Will congress do it?
Oakland Tribune
Oakland Tribune
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
Any plan written by the Bush admin is destined to be torn up and burned once the new administration and congress are in place. What they come up with instead is almost certain to not be benevolent to LLNL.
Another thread asked if you were a donor or recipient with regards to raises.
With regards to the budget, DOE / NNSA / The Labs - they will be donors.
Kinda just like the Bush administration is what you really mean. One thing is for sure, nobody has ever accused the Bush administration of being benevolent to the Lab.Things can never get worse. They may stay the same or...they just might get better.
You really should avoid work for the next couple of week so that what ever drugs you took can get out of your system. I've seen many business simply close the doors and walk away. Things can indeed get worse and probably will.
She replied it wasn't necessary. TriValley Cares took it off the watch list. Since it was dumbed down from a University Research Lab to a cash-starved commercial firm it no longer can produce anything harmful.
People like you are part of the problem. The kind of negativity you routinely spew on this blog suggests you are a very unhappy, insecure person. You should seek professional help.
By the way,pleases name one business you know of where they simply "close the doors and walk away". Is that what yo think is going to happen here? If so I pity you. Must be tough just getting out of the bed in the morning.
Well, there is not enough space to name them all. However, one DOE site comes into mind right away. Try googling Mound. I do wish I had your optimism. Unfortunately, I see reality and I'm sorry you feel the way you do toward me and this blog. Do a little research on our parent corporations.
Late breaking news. LLNL was never a University research lab.It was once managed by the University of California but was never a research arm of the University. It is and was, however, a nuclear weapons research lab within the NNSA which is a branch of the DOE.
Your oft used phrase "B. Hussein Osama" only serves to underscore your ignorance and your arrogance.
You obviously do not know the history of LLNL. It began as branch of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab... long before DOE or NNSA. Funding was from AEC, and its original name was the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Livermore. Employees never worked for the federal government but for UC, and followed UC's policies for managing and operating LLNL in accordance with the provisions of UC's contract with AEC/DOE/NNSA. As such any decision, by definition, made at LLNL was a de facto UC made decision. The new company running LLNL, while UC is part of it, is free of UC's direct control and adherence to UC's policies. It can do whatever it wants to do as long as it keeps NNSA happy.
Finally, notice how LBNL under UC and DOE is expanding, while LLNL under LLNS and NNSA is dying. Even SNL under Lockeed-Martin (a real corporation and not a fake one like LLNS) is doing better than LLNL.
Construction companies have no business running research labs. The labs were given over to Bechtel using an secretive decision making process led by NNSA chief Tom D'Agostino. Congress needs realize that only a single person within NNSA decided the winners for the lab contracts at both LLNL and LANL. The whole competition process was rotten to the core.
It's time for Congress to start a serious investigation into how NNSA conducts their business. The fact that the head honchos within NNSA are accepting lucrative jobs with their NNSA contractors needs to be brought out into the light of day.
7:53, I'm sure it's moving to the top of Congress's "To Do" list.
Right. LLNL never was a research arm of the university as has been ascerted .In fact, there were explicit contractual guidelines which prevented UC from doing that.Similarly, Bechtel and all of the other collaborators can NOT use LLNL as a captive research facility. If they want R and D from LLNL they have to go through the same process as any other outside entity.LLNL was managed by UC, that's all. And thanks for making that point. You need to go back and read the contract. You are misinformed.
Right off the LLNL web site. The lab was MANAGED by UC.UC had no input as to the type of work done. It was NOT a University research facility. Rather, it was (and is) a DOE/NNSA research facility.
From the last Contract 48 (W-7405-ENG-48) between the Regents of the University of California and the United States Government (represented by the US Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration) for Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
C.001 STATEMENT OF WORK
The Contractor [University of California] shall furnish intellectual leadership and the necessary personnel and management expertise required for the management and operation of the Laboratory in the performance of work under this Contract in accordance with its terms and the Statement of Work included as Appendix E to this Contract.
H.003 UNIVERSITY-DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Contractor [University of California] may conduct University-directed research and development at or for the Laboratory using fees paid to the Contractor under this Contract. As part of this activity, the Parties recognize the importance and mutual benefit to be derived from continued complementary and beneficial programs between the University and the Laboratory. The Parties agree that the source of funding for work described in this clause, shall be limited to the program performance fee paid in accordance with Section H clause entitled Program Performance Fee. Work performed at the Laboratory under this clause shall be performed on a non-interference basis with any DOE directed and funded work of the Laboratory, and shall be within the general scope of work and in accordance with the terms of this Contract. The Contractor will provide information to DOE regarding work to be performed under this clause in accordance with procedures developed and agreed to by the Parties.
H.019 UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS FOR THE LABORATORY
Although the work of this Contract is to be accomplished primarily through Contractor [University of California] personnel at the Laboratory and through subcontractors, the Contractor may, pursuant to the Section I clause entitled Contractor Purchasing System, paragraph (v), and as provided for in policies and procedures approved by the Contracting Officer, use its expertise and resources at its campuses. A "campus," for the purpose of this clause, includes any Contractor organization except Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
H.034 PERFORMANCE DIRECTION
(a) The Contractor [University of California] is responsible for the management, integration, and operation of the site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, duly issued Work Authorizations (WAs), and written guidance provided by the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). NNSA is responsible for establishing the work to be accomplished, the applicable standards and requirements to be met, and overseeing the work of the Contractor. The Contractor will use its expertise and ingenuity in contract performance and in making choices among acceptable alternatives to most effectively and efficiently accomplish the work called for by this contract.
The origin of the current LLNL is the University of California Radiation Laboratory in 1941 (Funded by AEC contract number 48), located where the current Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is now. A remote site was established at the remote, closed Naval Air Station in Livermore to begin larger scale experiments in 1951, 6 YEARS AFTER HIROSHIMA. So the Rad lab was indeed a very successful University Research Lab, even before the AEC.
Oppenheimer, Sewell, York, Teller, Hurley, Lawrence, etc. were employees of the University of California during their leadership of the Manhattan project.
LLNS is not a fitting successor.
It would seem that it was an AEC research Lab.You are misinformed.
Now it is a the Bechtel Research Lab.What sort of Bechtel research are we doing?
Seems pretty clear...
Research into ways of producing ultra-dense concrete that can be used to completely sink this lab. That's what.