Skip to main content

Narrow support

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

 http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/regents-vote-pursue-los-alamos-nuclear-weapons-lab-contract/E48ROkdBqlLjMH5x3pKzaM/
  •  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.

Comments

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.
12/09/2017 11:46 AM
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?
12/09/2017 4:47 PM
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.
12/10/2017 7:58 AM
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.
12/10/2017 10:06 PM
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.
12/11/2017 10:13 AM
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