Skip to main content

So How Many Acres Did Burn on LANL Property, MacMillan?

Image
By scooby
Anonymously contributed:


So How Many Acres Did Burn on LANL Property MacMillan?

133 Acres Burned on Lab (LANL) Property

Las Conchas: The majority of the burned acreage, though, was due to backburn

By John Severance (LA Monitor)
Saturday, July 23, 2011 at 7:44 pm (Updated: July 24, 4:23 am)

Officials at Los Alamos National Laboratory were insistent throughout that the Los Conchas Fire only came onto LANL and Department of Energy property twice.

The first came when the fire jumped over NM 4 onto TA-49, causing a one-acre fire that was quickly extinguished June 27, the second day of the fire.

The second came on July 2 when a squirrel touched contacts in an electrical substation’s transformer at TA-53, the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) Facility substation and that fire was put out within a short period.

On Friday, the Las Conchas Burned Area Emergency Response team released the acreage burned by jurisdiction. The chart said that 133 acres burned on DOE and LANL property.

So what’s the story?

Comments

Anonymous said…
"So what’s the story? "

It is called a backburn. What is so hard to understand about that? Give it a rest.
7/25/2011 9:03 PM
Anonymous said…
With the reported LANL fire costs at $54 million, the 133 acres works out to $406,000 per acre.

Pretty expensive real estate "landscaping", if you ask me. Is LANS padding the costs of this fire operation to squeeze more money out of the system?
7/26/2011 10:30 PM
Anonymous said…
With the reported LANL fire costs at $54 million, the 133 acres works out to $406,000 per acre.

Pretty expensive real estate "landscaping", if you ask me. Is LANS padding the costs of this fire operation to squeeze more money out of the system?

Oh please. The costs were for firefighting (which apparently worked pretty well for the Lab property), post-fire flood risk mitigation, repairs due to smoke damage, and the report pay the employees received to stay away. The costs weren't to pay for each acre of burned land.

With a 2% retroactive increase in the overhead rate to pay for it, it's clear LANS isn't getting all they need or want out of DOE for this...they're getting it out of the programs. Less mission completion...more overhead...on top of the incredible expenses LANS incurs just to exist. That's the travesty.
7/27/2011 7:56 AM
Anonymous said…
What I'm getting out of this, is that MacMillan will continue the charade to deceive the public with misinformation and half-truths. Anastasio taught him well.
7/27/2011 4:01 PM
Anonymous said…
What I'm getting out of this, is that MacMillan will continue the charade to deceive the public with misinformation and half-truths. Anastasio taught him well.

July 27, 2011 4:01 PM

Get a clue. The public doesn't give a crap about LANL, except when the Los Alamos Study Group gets a small fraction of them riled up about something.
7/27/2011 8:23 PM
Anonymous said…
I drove the LANL perimeter today and saw absolutely no evidence of burning on LANL property. The road (NM 4) was a clear dividing line between burned and unburned. Somebody did a superhuman job of preventing fire jumping the roadway.
8/01/2011 7:29 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
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...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
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.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
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!
79 comments
Read more