The fear of what we cannot see, more than activists, watchdog groups or government red tape, is what has most greatly hobbled the proposed 461-home development in Runkle Canyon.

Radiological contamination is a unique threat because the general public has no way of proving whether or not it's there. Radiation is a silent, odorless, slow killer, so we're forced to rely on the experts to tell us where it exists, and where it doesn't.

As the saga of Runkle Ranch turns a decade old, we have to start wondering if critics of the proposal will ever get the reassurance they seek. Will any test ever be enough?

It seems every time the city gets another step closer to an answer to the question of whether or not Runkle is safe for development—and most of the evidence has pointed toward a "yes" response—critics find a new reason to question the results.

Their latest beef is with the environmental consultant hired by the developer to conduct new soil testing at the site. Dan Hirsch, president of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, told the City Council that Dade Moeller has a conflict of interest because the consultant is being paid by a developer who needs a "yes" response to go forward, and because one of its clients is the Department of Energy, the agency most responsible for the contamination at the neighboring Santa Susana Field Lab.

Unfortunately, neither the city nor the state has the authority to remove the consultant from the project, and Norm Riley of the Department of Toxic Substances Control has himself said that Dade Moeller is in fact qualified to do the work. Not only that, but the DTSC has promised to double-check the consultant's work every step of the way to ensure objectivity.

Works for us, but not, apparently, for Hirsch and his supporters.

So what would Hirsch, who makes his home in Northern California, and the other concerned residents who spoke at last Wednesday's meeting like the city to do? Would they be willing to pay the cost of an independent consultant themselves?

When radiological pollutants are the issue and lives are on the line, everyone wants to get it right. But at some point, we're going to have to trust the experts.

At this point, considering all that's been said and written about Runkle Canyon, one has to wonder, even if it's eventually deemed safe for homes—will there be anyone left who wants to live there?