Skip to main content

NNSA pits: NM or SC?

Where will NNSA make pits? Will it be in SC or NM? https://www.abqjournal.com/1111040/nm-reps-push-back-at-lanl-skeptics.html 

Comments

Anonymous said…
Savannah River Site is a production site, producing tritium... and it is looking for another mission to stay in existence. There's no real technical reason for pit production to be at LANL anymore than it should have been at LLNL. So if there's going to be a significant investment in a new pit production facility put it in the center of SRS makes the most sense - which is why it will not happen.
Anonymous said…
Neither LANL or LLNL are equipped to be a production facility. LANL's continuing safety problems would give credence to the 12/27 @ 5:31 post stating that SRS makes sense for this project. And of course it won't happen because politics will take priority over common sense.
Anonymous said…
I like the passive-aggressive threat of moving the facility:

“Making matters worse, such a disruptive relocation of the plutonium mission is likely to introduce new, unpredictable risks to the safety of workers and communities into an already challenging enterprise,” they added.

So there’s going to be a big “accident” if you don’t do exactly what we say. Total blackmail.

Also, when is LANL going to admit they don’t do science anymore and they’re more focused on the technican level worker?
Sandia has already done this with their C student UNM engineering task force.

Anonymous said…
December 27, 2017 at 1:25 PM

I would respond but the moderators will not allow it.


"Also, when is LANL going to admit they don’t do science anymore and they’re more focused on the technican level worker?"

This statement is false and be be easily checked by publication numbers. In fact you or someone like you made this argument earlier this year and we went through all the numbers that proved you wrong. LANL publishes twice as many papers in any single year than LLNL and in fact of the DOE labs only ORNL publishes more than LANL. LANL is a science lab, however it could also be a science lab and a production at the same time, or they could just split it off like Y12 and ORNL.

Should I go back and dig up all the publication data yet again? Every six-months someone says something incredibly dumb like
"LANL does not do science" . We go through all the numbers and troll vanishes for a bit. Why not just admit you are wrong or do you need your ass handed to you again? It is getting old. Here is a simple question for you, if LANL is not a science lab than why would UC, UTexas, TexasAM and Purdue want to manage it?

The gauntlet has been laid down, do you still want to persist with this nonsense that LANL doesn't do science anymore? This will end that exact same way it ended for you the last time, evidence has a tendency to do that.
Anonymous said…
LANL has dropped precipitously in the Nature science impact rankings. Used to be about 75 in the world, well ahead of ORNL, now about 150th. One can only conclude LANS wanted it that way—much more money in making pits and they apparently don’t even have to make any pits.

The other reason for the decline is that many Chinese institutions are now in the highest ranks. This is a failure of the US Gov to pursue science. They made it super expensive to do science at LANL and then didn’t want to pay the extra cost. Also bad leadership was left in place far too long by the Obama Administration. At the end of Bush II many good people were flushed out of government and difficult to replace because of widespread disgust with Bush Administration.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

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...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!