accidents - including the worst nuclear meltdown in US history, toxic materials have accumulated on-site from years of dumping, just miles from thousands of residents.

Yep, the wildfire near Los Angeles just burned thru that place. Of course, California health officials promise that no hazardous substances were released, but other scientists are scoffing at that claim, because all that nasty stuff was in the soil & vegetation. Not surprisingly, there was already a big cancer cluster among people who lived near this site.

could be worse the smoke is going out to sea

not a good thing but far better than radioactive smoke blowing over populated areas

a reply to: markovian

Well, I'm not a scientist by any means but that radioactive smoke and particulate will eventually be introduced into the water cycle via precipitation. We go fishing and then while we may not be breathing it in, we'd be eating it.

Let's face it; the human race collectively is a child playing with a knife, never considering the fact we might cut ourselves.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Known to cause cancer in California.

a reply to: AM10101

Similar to Fukushima. All that radioactivity is going straight into the Pacific Ocean's ecosystem.

I Posted about this in conspiracies because we have a relative who lives within sight of that facility. She has been told many times in the last 40 years that the only way the site could be "unsafe" was if it burned above 1500 degrees, by govt officials doing yearly radiation/contamination testing.

It has had more than one 'partial meltdown' and radiation and chemical releases into neighboring communities and contaminated the water table etc as well.

They have been trying for years to figure out how to clean this site for homes and can't do it so had settled on making it non commercial or residential parkland. So my conspiracy comes in as what would be the cheapest way to get rid of the last of the site than to burn it off?

They have cancer and birth defect clusters here and ongoing lawsuits Erin Brochovich style here for a very long time. It's a huge issue for Boeing who now owns it because it can't be used anymore because of current population density (Has been mostly taken apart) and can't be sold because it is way too "dirty". Spidey senses tingling!

What do you bet that, instead of trying to save people's future and them from potential deadly diseases - CA authorities will remain silent so that panic doesn't set in.

Because that would just compound the issues CA is currently facing and the "adults in the room" would rather have a docile populace, rather than an informed and active one.

IInteresting read. The place had another brush fire in 2005.

psmag.com...

originally posted by: markovian
could be worse the smoke is going out to sea

not a good thing but far better than radioactive smoke blowing over populated areas

Unfortunately the smoke is spreading over land as far as Michigan also some is traveling north to our populated areas.


Source1
Source2

originally posted by: dreamingawake

originally posted by: markovian
could be worse the smoke is going out to sea

not a good thing but far better than radioactive smoke blowing over populated areas

Unfortunately the smoke is spreading over land as far as Michigan also some is traveling north to our populated areas.


Source1
Source2

well damm i was looking at a satelite map

still thats probly the best winds we could have for the situation

hope people in the affected area where masks but im shure they where not told about the potental radiation risks

a reply to: markovian

There's places they can go in the immediate area for masks at least. For the rest of areas now being affected by the smoke, some have the P95 or P100 model masks from over the summer.

a reply to: AM10101

The only upside is that dispersed, the danger presented per square yard is lessened, because of the diffusion of the material in the atmosphere, and then in the water. Its far from ideal, a million miles from there in fact. But you know, silver linings, I guess?

This incident has shown several policies on the environmental level, to be unfit for purpose.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You're right, of course.

I asked my daughter who is in first grade if she would build a house in a place she knew would eventually have an earthquake. I added that if that house fell down that other people might get sick or hurt. Her response was golden: "That would be dumb."

I just don't get why people do the things they do sometimes.

a reply to: AM10101

The thing is, that yes, you CAN build in an Earthquake zone, or a flood zone, or a tornado prone zone, or a place that often gets struck with hurricanes or wildfires and other natural disasters. But what you cannot do is build a house the old fashioned way, and expect it to hold up to those unique threats. Houses in flood prone areas need to be built like submarines, pressure sealable in order to keep out the flood water, equipped with air scrubbers to ensure that occupants do not asphyxiate while waiting for water to retreat back to its normal levels. Houses in quake zones need to be stabilised, shock dampened, need to be engineered to survive the shaking involved and keep the occupant safe from harm to boot. Tornado prone areas need housing which is designed from the materials, right to the actual shape of the building, to be proof against tornadoes, impossible to uproot, proof against all forms of wind blown projectile penetration, with armour grade windows that will not shatter or break in the event of either impact or massive change in pressure. Houses built in fire zones, MUST be constructed out of materials that cannot burn at all, that means no wood, no plastics, nothing that can become on fire anywhere except the surface of the sun, should be used to build houses there. Those houses would also require significant thermal protection, such that a person could easily shelter within the building during a wildfire, and know that at no time would the air in the building be poisoned, at no time would the temperature inside become unbearable or lethal, that they could easily sit in that house for an entire day or longer, as the fire rages around the building, without ever worrying that the occupant might die waiting for the fire to burn out or move off.

That requires thought, planning, and intelligence though.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Again, you ARE correct. It's just not profitable to do those things, so they don't get done. It's cheaper to just slap together a wooden house and then pass the cost on to the consumer when a fire comes raging through.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all; it just boggles me how folks live in these areas and are absolutely blindsided when disaster strikes and they lose everything. I feel bad for them as a fellow human being, but shouldn't they have expected it?

I live in Florida. We had a pretty bad flood during the summer and were essentially cut off from town. You had to drive thirty minutes out of your way just to grab a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk from a store that is quite literally a two minute drive from our house. Walking was an option but you had to contend with water moccasins (no thanks). I hated it; it was a huge pain in the butt and the pocketbook - but, I knew the place was prone to flooding so I rolled them bones and took them chances.

Hmm, after writing that up I guess I don't have a real point. Ah well. You are right though.