The Radiation Rangers and dozens of other activists and nuke advocates have provided pages of scientific evidence that Runkle Canyon is contaminated - enough for DTSC to get involved and in fact validate their concerns. Good investigative journalists like Collins review documents, crunch numbers, and state the facts. Yet Dennert and rebel-without-a-clue Chandler continue to dismiss their concerns and attack their character on the basis of...what? Neither is willling to review the evidence and provide anything but blanket, sweeping denials of the facts.

Why does speaking out for the health of the community get this "who do you think you are - super heros" type of response? That's right, we're supposed to bow to the corporations whose misdeeds are justified because they give to charities while ripping off homeowners and jeopardizing their health. Violating the clean water act http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/12/local/me-runoff12 and building homes over bomb sites http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYe-OTKe6FI are just two of KB's beneficial contributions to the communites they inhabit.

Please prove that you have reviewed all the evidence and make specific comments on it before slamming residents and declaring Runkle Canyon safe. Here's one place to start - http://www.stoprunkledyne.com/files/Response_Plan_Comments_-_Radiation_Rangers.pdf.

Thank you.

This is NOT a case of environmentalists against progress. This is a human health issue, and how soon we forget - or how poorly educated we are in the first place.

Land which was once considered to be remote - and therefore PERFECT for atomic industry - is now being developed due to urban sprawl. That is not speculation or conjecture. It's reality.

Runkle Canyon sits beside SSFL, a former nuclear site where numerous radiological and chemical releases occurred for decades, due to rampant encouragement from the Atomic Energy Commission / Department of Energy to violate environmental law in the name of production, and public image of the atom. There is no refuting this.

KB Homes has been long questioned about their controversial ethics; research their decision to build a housing development atop a former WWII bombing range, without removing the unexploded bombs first. Now... WHY WOULD THEY CHOOSE DADE-MOELLER? Again... look at history.

Mr. Moeller worked for the AEC/DOE during the Cold War, when the environmental crimes, negligence, and reckless handling of radioactive and hazardous waste was at its peak. He was paid quite well, and played an integral role in bringing our nation's nuclear sites to their current stages of contamination. Ever the capitalizing opportunist, Mr. Moeller now makes a great deal of income via Dade-Moeller & Associates, he is INDUSTRY backed, and he assures us that we have nothing to worry about with respect to sharing a back fence with a former nuclear site; heck... we're right on the verge of a cure for cancer!

Really? There are people out there saying we should trust KB Homes & Dade-Moeller? And, given SSFL's precarious situation, its history, and the sordid pasts of KB Homes and Dade-Moeller, it is blatantly obvious that anyone willing to entrust these corporations with public safety has (at the very least) not done their homework, or (at the risk of sounding inflammatory) is probably paid for their opinion. Surely, it would be easier for me to believe one would compromise their ethics for a price, before being this blatantly stupid.

Take a look at the pillaging of our national treasury. Are we really going to look at history - such a poignant teacher - and say these corporations are bound by their commitment to ethics to "do the right thing"?

Whatever anyone thinks, I'm sure we all agree: There is NOTHING radical about demanding objective studies, and accountability for sufficient cleanup, to ensure public safety.

What do houses on the site of the worst nuclear accident in American history go for anyway?

It's safe because the lawyers say so!!
Building houses can hide the evidence.
The new people that move in or people near the grading won't get sick or be diagnosed for several years. It looks good in front of judges that houses were built on the site.

In fact, there's only a potential for tragedy if the site gets developed. However,it is a tragic fact that we live in a larger community of local, state & federal jurisdictions that have evolved such a strong culture of lies & deception that every family is placed at risk in a deliberate effort to subsidize the profits of one developer or another.

God, please save us from those we chose to protect us.

God, please save us from the likes of Gary Selvaggio, who thinks Susana Knolls is the center of the Universe. He is a character from "Men In Black" (the dog hanging out the car window, most likely).

If he truly believed his health was in jeopardy due to Rocketdyne, he would have MOVED, long ago. Yet, he stays, indicating little concern for health implications from the immediate environment.

Same as the Radiation Hysterialists. WHY do they CHOOSE to live so close, if indeed as they claim they are afraid for their health?

Rangers: please answer. Why do you continue to CHOOSE to live adjacent to a property you claim will make testicals fall off? Or gloves melt, or turn minds to mush, all the things you claim will happen if Runkle develops? Why don't you move?

America is about freedom. Including the freedom to choose where you live.

God, please save us from the likes of Gary Selvaggio, who thinks Susana Knolls is the center of the Universe. He is a character from "Men In Black" (the dog hanging out the car window, most likely).

If he truly believed his health was in jeopardy due to Rocketdyne, he would have MOVED, long ago. Yet, he stays, indicating little concern for health implications from the immediate environment.

Same as the Radiation Hysterialists. WHY do they CHOOSE to live so close, if indeed as they claim they are afraid for their health?

Rangers: please answer. Why do you continue to CHOOSE to live adjacent to a property you claim will make testicals fall off? Or gloves melt, or turn minds to mush, all the things you claim will happen if Runkle develops? Why don't you move?

America is about freedom. Including the freedom to choose where you live.

God, please save us from the likes of Gary Selvaggio, who thinks Susana Knolls is the center of the Universe. He is a character from "Men In Black" (the dog hanging out the car window, most likely).

If he truly believed his health was in jeopardy due to Rocketdyne, he would have MOVED, long ago. Yet, he stays, indicating little concern for health implications from the immediate environment.

Same as the Radiation Hysterialists. WHY do they CHOOSE to live so close, if indeed as they claim they are afraid for their health?

Rangers: please answer. Why do you continue to CHOOSE to live adjacent to a property you claim will make testicles fall off? Or gloves melt, or turn minds to mush, all the things you claim will happen if Runkle develops? Why don't you move?

America is about freedom. Including the freedom to choose where you live.

Joe Realist: I am one of the "Radiation Rangers," and I live four doors down from the entrance to Runkle Canyon. Why do I continue to live here?

Because this is the house I purchased almost five years ago, when my work location moved from Pasadena to Agoura Hills. When I bought my home, I had no knowledge of Rocketdyne, the experimental nuclear reactors that operated there, or the accidents that resulted in radiological contamination in 1959 and subsequent years.

Now that I know, why do I stay?

Because I like my house, and this is what I can afford. (Or could afford, before the market melted down.) Also, there are no young children in the household who could potentially suffer the consequences of long-term exposure.

But since I found out about Rocketdyne, I do not drink the local water, I do not grow vegetables in my garden, and I do not hike in Runkle Canyon.

And those of us who are concerned are not hysterical. All that we are asking for is what is required under environmental law: an accurate, unbiased EIR for this development.

And Dade Moller isn't the contractor for the job.

In September 2008, Dade Moller and Associates won a DOE contract worth $3 billion over the next ten years.

In August of 2007, Dade Moeller and Associates were awarded a two-year contract worth $10 million.

Dade Moller is working for the DOE on the NIOSH dosage reconstruction, a project worth at least $20 million to his company.

And these are just a few of many examples -- Dade Moeller's connection to the DOE couldn't be more pervasive (or profitable.)

Holding the DOE responsible for the cleanup of the toxic dump that they created -- and demanding disclosure and transparency through the process -- benefits all of the citizens of Simi Valley.

Joe Realist: I am one of the "Radiation Rangers," and I live four doors down from the entrance to Runkle Canyon. Why do I continue to live here?

Because this is the house I purchased almost five years ago, when my work location moved from Pasadena to Agoura Hills. When I bought my home, I had no knowledge of Rocketdyne, the experimental nuclear reactors that operated there, or the accidents that resulted in radiological contamination in 1959 and subsequent years.

Now that I know, why do I stay?

Because I like my house, and this is what I can afford. (Or could afford, before the market melted down.) Also, there are no young children in the household who could potentially suffer the consequences of long-term exposure.

But since I found out about Rocketdyne, I do not drink the local water, I do not grow vegetables in my garden, and I do not hike in Runkle Canyon.

And those of us who are concerned are not hysterical. All that we are asking for is what is required under environmental law: an accurate, unbiased EIR for this development.

And Dade Moller isn't the contractor for the job.

In September 2008, Dade Moller and Associates won a DOE contract worth $3 billion over the next ten years.

In August of 2007, Dade Moeller and Associates were awarded a two-year contract worth $10 million.

Dade Moller is working for the DOE on the NIOSH dosage reconstruction, a project worth at least $20 million to his company.

And these are just a few of many examples -- Dade Moeller's connection to the DOE couldn't be more pervasive (or profitable.)

Holding the DOE responsible for the cleanup of the toxic dump that they created -- and demanding disclosure and transparency through the process -- isn’t that what freedom is about?

Mr. Realist:

The issue at hand is not why people who currently reside near Runkle Canyon have not moved. Even if they moved away, another unsuspecting soul would move in. The problem - which is the topic of the discussion - would remain.

The issue at hand is how to go about responsibly and accurately ensuring the safety of the public, given the adjacent land's sordid history. Today we have wisdom that yesterday we did not; therefore, we are obligated to use that knowledge to the best of our ability.

How can we ensure that the DOE's decades of deceit at SSFL do not bleed over into adjacent communities, and that the mistakes of the past are not compounded by poor future decisions? By making sure that the parties responsible are objective and accurate. Dade-Moeller possesses conflicting interests; there is nothing extremist or alarmist about this observation.

Joe Realist: I suggest you look in to the reality of radiation and chemical contaminants migrating off the property of SSFL. Instead of justifying your own laziness by criticizing those committed to doing SOMETHING, why don't YOU do something? Like a little research?

The danger that The Rangers claim they could suffer from is IF the project kicks up a bunch of dust. The area is safe for the time being according to them. Did I get your position correct?

SimiGal,

You said:

"...Yet Dennert and rebel-without-a-clue Chandler continue to dismiss their concerns and attack their character on the basis of...what?"

Where did I attack the character of the Radiation Rangers or Michael Collins? Where did I dismiss their charges?

Both are serious complaints and I would expect you could show proof to support your statement.

I joked that the Radiation Rangers should get uniforms. That isn't attacking their character or dismissing the charges. The Radiation Rangers themselves have fun with their team name on their own website. Am I not allowed to join in? I said nothing of their evidence, character, or claims in my post.

Dear Brian,

The implications of what you wrote were very clear. Thank you, however, for posting my message, though I'm not sure why it took a week and posting on the RIS forum for it to appear.

SG

SimiGal,

For whatever reason your message appeared in my pending box which I don't check that often.

The implication of what I wrote? Seriously, what did I write that attacked the character of the Radiation Rangers of Michael Collins? Please quote the offending line.

I reread this post and didn't really see bias from Brian. Just my two cents.

The implications of developement are unearthing pockets of a high concentration of experimental rocket fuel. Wind and rain run-off pose not only a danger to the residents but also those many miles downstream to the ocean are in danger.

The ones character I question most are those who are doing nothing or down played the dangers.

Did anyone note the recent news inre salt water diversion plans, so that the district can tap into and add more local groundwater to our drinking supply?

GS,

Did anything I write come across as an attack on the character of the Radiation Rangers or Michael Collins to you?

Absolutely not. I've always assumed the RRs were enjoying an inside joke with their alliterative name and felt your comment was in the same vein.

Oh Brian come on! You cannot have it both ways. Your post was laden with innuendo and bias.

You said: �I am not a marketing professional but something tells me that super hero uniforms might be needed to capture the attention of the public more.�

This is not “joining in the fun� - it’s ridicule, and you know it. The Rangers get plenty of public attention, so you are obviously being facetious and implying that they think they’re super heroes. As I have gotten to know them they are actually very humble people who would rather be doing something else but they know the evidence and that they have to take a stand, even if it means being belittled by jaded, jealous, or unscrupulous people.

You said: “To the consternation of the Simi Valley Radiation Rangers the proposed project at Runkle Canyon, pejoratively named Runkledyne by critics, is coming closer to getting final approval.�

This may be true, but it might not. The Runkle development could also be closer to getting killed, because the overwhelming evidence against the safety of the project has finally been submitted to DTSC which must respond in detail. By saying that the project is closer to be approved, you are trying to lead your audience and make it appear as if the fight against developing Runkle Canyon is a lost cause, a losing battle.

You said: “Local investigative environmental reporter Michael Collins isn't satisfied and continues to insist the project is unsafe and that the process of testing for unsafe chemicals has been riddled with errors.�

Collins doesn’t “insist the project his unsafe� - he reports on the findings of voluminous testing results which indicate high levels of contaminants. Your statement that he is “unsatisfied� is also laden with opinion. He doesn’t say “I’m not satisfied�, he just reports the facts. I sure wish you would do the same.

You say: “Click here for the developer's Runkle Canyon website. Their website has a FAQ covering environmental safety, traffic, and a list of some of the prominent local charities they have supported.�

The fact that you make it a point to mention the developer’s charities but fail to mention their violations against the clean water act and building on bomb sites. I’m sorry my friend, but if this doesn’t indicate your bias I don’t know what does. If you were going to give a little more info on each site, you might have mentioned that EnviroReporter.com has won many journalist awards, or that other Runkle activists like Christina Walsh and Bill Bowling have also won awards. But you don’t mention that. Just the “generosity� of the convicted polluter KB homes.

Finally, you link to Mike Chandler’s “aggressive defense of the Simi Valley City Council on this issue.�

Aggressive, yes. But that’s about it. He still cannot offer one single piece of factually information for why he thinks Runkle is safe to develop. He just wants us to “move on� because he says so. And he is vicious toward the Rangers. Why would you post such empty and unsubstantiated rhetoric?

Thankfully, the polls on this site indicate a high degree of faith in the Radiation Rangers and Michael Collins. Chandler, not so much. I hope that this will cause you to have more respect for them and their efforts to protect our communities’ health.

GS

Pardon me - I meant to sign off as "SG" for SimiGal, not GS.

SimiGal,

You have read way too much into my comments. I am not a scientist and I have stated no opinion on the research because I have not studied the issue.

I have tried to bring attention to this issue but every time I post anything on this issue I am accused of some rather odd things. I hate to see what happens to people that actually disagree on the issue.

But here goes:

1. The team is called the Radiation Rangers. I didn't name them. On their website they even have nicknames. I seriously think it is brilliant marketing to bring attention to the issue. Of course actual superhero uniforms are silly, but sometimes that's what it takes to get attention. Regardless of my opinion on the subject I like the name Radiation Rangers and their nicknames. It is a powerful story line. It is much catchier and imaginative then disgruntled neighbors or being called NIMBY's, which is what happens often to opponents of developments.

But before you get mad again, that's not the terms I have ever used but instead what gets applied to people that speak out.

2. It is true the final project might be stopped or it might be built. But so far it seems more agencies have pushed ahead the project. Maybe they shouldn't have, but the fact remains I think it is more likely to be developed now than it was a year ago.

None of that is a character attack. It is my opinion of what appears likely to happen, not what I think should or should not happen.

3. Michael Collins is unsatisfied because he says the data proves the project is unsafe. I really don't see any opinion in that statement.

I am sure many of his supporters would agree he insists the project is unsafe.

4. I mentioned their charities as a way of showing their connections to the community and their way of building support for their cause by donating to charities favored by city leaders.

5. I linked to Mike Chandler's posts on the issue to allow people to hear from all sides and make up their own minds.

I didn't say anything regarding his arguments. You would agree they are an aggressive defense of the city so I don't see any problem there.

My larger point remains. No where did you show any evidence that I attacked the character of Michael Collins or the Radiation Rangers.

Saying I attacked their character is unfair and inaccurate.

I am sure the people at city hall would find it amusing to hear that I am their defender and I am trying to protect them.

Runkle Canyon is a beautiful asset to this community and I would be interested in helping to preserve it as much as is feasible if our community was willing to go in that direction.

If the place is so toxic why have the Rangers not encouraged their neighbors to move away?

If the place is so toxic do they want it to be a public park or do they want to restrict access to the land?

Brian instinctively tries to give both sides of an issue. We've tried to work with him on it but we run into same thing. Sometimes he doesn't even know when he's doing it. He also tries to encourage healthy debate. I can't think of a debate that concerns the public's health more than this one. I appreciate what Brian does to help.

The Radiation Rangers are fighting multiple large; most likely not very well run, Government agencies simultaneously. These Government agencies have a verifiable history of lying about Runkle Canyon.

People want to be safe in their homes. Could people move? Yes. It's just some people don't run from crimes in their community... They fight back.