Soil Study FAQ
soil study FAQ | dtsc Coverup | in the News | Take Action
Frequently asked questions:
You may have read/watched/heard that the long awaited, independent, peer-reviewed study is now public. And for many, it raised as many questions (maybe more) than it answered. Here are some of our answers to the most common questions we’ve received.
Q1: How can I find out if the sample from my house had radioactive particles?
A1: Individual results are not being made public per the agreements between Fairewinds Energy Education and the homeowners who generously volunteered their homes as testing sites- it was a requirement to have the study be peer reviewed. Fairewinds took this agreement seriously and even lost a major funding grant in order to protect your privacy.
Additionally, the sample results would be inconclusive to determine if a particular home was safe or in danger of Santa Susana Field Lab contamination (Read more in question 2).
Q2: If my soil sample wasn’t radioactive does that mean that my house is safe from SSFL contamination?
A2: The sampling doesn’t tell the complete story.
Eighty percent of the Santa Susana Field Lab burned during the Woolsey Fire, but it was primarily the chemically contaminated areas (not Area IV where most of the radioactive work took place) that caught fire. The soil study only looked for radioactive particles, not chemical particles. The soil sample study isn’t telling us where there was chemical contamination from the Woolsey Fire.
The chemical and radioactive contamination at the Santa Susana Field Lab is loose in the soil and groundwater and has also grown into the vegetation. It can be washed away from the SSFL down into our communities below, it can be carried in the wind, or in wildfire ash or smoke.
We might have taken a sample in your yard that was clean from radioactivity, but it doesn’t mean that the spot next to it was necessarily clean too. And even if it was clean today, contamination could blow into your yard tomorrow. Or if there was contamination today, it could blow out of your yard tomorrow.
That’s why we can’t say where it’s safe from radioactive and chemical contamination and where it’s not safe.
I know that’s frustrating (as a mom and resident myself, trust me, I REALLY understand how frustrating that is). But it’s also why we’re fighting for the cleanup. Because until the SSFL is completely clean there will always be a risk that contamination can reach our homes. The soil sample study proves that.
Q3: I’d like to donate to Fairewinds Energy so they can help other communities by testing for radioactive contamination, without charging residents, like they helped our community.
A3: Tax-deductible donations can be made to Fairewinds Energy Education Foundation through their website.
Q4: What does “background” radiation mean?
A4: Background is the term for “regular” radioactivity. According to the EPA, “Background radiation varies from place to place and over time, depending on the amount of naturally-occurring radioactive elements… weather conditions also affect radiation levels… cosmic radiation from the sun, our galaxy, and beyond is constantly around us and contributes to natural background radiation. Altitude and latitude can also influence the level of background radiation at any one site.” The highest sample from the study was found to be 19x more radioactive than background.
Q5: What kind of radioactive microparticles were found in the soil study?
A5: The radioactive isotopes detected most often were alpha-radiation-emitters, including uranium-234, uranium-235, and uranium-238; thorium-228, thorium-230, and thorium-232; and radium-226 and radium-228. Cesium-137 was the most prevalent beta-radiation-emitter found at the SSFL.
Alpha radiation-emitters can be man-made or occurring in nature. Beta-radiation-emitters are almost always created by a nuclear reactor or the detonation of a nuclear weapon. Cesium-137 was listed as one of several SSFL-specific radioactive contaminants by the EPA. Uranium and thorium were detected by the EPA at above naturally-occurring concentrations, confirming they were also SSFL contaminants.
Q6: How much radioactive contamination is dangerous?
A6: Currently we do not have specific information on how the highest level of contamination found through the soil study could harm human health. However, we do know in general that according to the World Health Organization (WHO) there is no safe level of exposure to radiation.
Q7: Where were the soil samples taken?
A7: 360 soil samples were taken from public property locations as well as at homes that generously volunteered for us to sample at. Cities sampled included Agoura Hills, Bell Canyon, Calabasas, Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Granada Hills, Malibu, Moorpark, Newbury Park, Northridge, Oak Park, Reseda, Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, West Hills and Woodland Hills. Not all locations were sampled equally, sampling locations were based off the amount of homeowners who volunteered in each area.
Q8: What was the purpose of the study?
A8: One of the reasons Parents Against SSFL wanted to be part of this study was because we felt the DTSC was failing to give the community the information they needed to make an informed decision about what risks were right for their family. The goal of the study was to learn if the Woolsey Fire’s ash and smoke was capable of carrying radioactive contamination from the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL). For years the DTSC/CalEPA have said there’s no way for the SSFL’s contamination to reach the communities living nearby. Their own studies showed it was, and has, but they kept denying it publicly.
We wanted to prove that the contamination could (and has) reached our communities so that we could demand the complete cleanup of the site, because until the SSFL is clean, there will always be daily danger of exposure to its chemical and radioactive contamination.
Currently the DTSC is in confidential negotiations with Boeing to weaken the SSFL cleanup agreements. That’s why we have to fight for the safest, smartest, and most comprehensive cleanup possible.
Q9: How did you reach the total of 22,000 people being potentially exposed?
A9: The purpose of sampling is to apply the found percentage to the total un-sampled area. For example, 730,000 people live within ten miles of SSFL. Three percent of 730,000 means that potentially 22,000 people may have been exposed to radioactive smoke and ash during the Woolsey Fire.
Q10: Is 3% a lot of radioactive contamination?
A10: It is, when you consider:
The Santa Susana Field Lab was a small portion of the area that burned during the Woolsey Fire. The majority of the smoke and ash were produced from the other areas burned in the Woolsey Fire.
Sample locations were not determined by first using radiation monitoring equipment. The soil, dust and ash samples were taken at random on public land and open space land or on people’s property, specifically at their request.
The portion burned by the Woolsey Fire was known to be primarily contaminated with chemicals. Area IV, where most of the radioactive work took place, was virtually untouched by the Woolsey fire.
Q11: Can I still get my soil sampled for free?
A11: The Woolsey Fire soil study study is over. It is possible to have your own soil tested but we don’t recommend it. It can be incredibly expensive (it cost Fairewinds Lab $800 per sample for our study) You would need to test your entire yard to get a comprehensive understanding and you would need to test for specific contamination. Even if you did, it wouldn’t guarantee your home would remain contamination free. Your home could be clean from contamination today, contamination could blow into your yard tomorrow (read more in Question 2).
Q12: I’m concerned about the study’s findings, what can I do?
A12: Join us in the fight for the cleanup and Take Action to get the cleanup that was supposed to have been completed by 2017. If the cleanup had happened, we wouldn’t be here worrying about radioactive contamination.
Q13: The study found contamination in my community, should I move?
A13: This is Melissa here, and I’m going to share my personal thoughts- they don’t necessarily reflect Parents Against SSFL’s opinions.
I still live here in West Hills. I’m in the same house where my daughter Grace was diagnosed with cancer. We tried to move away several years ago to be with family in Indiana, but Grace’s cancer relapsed the same day that our offer on a house in Indiana was accepted. We ended up canceling the deal from the hospital hallway. We needed to be near Grace’s oncologist. We needed to be near our families for support. We realized we would have medical bills that would make the move impossible for some time.
After Grace healed from her bone marrow transplant we decided that we were going to stay in West Hills for several reasons. It turns out there are 54 national superfund sites in Indiana. There are 157 national superfund sites across the US. There’s no one place in America that promises complete safety. We wanted to outrun danger by moving but we realized that life doesn’t work like that.
Also my husband and I realized that if we left I wouldn’t be able to be as involved in the fight for the cleanup. I know others are already fighting this fiercely, but I feel that fighting for the cleanup is part of God’s calling for my life. I needed to be here too.
And if we get the safest, smartest, most comprehensive cleanup possible, then this will be a great place to raise a family. It’s a place we’d want to live. So we’re not giving in. We feel this was the home God picked for us. We’re staying and fighting for the cleanup.
I pray that you would have peace and wisdom guiding you as you decide what’s best for you and your family.
Warmly,
Melissa Bumstead
P.S. See the news coverage regarding the study:
Q: What was the purpose of the study?
A: One of the reasons Parents Against SSFL wanted to be part of this study was because we felt the DTSC was failing to give the community the information they needed to make an informed decision about what risks were right for their family. The goal of the study was to learn if the Woolsey Fire’s ash and smoke was capable of carrying radioactive contamination from the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL). For years the DTSC/CalEPA have said there’s no way for the SSFL’s contamination to reach the communities living nearby. Their own studies showed it was, and has, but they kept denying it publicly.
We wanted to prove that the contamination could (and has) reached our communities so that we could demand the complete cleanup of the site, because until the SSFL is clean, there will always be daily danger of exposure to it’s chemical and radioactive contamination.
Currently the DTSC is in confidential negotiations with Boeing to weaken the SSFL cleanup agreements. That’s why we have to fight for the safest, smartest, and most comprehensive cleanup possible.
Q: How did you reach the total of 22,000 people being potentially exposed?
A: The purpose of sampling is to apply the found percentage to the total un-sampled area. For example, 730,000 people live within ten miles of SSFL. Three percent of 730,000 means that potentially 22,000 people may have been exposed to radioactive smoke and ash during the Woolsey Fire.
Q: Is 3% a lot of radioactive contamination?
A: Even though 3% initially reads as a small number, it’s a minimum estimate of the contamination. It’s remarkable that the study found any contamination considering:
The Santa Susana Field Lab was a small portion of the area that burned during the Woolsey Fire. The majority of the smoke and ash were produced from the other burned areas.
Sample locations were not determined by first using radiation monitoring equipment. The soil, dust and ash samples were taken at random on public land and open space land or on people’s property, specifically at their request.
Eighty percent of the Santa Susana Field Lab burned during the Woolsey Fire, but it was primarily the chemically contaminated area, not Area IV where most of the radioactive work took place, that caught fire. The soil study only looked for radioactive particles. The percentage of radioactive particles found would be significantly higher if Area IV had burned.
Q: Can I still get my soil sampled?
A: The Woolsey Fire study is over. It is possible to have your own soil tested but we don’t recommend it. It can be incredibly expensive ($800 per 1/4 cup is not uncommon) and you would need to test your entire yard to get a comprehensive understanding. But even if you did, it wouldn’t guarantee your home would remain contamination free. Even if it was clean from contamination today, contamination could blow into your yard tomorrow.
Until the SSFL is clean, there will always be a risk that contamination can reach our homes.
Q: I’m concerned about the study’s findings, what can I do?
A: First, join us in the fight for the cleanup and Take Action to get the cleanup that was supposed to have been completed by 2017. If the cleanup had happened, we wouldn’t be here worrying about radioactive contamination.
Q: The study found contamination in my community, should I move?
A: This is Melissa here, and I’m going to share my personal thoughts- they don’t necessarily reflect Parents Against SSFL’s opinions.
I still live here in West Hills. I’m in the same house where my daughter Grace was diagnosed with cancer. We tried to move away several years ago to be with family in Indiana, but Grace’s cancer relapsed the same day that our offer on a house was accepted. We ended up canceling the deal from the hospital hallway. We needed to be near Grace’s oncologist. We needed to be near our families for support. We realized we would have medical bills that would make the move impossible.
After Grace healed from her bone marrow transplant we decided that we were going to stay for several reasons. It turns out there are 54 national superfund sites in Indiana. There are 157 national superfund sites across the US. There’s no one place in America that promises complete safety. We wanted to outrun cancer by moving but we realized that life doesn’t work like that.
Also my husband and I realized that if we left I wouldn’t be able to be as involved in the fight for the cleanup. I know others are already fighting this fiercely, but I feel that fighting for the cleanup is part of God’s calling for my life. I needed to be here too.
And if we get the safest, smartest, most comprehensive cleanup possible, then this will be a great place to raise a family. It’s a place we’d want to live. So we’re not giving in. We feel this was the home God picked for us. We’re staying and fighting for the cleanup.
I pray that you would have peace and wisdom guiding you as you decide what’s best for you and your family.
Warmly,
Melissa Bumstead
P.S. You can also read some of our simple tips to reduce the potential of being exposed to the Santa Susana Field Lab’s contamination.