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 jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment