« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»

14A. Page 6/7: “Based on analysis of the extensive off-site chemical sampling and monitoring results, DTSC concludes that in almost all cases, the results are within the range of local background.”

[ER NOTE: FALSE – See 3C, 3D, 3E, 4A, 6B & 10]

“A New Year” by Joe Utsler 2007 showing Brandeis-Bardin.


“SSFL Community Fact Sheet on the Brandeis-Bardin Campus”


2 page PDF

15. Page 1/2: “U.S. EPA 2012 sample results confirmed that contamination from SSFL is controlled at the Northern Buffer Zone and is not entering the Brandeis Bardin property.”

[ER NOTE: FALSE – See 3C, 3D, 3E, 4A, 6B, 10 & 14]

16. Page 2/2: “Cleanup actions done between 2009 and 2013 removed contaminated sediments from the SSFL drainages upstream of the Brandeis Bardin property.”

[ER NOTE: TRUE BUT MISLEADING – More contaminants have been found since 2013. As Brandeis-Bardin’s Toxic Denial details, a November 2015 DOE report found radiation in camp wells identified as isotopes that are “fission products” and “used in reactor control rods.” A November 2016 NASA report shows Brandeis-Bardin groundwater/wells chemical contamination exceeding state standards for this ‘blue stream’ drinking water source. And a December 2016 DOE report given by AJU to the Jewish Journal shows elevated Brandeis-Bardin soil toxins. Note that these three government tests were ignored by the Community Update and DTSC’s white paper, examined below in DTSC DOCUMENT THREE.

This is DTSC’s first pillar of prevarication in the ‘white paper’: Cherry-picking old reports and questionable studies while ignoring new government data that spells out Brandeis-Bardin’s impacts from SSFL toxins quite clearly.]

April 9, 2014 DTSC meeting posters.

17. Page 2/2: “Surface water discharge requirements are very strict. In general, they are stricter than drinking water requirements. Even if exceedances of a surface water discharge standards were detected, this would not necessarily equate to a threat to human health.”

[ER NOTE: TRUE BUT MISLEADING – Literally true but an effective sleight of hand. The first sentence refers to standards, not the contaminants themselves detected coming off The Hill, as the former Rocketdyne site is sometimes called. The second sentence is devious but nevertheless doesn’t claim that SSFL discharges into Brandeis-Bardin aren’t a threat to human health. That DTSC has authored this deceptive bad science shows that the toxic department is better at concocting confusing community updates than it is doing its job protecting the public.]

18. Page 2/2: “DTSC will continue to monitor, review and evaluate information concerning SSFL and adjacent property.”

[ER NOTE: TRUE & FALSE – Of course DTSC will continue to do this, so it’s true. How else will it know what to cherry pick and what to ignore? It is false in that many of the government reports EnviroReporter.com has sourced are being brushed off by the department as if they didn’t exist.]

“A New Year” by Joe Utsler 2007 shows the bordering Santa Susana Field Laboratory situated at the top of the mountains in the distance.


“Review of Radiological and Chemical Data from Investigations Conducted at and Near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and the American Jewish University • Brandeis Bardin Campus”
“Technical Memo on the Brandeis Bardin Campus”

Technical Memo on the Brandeis Bardin Campus

59 page PDF

19. Page 1/59: “The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Geological Services Branch (GSB) reviewed available chemical and radiological data from investigations conducted to date at and near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), to identify whether contamination from SSFL extends off-site to the nearby American Jewish University (AJU) – Brandeis Bardin Campus (Brandeis Bardin).”

[ER NOTE: INCOMPLETE – Note that DTSC “reviewed available chemical and radiological data” implying it reviewed all available data when it clearly did not as noted in 16. The next sentence says it a different way saying DTSC “reviewed date from a large number of investigations” which, again, doesn’t mean all investigations. Do note that two of the investigations EnviroReporter.com used in the production of Brandeis-Bardin’s Toxic Denial were sent by DTSC to us yet somehow the department didn’t “review” them. Incompetence? No, these people aren’t stupid. It was deliberate not to include the damning documents. The list of the documents used, at the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2, shows the lack of government reports that do indeed show SSFL contamination impacting Brandeis-Bardin. Some of the most pertinent government reports were organized by EnviroReporter.com along with other pertinent documents.]

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»