Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Resounding Silence

From Anonymous:

All right everybody, gather 'round. Pay attention. The news is now official, what we at LANL have known for months. The two points upon which Director George P. Nanos based his entire rationale (and career, most likely) for shutting the laboratory down for 7 months have now been refuted.

1. There were no missing disks.
2. There were no bad safety trends.

Where are the official announcements of recognition of these facts? Has anybody heard Director Nanos issue an apology? What about UC president Dynes? Where does he stand on this position? How about DOE? NNSA? Oh, wait, we do know about NNSA. Linton Brooks says it's not NNSA's fault (even though he "strongly" supports Nanos' decision to have shut down the lab). Back to Dynes: why is he still stonewalling? Why has he not come back from the dark side and at least slapped Nanos' wrist? Why has he not fired Nanos?

Are all these players in our little drama simply too mortified by the magnitude of their collective screw-up to now do the right thing?

St. Pete? We need you now.


Comments:
Please think, St. Pete is part of the problem, nothing happens to this lab that he doesn't know about and approve of first. He is no Saint just a politican who will take care of himself first and good luck to the rest of us.
 
I am curious as to why you made that observation about Senator Domenici. It is true that his support of LANL was, shall we say, somewhat muted during the early months of the shutdown when he apparently believed the "official" version of events, as told to him by Director Nanos & crew.

However, when it began to become obvious that events had not transpired as Nanos had led him to believe, he again started showing his support for LANL, for example by intervening with DOE on the wording of the RFP.
 
A more relevant question to LANL's future might be: What is the Lab going to do when St. Pete is gone? Hard to believe he'll make it past this term. Also hard to believe that anything he is quoted as saying hasn't been polished. In case you haven't noticed, the guy's losing it, that's life.
 
Folks, Pete Nanos is not an idiot. The points upon which he made a decision to shutdown the Lab were not limited to two missing disks alone. It was also to CREM disks that were not where they were supposed to be--itially missing and then found elsewhere in the Lab with no accountability record--along with dire safety issues that, among other things, resulted from misapplication of large machines to the wrong task.

Although it might have been unprecidented to shutdown the Lab, he did not do it alone. President Dynes and Bob Foley, among others to whom you (orginal poster) ask for answers, have already stepped up to the proverbial press conference table and spoken with words of great support for Nanos, taking responsibility for their roles and discussions leading to the shutdown. Mocking these processes does absolutely nothing to improve any situation that you dislike. It makes you appear childish, defending a status quo that is clearly outdated and broken.

The missing disks would never have become an issue if somebody at the Lab had done their job better in the first place. Think about that. Are we all so blind and into group think that we cannot see when information as important as classified media does not match the record? Was it some person's clerical error or a failed process that created the mire? Suggestions that we ought to have poo-pooed our way through this one instead of "over-reacting based on preliminary data" are just foolish.

In the corporate world, action would have been much swifter and more severe. I'd recommend you look again at who made the "screw-up" on this issue--it starts long before Nanos had respond to the situation.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?