Upcoming meetings by DTSC concerning CAG petition  

What do you think?

New to the topic of Santa Susana Field Laboratory?  Don't give up.  We are here, and so are many others.  The Rocketdyne Information Society, moderated by cleanuprocketdyne.org and ACME (known to many as Bill and Christina) since 2006, has over 200 members including regulatory, agency, elected's, responsible parties as well as people from all over, who are concerned about the site.  If you want to ask questions, this is a good place to get started.

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control (under CalEPA) has the primary oversight over the clean-up process, with their website at http://www.dtsc-ssfl.com a new site is about to launch as well.

US EPA has lead over the radiological investigation, but they will report their findings to DTSC who will ultimately make the clean-up remedy decisions

We need a CAG Community Advisory Group for open transparent and inclusive public process.   

cleanuprocketdyne.org has stood for "use your voice" since 2001 and we don't intend to change that position now, just because others don't agree.  That's the point.  There are many opinions and concerns and everybody's reason for being here is valid.  We need a community where diversity is okay and accepted.  Of course we have differing opinions about the issues as we all come to this issue for different reasons.

Better than arms folded.  We need to reach out and listen to each other, hear each other.

is that snow?  Take a closer look  .

We need the truth.  Click here for the truth about the consent order.  4/1/10

This wonderful Chumash blessing and song for ACME and our efforts goes far beyond the four walls.

CAG - Community Advisory Group for the purpose of providing an inclusive and open/transparent process for all interested community members may participate in the clean-up process for Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

Some food for thought:

Kuhnian paradigm shifts according to wikipedia:

An epistemological paradigm shift was called a scientific revolution by epistemologist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. It is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.

When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, for early 20th century physics, the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview was neither instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Eddington's photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. It is often this final conclusion, the result of the long process, that is meant when the term paradigm shift is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument.

Truth is coming out, more documents will be made available every day so keep checking in with the truth about  Rocketdyne.

Use your voice by weighing in and sending a letter or attending a meeting.  We can help you use your voice more effectively.  Call or write: 8189225123 or talkingarmy@cleanuprocketdyne.org

Kuhn used the duck-rabbit optical illusion to demonstrate the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.

DTSC has denied our CAG petition for a Community Advisory Group in favor of other community groups who do not want the truth to come out.  More like arms folded, than outreach, but then I attended last night's meeting at the Chatsworth office and I was extremely pleased with the process and effort they were taking on to really try to understand what people want and need.  I decided it was my opportunity to use my voice as I had always said.  I told them how I felt within the framework of their meeting process, and I listened to others as they spoke.  This process required that every person weigh in and answer verbally each and every question posed.  It made for a very inter-active and interesting evening.  I hope for more of the same. and appreciate their willingness to learn, I hope they hear us.

cleanuprocketdyne.org is always dedicated to the truth and transparency in the cleanup and investigation process.  It should not be necessary to file a writ of mandate to compel the State of California to follow the law and provide all community members with a voice in how this moves forward.  I hope this can be solved in a better way.  

What I saw and heard last night, people want exactly that:  a place where their voice is heard, and the process is inclusive, open and transparent.  The community needs to be part of the process of deciding what is on the table, and we currently do not have an open or inclusive process.  That is why we filed the petition in the first place. 

Plain question and plain answer make the shortest road out of most perplexities.                                                             -                                                         -Mark Twain     

New Latin synergismus, from Greek synergos