BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email

Suggest new topics here


Submit candidates for new topics here only. Stay on topic with National Labs' related issues. All submissions are screened first for ...

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Narrow support

Despite strong opposition, UT Regents to support LANL bid on split vote with narrowest of all possible margins

  •  Longoria said the safety and financial risks aren’t worth it, citing the lab’s checkered safety record in recent years. She said operating a nuclear weapons lab lies outside the system’s core mission and could even put its multibillion-dollar endowment “at risk in a catastrophic event.” She added that the system’s flagship, UT-Austin, wasn’t in favor of the initiative.


Anonymous said...

UC ran the show for 60 years, no problems, LANS and LLNS run the show for 10 years and you have total absolute complete, and utter disaster, RIFS, WIP, VSPS, loss of talent, loss of credibility, electrical accidents, meth, NIF failing, money wasted, capabilities lost, infrastructure degraded, the labs are am absolute laughing stock now. Don't think our enemies are not watching, UC did not create this utter catastrophe of a mess LLNLS and LANS did, so ask yourself what is the common theme and the answer is glaringly obvious for all to see, Bechtel. If it is Texas or UC but without Bechtel it is going to be be a big win for the United States.

Anonymous said...

Nope. WRONG. The very worst years at LANL were under UC BEFORE Bechtel entered the picture. There never were 60 years without a problem, that's a complete lie. Ever hear of Admiral "Butthead" Nanos?

Anonymous said...

"Nope. WRONG. The very worst years at LANL were under UC BEFORE Bechtel entered the picture. There never were 60 years without a problem, that's a complete lie. Ever hear of Admiral "Butthead" Nanos?

December 9, 2017 at 4:47 PM"

Nanos, was forced on UC, everyone knows that and UC got rid of him. I don't know why you cannot figure this out. You hate UC so much that are you totally blind.

Anonymous said...

Nope, WRONG. UC hired Nanos and did not force him to resign until almost two years after EVERYONE else figured out that Nanos was unfit. Sorry, dude, you are not entitled to revise history.

Anonymous said...

"Nope, WRONG. UC hired Nanos"

Gotta disagree with you on this, if you remember there was lots of talk from Congress that they
where just going to remove UC by fiat, DOE was very concerned and Nanos was seen as somebody to appease Congress. Just ask yourself a simple questions why are earth would UC have chosen someone like Nanos? At the time the very persistent rumors was that Congress/DOE forced Nanos on LANL and that UC wanted nothing to do with him as he already had a horrible reputation going in, it was precisely this horrible reputation that made him so attractive to DOE and Congress who wanted to punish UC. It was basically chose this guy or we throw you out on the spot. Is any of this true...who knows but that is what the perception was. I have also heard UC wanted him out a few weeks right after the stand down but DOE blocked it since it would make DOE look bad. Again it is hard to tell what the truth was but if you lived though that time period it was clear that something very odd was happing.

Posts you viewed tbe most last 30 days