Gary Gwilliam of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer wrote:
Article by Gary Gwilliam of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer in Oakland, CA.
Article by Gary Gwilliam of Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli, & Brewer in Oakland, CA.
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
In its annual performance evaluation, NNSA effectively grades its decision to create these monster contracts. Hence, unless the LLCs screw up horribly (think a loud safety/security scandal), the grades will be excellent. How nice!
Besides, why do we need NNSA, LLNS, LANS? Why can't the funds be allocated to the Lab directors, who'd be responsible for its use? What, who would assure that there's no waste? Would the waste be more than is currently spent on NNSA and the LLCs?
April 16, 2012 7:28 AM
It used to work that way, long ago. The AEC allocated money to the Lab Directors. That system was frowned upon by Congress as lacking accountability (which was certainly true). UC was the contractor running the Labs, but was rarely seen or heard from, except at benefits time. Under today's bureaucracy, the only way Lab Directors could be directly allocated money would be if the Labs were GOGO instead of GOCO, and the employees were all federal employees. Be careful what you wish for.
I know that in the IT world, DOE sites proper (HQ, ALBQ) contract their computer support workforce. Why buy the cow when all you want is a quart of milk?
Surely, the beans are better counted. But what about regulations that severely stifle work? Prison-like atmosphere that drives away the best staff? Tremendous overheads that result from Byzantine rules? Has anyone counted the cost of that?
The need for the fall guy explanation rings true though.
April 16, 2012 7:28 AM
You would call the Quintana case something other than a 'loud security scandal'?
And, you would call the near-miss electrical accident something other than a 'loud safety scandal'?
And, you would call the near-miss electrical accident something other than a 'loud safety scandal'?
April 16, 2012 8:54 PM
Could you get a little more dated and irrelevant? Those were what? Six years ago, at the very beginning of the LANS contract? Somebody's buttons got pushed...
April 17, 2012 9:59 PM
Uhh, might want to check the calendar for facts next time. The electrical shock event was more recent. But hey, what's a factor of two going to matter in safety?
April 18, 2012 9:05 AM
Like there's only been one electrical shock near miss?? Calendars are great but they don't teach you history. That you have to do for yourself. Especially if you were born yesterday.