A Cautionary Tale of Developers, Lies, Greed and Radiation

[3113]

The full article is fairly long and to be found here. I've edited it pretty severely to the bare essence. It's a scary, but, alas, not atypical story of a city so deeply in the pockets of unscrupulous developers that the city council, its mayor, retired police chief and health department all turned a blind eye to the developer's shoddy environmental testing and outright lies. If it hadn't been for a handful of determined citizens, the result would have been...horrific.

The Radiation Rangers

The sweating point man leads a small group up the dusty inclines of Runkle Canyon. This undeveloped swath of chaparral near the town of Simi Valley is where KB Homes hopes to build 461 residences. The unforgiving sun blazes as Terry Matheney heads toward the same creek water that he had already warned the city was suspiciously shiny, with an oily sheen that should be tested for toxins. He volunteered to take them there...The city declined, saying the developer had already done tests on the surface water in 2003, examining one sample on the 1,595 acre property. So, one week before this day’s march, Matheney went to collect the gooey fluid himself. He was in for a big surprise.

“I was filling these plastic bottles when my chemical gloves started bubbling,” says Matheney. “I couldn’t believe it! I thought it’s obviously eating its way through my gloves so I just tore them right off of me because it looked like it was permeating the rubber!”

...there’s something obviously wrong with Runkle Canyon. It is, after all, next to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), otherwise known as Rocketdyne, site of innumerable rocket tests and the worst nuclear meltdown in American history, spewing radiation from the unconfined Sodium Reactor Experiment the night then-Vice President Nixon squared off against ex-Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in the famous Kitchen Debate in 1959. The effects of that meltdown would be felt decades later.

Taking this hike is no Cold War memory lane for Matheney, however. It’s a journey that’s transformed him into “Toxic Terry,” one of a crew of concerned citizens who call themselves the “Radiation Rangers” – their way of laughing at what they see as the sheer insanity of developing this possibly-polluted land....Little does he know that the results of his reconnaissance would yield proof of Runkle Canyon pollution that never appeared in the Runkle Canyon development Environmental Impact Report. That EIR was passed in 2004 by the Simi Valley City Council, which apparently didn’t notice that tests had not been done for some very nasty metals in that sole surface water sample, including the notorious one that the Radiation Rangers would find: arsenic.

...Accompanying us on this journey through majestic Valley Oaks and over land parched by drought were other members of the Radiation Rangers, including “Fearless Frank” Serafine, an award-winning sound engineer and composer who recently performed at the Henry Fonda Theater with Thomas Dolby. And “The Good Reverend John” Southwick who marries folks at WeMarryYou.com. Absent this day, because of work, is the vice president of a huge financial company, “Perchlorate Patty” Coryell, who runs StopRunkledyne.com.

“All we were asking for was an unbiased, comprehensive chemical and radiological characterization of Runkle Canyon before construction activities began,” says Coryell later. “The city council ignored these requests and instead asked various federal agencies to go back over the same developer-generated reports and render an opinion. Most of these reports have been completely discredited – and the rest are so incredibly limited in scope that they are meaningless. Finally, we paid to have the necessary testing done ourselves. In two weeks, we had answers, not opinions.”

...they reached deep into their pockets and hired Ron Lovato of Moorpark-based Pat-Chem Laboratories....Careful to avoid any contact with his skin, Lovato uses a long white scooper to dip into the mysteriously streaked creek water. Rust-colored mud is scraped from where the creek has begun to dry up and recede. After an hour of sampling, Lovato carefully stows his cargo in the cooler for the long walk back.

“The only reason I knew where the water was is that I knew where the water table was before and where the cattle got their water,” Matheney says. “There are cattle tracks all over the place. The cattle are going down and drinking out of that....If we can walk directly back in there and the first place we find water it has got that slime on it, how the hell can they not find it?” Matheney continues. “And [KB Homes is] unable to, and yet they’re doing all the testing.”

The results of the nearly $3,000 worth of collection and analysis by Pat-Chem Labs were astonishing. An astronomical amount of poisonous arsenic was detected in the surface water and adjacent soil of Runkle Canyon. In wetter times, that water eventually makes its way downhill to collect in Runkle Reservoir, up gradient of the Arroyo Simi. Water reaching here, or migrating through the groundwater, replenishes an aquifer that supplies water to tens of thousands of people in Simi Valley. That extracted groundwater makes up about 20 percent of the water blend utilized in the area.

Due to increasing awareness of the lethality of arsenic, the Environmental Protection Agency lowered the “maximum contaminant level” (MCL) for the substance in drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb), established in 1975, to 10 ppb in 2001. “A 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the 50 ppb standard did not adequately protect human health,” EPA says in describing its new arsenic rule. “EPA set the new MCL of 10 ppb to protect the public against the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic in drinking water. The new MCL will decrease non-fatal and fatal bladder and lung cancers and will reduce the frequency of other health effects such as diabetes, developmental problems, gastrointestinal illness, and heart disease.” Arsenic has also been linked to many other non-fatal conditions.

Runkle Canyon’s surface water readings for arsenic are 15 times the MCL for drinking water, over 21,000 times the EPA’s “preliminary remediation goal” and 37,500 times the agency’s “public health goal” for potable water.....

As to the source of this arsenic, it seems logical to look uphill to SSFL which is probably more famous for its two partial nuclear meltdowns in 1959 and 1964; the earlier disaster releasing hundreds of times more radiation than Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979....The toxic metals nickel and vanadium were also detected in the water at worrisome levels....The Runkle Canyon water is loaded with potassium, calcium, and sodium. Merely pouring it onto chemical-rated rubber gloves causes them to bubble after about 15 seconds for reasons not yet understood. This water, which percolates to the surface through seeps year-round, is so caustic that it seems to possess the properties of sodium hydroxide, or lye. It’s as if Drano or Liquid-Plumr is flowing through Runkle Canyon.

“I don’t think we’ve seen numbers that high but we’re not qualified to say if it’s natural or unnatural,” said one Pet-Chem employee who asked to remain anonymous. “That’s the hardest goddamn water in your life. It’s a little bizarre. I would hope not too many people would touch that water.”

 

[S-Des]

You wonder if people convince themselves that no harm can come from what they're doing (no matter how ludicrous that belief is), or if they just don't care. I'm not sure which one is more dangerous or terrifying. *shakes head*

 

[sutherngent985]

You wonder if people convince themselves that no harm can come from what they're doing (no matter how ludicrous that belief is), or if they just don't care. I'm not sure which one is more dangerous or terrifying. *shakes head*

I have always believed that they just dont care about what they are doing or the consequences of such action. Even the government, which is supposed to be "by the people and for the people", has done alot of things in the public interest to that same public that have caused harm and Im sure not all of them are urban legends.

 

[3113]

I have always believed that they just dont care about what they are doing or the consequences of such action.

See, I tend to think they convince themselves that it's all for the best. That everyone will benefit and those who are objecting just don't see the big picture.

Of course there are people who don't give a shit and are just greedy, selfish fucks. But I tend to think that most folk who end up on a city council, etc., don't go there to get-rich-quick. They have some idea of doing some good. Once on the inside, however, they start making compromises and deals for everyone's "good," of course. And when they cross that line and finally do something dicey, they hardly realize it, I think.

None of us knows exactly how hard and fiercely we'd fight for our ethics if push came to shove, but it's clear to me that most people won't fight that hard if you present the unethical scenario to them in a way where they can excuse their conscience and pretend it's all for the good.

 

[emap]

Actually the biggest problem run into here, not in my backyard. See if this canyon was near to the council building or their homes it would be as clean as humanly possible, then cleaned some more.

Since it is not they don't give a rat's ass. Same reason why strip joints are so far out of town, don't want 'those' people driving by my house so can't put it here, but next to somebody elses house is fine with me. Course 'those' people are generally the husbands of the people who blocked it being built there anyway, but we won't talk about that.

Same reason a nuclear reactor can't be built in a city, people are afraid that the gases are radioactive, that being near a reactor will make them radioactive and so forth. Though the biggest scare by and large, what happens if it blows up, I won't have enough time to get away from it so you can't put it here.

The reason most things are shoved away is because of an urban legend or something that happened 20 years ago to someone else. These things are then hyped up by one or two people who don't care if it will do anything good, unless it will bring them money in that case they fight for it to be added.

Case in point, playgrounds, they are by and large disapearing here, not because they city can't afford to keep them, it's because there is a lack of land in the city itself for other things, so the parks are being sold to put up apartment buildings, businesses and in one case a fire station. Besides the fire station there is no actual need for what is being build instead, it does however, bring money into the pocket of the city or more exactly, the Mayor's pocket.

So if you want something done badly enough, hand out large sums of money and it will be done. Such a lovely message to our kids don't you think.

 

[amicus]

3113...Read the article you linked and quoted, thought to go searching and show that it was another left wing attempt to either curtail development or cast doubt on nuclear technology in general.

An hours searching turned up some interesting things, which y'all can find for yourselves if interested and I am still in doubt as to why 3113 decided to draw attention to this matter at this time.

Is it the corruption of city officials and/or land developers that you wish to point out?

Is it the danger of radiation and pollution from industrial waste of any kind, like Love Canal or is it just anti nuclear firestarting?

Is it a condemnation of government regulatory agencies from the Manhattan project onwards to the present day?

Perhaps if I spent more time in a more in depth search I might find a definitive answer as to whether there is appreciable danger in the Runkle Canyon area that should be a concern. However, most of the articles were obvious left wing, anti nuclear, anti industrial development organizations and few contained more than propaganda.

So, 3113, are you a public spirited Simi Valley resident? A concerned Californian or just an activist stirring the pot?

Perhaps you would clarify?


amicus...

 

[Pure]

ami, as usual, has trouble with reality.

here's how it goes, chump:

if a fact is asserted it requires evidence to back it up. 3113 gave some.

if a fact is to be disputed, that requires (counter) evidence.

alleging a motive --e.g. anti nuclear-- is not evidence.

motive is not relevant to truth or falsity.

ami Perhaps if I spent more time in a more in depth search I might find a definitive answer as to whether there is appreciable danger in the Runkle Canyon area that should be a concern.

in other word, you're too f***in lazy to look for evidence.

you are an embarrassment to anyone claiming an "objective" approach to knowledge.

chumpery.

===
here is a report from the Simi Valley Acorn, about the issues. Simi Valley Acorn, of course is a North Korean Publication, as amicus will be the first to point out.

http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2006/1013/Front_Page/001.html

 

[rgraham666]

But damn it, Pure! Reality is such a fucking pain. Mythology works so much better.

Mythology is unchanging where it needs to be and malleable where it needs to be. Mythology is about Truth, and the Truth of mythology never changes. The facts always support the mythology. And if they don't they can be ignored since facts that don't support the Truth are falsehoods.

Facts do not support reality. And they don't change. People may interpret them differently, but the facts don't change. And if there is a Truth to reality, we have no idea what it is, probably never will.

So most people prefer mythology. It's much more comforting.

 

[Stella_Omega]

But damn it, Pure! Reality is such a fucking pain. Mythology works so much better.

Mythology is unchanging where it needs to be and malleable where it needs to be. Mythology is about Truth, and the Truth of mythology never changes. The facts always support the mythology. And if they don't they can be ignored since facts that don't support the Truth are falsehoods.

Facts do not support reality. And they don't change. People may interpret them differently, but the facts don't change. And if there is a Truth to reality, we have no idea what it is, probably never will.

So most people prefer mythology. It's much more comforting.

Beautifully put, Rob.

 

[Pure]

the handy thing about myths or ficitional "explanations" and scenarios is that you can find them in novels-- often cited by ami. you can pull out "Atlas Shrugged" and have an answer to "Is the Runkle Canyon developer corrupt?" Answer: developers are good and advance civilization; those who attack them are second handers and socialist looters.

and, in finding this 'answer,' ami hasn't had to move this ass off the chair or even use 'google.' you will recall that for prehistory, his usual citation is the novels of J. Auel.

 

[3113]

the handy thing about myths or ficitional "explanations" and scenarios is that you can find them in novels-- often cited by ami.

Don't you know, Pure? Ami, himself, is fiction. He's completely made up. I'm convinced of it.

Oh, and he works much better on ignore, by the way. I think, like all myths and fictions, if we just stop believing in him, he'll vanish.

 

[Just-Legal]

... you will recall that for prehistory, his usual citation is the novels of J. Auel.

Hey, I *like* Jean M Auel...

 

[cloudy]

the handy thing about myths or ficitional "explanations" and scenarios is that you can find them in novels-- often cited by ami. you can pull out "Atlas Shrugged" and have an answer to "Is the Runkle Canyon developer corrupt?" Answer: developers are good and advance civilization; those who attack them are second handers and socialist looters.

and, in finding this 'answer,' ami hasn't had to move this ass off the chair or even use 'google.' you will recall that for prehistory, his usual citation is the novels of J. Auel.

Well, that, and since he's "writing a book" about natives, he's also an expert on our history, as well.

3113: indeed. I've lived quite happily without that myth.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hey, I *like* Jean M Auel...

Great, *ahem* Fiction.

You know-- as in made up? Not in any way an authoritative or factual account? Evidently, Ami can't tell the difference between a novel and a non-fiction book.