Hey, Boeing, don't have a meltdown, I'm going to give it a glowing review.
Did you know there was a partial nuclear meltdown just 30 miles from downtown Los Angeles? Back in 1959, we almost had our own Chernobyl in the Chatsworth/Simi Valley area at a location named the Santa Susana Field Lab ("SSFL").
Not only was there a meltdown, they were testing rocket propulsion systems and dumping highly dangerous rocket fuel into the ground.
All of that resulted in a Superfund site that Boeing - the new owner - and government agencies are trying to clean up. There are competing claims, with studies and some neighbors claiming dire impacts from the pollution. See this, this, this, and even this. From the other side, see this from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"). The group Save Chatsworth is also on the other side (I'm not clear if this is their site or not).
In an attempt to charm neighbors near and far, Boeing conducts nature walks of the Southern Buffer Zone that the previous owners (Rocketdyne, Rockwell, or similar) had purchased when housing developments had begun encroaching on what had been a less populated area.
When I heard about such a walk I rushed to sign up, thinking I'd get to see neato meltdown pits, glow-in-the-dark three-headed sparrows, and maybe alien propulsion systems. Unfortunately, the tour had none of those. There were just distant views of rocket test stands and similar.
There were protesters at the entrance suggesting people not go on the hike due to greenwashing. So, strike one for their side: as (more or less) a grown-up, I don't need people telling me what to do and what I should listen to. I'm willing to listen to all sides; echo chambers are very dangerous. They should just give out literature & suggest people decide for themselves. I drove past them because I worried that I'd be late, and strike two was the fact that they weren't waiting outside for when people left & might have questions. I don't know what group they're from, but I'll email likely groups with suggestions.
And, because it was very foggy, even the test stands were hard to make out. The walk went along a dirt road and wasn't much of a hike: I and about 100 others were shuttled there and back in large buses, then we walked up and down the road less than a mile. To make up for that, I later hiked Rocky Peak.
Someone I believe to be from DTSC praised Boeing for the thorough job they're doing, and one of the leaders of Save Chatsworth downplayed the pollution (at least in the Southern Buffer Zone).
One of the tour guides from Boeing claimed that those at the time were doing the best they could, but that's obviously not true. You don't need much foresight to realize that Los Angeles in the 50s was going to grow into a megalopolis nor to avoid dumping rocket fuel into the ground water.
I asked the same guide why they didn't do this in the desert and the answer was unsatisfactory. He claimed it was because of access to water, rocks and canyons to provide buffers, and so on. All of those are present in the desert. While I really like the desert (even when it tries to kill me), the chances of the most remote parts of the Mojave being heavily developed are slim. The testing could have been done there with much less of a future risk. Everything else is down to convenience. They could have built something akin to Lake Tamarisk in Desert Center to deal with water. They could have housed workers 10 or so miles away for safety. (An exhibit at the SSFL has a couple pictures of the kids of workers playing on a rocket-shaped jungle gym, so presumably families lived on site or they had a Take Your Kids To Be Radiated At Your Work day or something).
I understand the backdrop of all this was the Cold War and corners were cut to avoid being wiped out due to the Soviets launching nukes on their own rockets. But, I'd be very surprised if - despite the threat of red-baiting or worse - some didn't speak out at the time. Those opposed to the testing at that location might not have helped themselves by overreaching. But, it should be undeniable that those who were calling the shots DGAFF about future impacts. A more recent example is Fukushima: that could have been prevented if those in charge had actually thought ahead, considered all possibilities, and had GAFF.
