Cancer in our own backyard
Studies show rates higher for those within 2 miles of Santa Susana lab
By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer
LA Daily News
Residents living within two miles of the Santa Susana Field Lab may have been exposed to toxic chemicals through air, water and soil contamination - and they have higher cancer rates than people in communities farther from the lab, researchers revealed Thursday in two landmark studies. People living close to the Simi Hills lab had slightly higher rates of all cancers, particularly those linked to radiation and chemical exposure, the studies found.
Authors of the two reports warned the results do not conclusively show that contamination from the former nuclear research and rocket engine testing lab caused cancer and other illnesses in the surrounding community. However, the studies are the strongest evidence to date that residents near the lab were exposed to hazardous chemicals that could have increased their chance of developing cancer.
(snip)
The Boeing Co., which has owned the lab since 1996, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation of the study but company officials said they could not comment on the specifics until they've studied the full reports. Company spokeswoman Inger Hodgson said lab owners and environmental regulators have studied the site for more than 15 years and their analysis has shown that neighboring communities are not impacted by the lab's past nuclear-energy research or the more recent rocket-engine testing. Earlier studies in 1991 and 1997 suggested higher rates of bladder cancer and lung cancer in the community nearest the Rocketdyne lab. But state and federal officials were slow to order a more thorough analysis.
(snip)
The Santa Susana Field Lab is a 2,800-acre facility at the top of the Simi Hills in Ventura County, near the Los Angeles city limits. From the 1940s to 1988, the Department of Energy experimented with 10 nuclear reactors, one of which experienced a partial meltdown. There was also an open-air pit where workers burned radioactive and chemical waste.
(snip)
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3470569