LANL: The Real Story

The Associated Press version of the story.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 31, 2005

LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - The Department of Energy says a maintenance worker injured after being exposed to hydrochloric acid at Los Alamos National Laboratory was told to return to work afterward.

The accident occurred amid "what appears to be a work environment of mistreatment and reprisal" in the lab's DX-1 group, the agency's report said.

The worker and another technician told to re-enter a work room after telling a supervisor they smelled acid "both felt that if they refused, it would put their employment status in jeopardy," the DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health said in a report this summer. The accident that occurred in October 2003.

Among other things, the report attributed the incident to "poor supervision."

[...]

Full Story

By Mark Oswald
Of the Journal

A Los Alamos National Laboratory worker was injured after he and another maintenance technician were exposed to hydrochloric acid— and the exposure continued after they told a supervisor they smelled acid, but were sent back to work.

The injured worker has decreased lung capacity, according to a June 30 U.S. Department of Energy report.

The accident took place in October 2003, but a report on the accident wasn't published until this summer by the DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health. The accident report was triggered only after the injured worker was finally diagnosed with an occupational exposure in February, according to a lab spokeswoman.

The DOE's report says the accident took place amid "what appears to be a work environment of mistreatment and reprisal" within LANL's DX-1 group.

The two technicians who were told to re-enter the work room after smelling acid fumes "both felt that if they refused, it would put their employment status in jeopardy," the report states.

[...]

Full Story

Doug/Brad, please post anonymously. Thank you.

________________________________________________

Comments on LANL Blog

I’ve read this blog since its inception and finally decided to offer these comments.

1) People have been most willing to lay the blame on UC for mismanagement of the Lab. While this may indeed be true, when I first arrived here in the 1980s, I became aware that the Lab neither wanted nor needed direct UC management, nor did UC want or need direct involvement with the Lab. We certainly enjoyed our autonomous freedom. We got the good UC benefits; they got the good press and enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with us. It seems disingenuous now to blame them for something we neither wanted nor needed.

2) Nanos was a real piece of work, but who knew? Folks on this blog have chastised UC for keeping Nanos when it was apparent he was in over his head. But put yourself in UC’s shoes. How could they get rid of the man while DoE and the US Congress were patting this man on the back? UC was not exactly in good graces with either entity. Getting rid of Nanos at that time would have only provided confirmation that Nanos was right about us.

3) The US Government is in no way trying to save taxpayers’ money by changing contractors of the Lab. The extra money now needed to run the Lab each and every year can and will never be recovered.

4) Excuse me, but to those folks accusing the current administration of nefarious conduct by competing for the Lab contract must remember, as I do, that the very first mention of competing the Lab contract came when our current governor was the Energy Secretary.

5) The new contract will most certainly be given to the Lockheed-Martin group. The rate at which this thing has been drug out can’t all be DoE’s ineptitude. I think it’s to allow everyone to get used to the idea of change.

6) People who extol the positives of future director Robinson must remember that he’ll only be here a few years at most. Corporate headquarters awaits. I saw it happen to Norm Augustine when I worked for Martin-Marietta. Some Lockheed-Martin pencil pusher will follow.

7) The future of the Lab is known, but not by us. It is known by the DoE and will most certainly be known by the new contractor. The first indication of how the Lab may fare in the future is to notice where the new management decides to live. If they choose to work AND live in Los Alamos, it indicates to me that the Lab’s future may be healthy. If they buy homes in Santa Fe, it means they must be worried about the resale values of the homes in a dying town.

"ABC has a long history of anti-nuclear bias including recent coverage of security at Los Alamos National Laboratory and purported dangers at nuclear facilities."

Full Story

Excerpt from a longish post on the final Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water appropriations bill, which funds the U.S. nuclear weapons program for the coming year.

[...]

Linton Brooks, head of the NNSA, added a key element to the discussion last Friday when he told me in an interview that the agency was considering asking for additional money in FY07 for plutonium pit production at Los Alamos for RRW pits. That's a huge deal, though Brooks made an additional point that didn't come through in my story: The pit money for Los Alamos does not mean, he said, that the NNSA is abandoning the idea of eventually building a Modern Pit Facility - a big new bomb factory - somewhere in the future.

My take on this, shared by one of my smart 'splainers I was talking to this afternoon, is that there is little energy now behind the Modern Pit Facility, which will cost gobzillions of dollars. Once it's clear that Los Alamos can do the job in the interim, it will get likely get harder to move forward on MPF.

[...]

[In other words, once production-capacity pit production comes to Los Alamos, it stays there. --Doug]

I'm guessing that LANL saw some kind of internet outage at about 3:10 this afternoon, because hits from lanl.gov suddenly dropped to 0.

--Doug

Rural area was site of FBI search Noshir Gowadia and his wife are relative newcomers to the low-key, high-priced locale

HAIKU, Maui » In rural Huelo, many of the unpaved rutted roads lead to multimillion-dollar homes with manicured lawns and breathtaking views of the Pacific Ocean.

And it was in one of these homes, federal authorities allege, that Noshir S. Gowadia kept government secrets about one of America's most formidable weapons, a B-2 stealth bomber.

It is an impressive dwelling, Mediterranean style with blue tile roof, white stucco-looking walls and a view overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Many of the homes in this area have recently been sold for about $2 million each. Gowadia and his wife bought the 2-acre lot for $330,000 in 1999.

During an Oct. 13 search, FBI agents seized classified documents from the house.

Agents said the documents dated back from Gowadia's employment with Northrop -- between 1968 and 1986 or to the early 1990s -- when he was a contract engineer at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

[...]

Full Story

Friday, October 28, 2005

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM

Leaders picked for Los Alamos

The UT System and its industrial partner, Lockheed Martin Corp., won't know until about Dec. 1 whether their joint bid to operate Los Alamos National Laboratory is successful.

But they've already lined up a team of 18 "critical personnel" who would oversee the nuclear weapons lab in New Mexico. Jack Burns, currently vice president for academic affairs and research for the four-campus University of Colorado System, would become a deputy lab director and a UT System employee if the bid is successful. Burns is a professor of astrophysical and planetary sciences.

The lab's director would be C. Paul Robinson, a nuclear arms negotiator for President Reagan who went on to direct Sandia National Laboratories for Lockheed Martin.

[...]

Full Story

Tina Shelton

The FBI says a Maui resident has admitted to selling classified military secrets to at least eight foreign countries.

The case against the longtime stealth bomber engineer is expected to grow.

It's an investigation that's in its very early stages. They're not even saying which countries -- enemy or ally -- are involved.

He marketed himself as the father of the B-2's unique infrared suppressing propulsion system.

That's what makes the stealth bomber able to hide from heat seeking missiles.

Sixty-one-year-old Noshir Gowadia, born in India, was a naturalized U.S. citizen who worked nearly 20 years at New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory and for defense contractor Northrup Corporation.

[...]

Full Story

[...]

"There is only one thing the Laboratory can do: have a standdown. In Level I, we will view numerous mandatory videos. We will all sign our names to the statement "I will not tolerate a culture of intolerance." No work at the Laboratory shall be performed until we root out everything that can be construed, no matter how tenuously, to be discriminatory. In Level II, we must answer questionnaires regarding our involvements in any discriminatory activities, such as belonging to BSA and donating to United Way. Finally, in Level III, a "Resumption Board" must be appointed to ensure that everyone in the organization is devoid of discrimination, and "Corrective Actions" must be taken before full work activities may be resumed."

[...]

[Note: the sarcasm-impaired should not go here to read the entire letter. --Doug]

DARRYL NEWMAN, Monitor Staff Writer

Although the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Administration site manager could not comment too much on the contract for the rebidding of Los Alamos National Laboratory management, he did share with the county council the progress that has been made as part of a Tuesday night council meeting.

DOE/NNSA Site Manager Ed Wilmot expressed his certainty that the lab contract will be awarded by the Dec. 1 date that was set.

"The source evaluation official, the person involved in making the selection, was in town last week working with the board," he said. "They are very close to making very strong recommendations. I was very impressed with the source selection official."

Wilmot included comments made by DOE Secretary Linton Brooks stemming from a visit last week.

[...]

Full Story

From the October 24, 2005 LANL NewsLetter.

The Laboratory Hiring Council
by Tom Bowles,
chief science officer

There has been a lot of discussion about [the Laboratory] forming a
hiring council, [primarily] that this equates to a hiring freeze or a
direction to hire only certain types of employees. I want to reiterate
the statements from [Director Bob Kuckuck] that this is not the case.
The Laboratory has historically managed to budget rather than to
staffing levels. We have hired as many people as possible and have not
simultaneously invested in infrastructure. As a result, we have old
buildings that are expensive to maintain and not enough high-quality
laboratory space; we have not reinvested in our facilities. We have
reduced the ratio of R&D to total TSMs [technical staff members] and
increased the fraction of SSMs [support staff members]. Many of the
problems we face can be traced to the lack of an institutional hiring
plan. These problems are compounded by the fiscal pressures we are
under. It was in response to these issues that the director created
the hiring council. Managing to both budget and staffing is standard
practice in successful organizations. The Laboratory Hiring Council
is charged to ensure that the new hires we bring in position us
optimally for the future. We are working to see where we can transfer
funding across directorates rather than transferring or hiring
personnel. We are exploring options other than external hires to
address increasing compliance needs. We are working to ensure we hire
the best new staff to meet our technical and support needs. Since
students and postdocs are critical to our future work force, we are
not changing the existing processes for their hiring or conversion to
staff the council is not involved in those actions. We are committed
to managing hiring effectively to improve our ability to meet both
staffing and infrastructure needs. The bottom line is that there are
no hidden messages in forming the hiring council. This was done in
response to long-standing issues that need to be addressed. Our goal
is to be proactive in our hiring efforts and to position the
Laboratory to have a strong and viable technical and support work
force for the future.

By Isaac Wolf - Nineteen firms have expressed interest in taking over management of Argonne National Lab from the University of Chicago, the Department of Energy announced Friday.

Washington, D.C. - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - infoZine - Groups interested in managing the half-a-billion-dollar-a-year research lab include research juggernauts Northrop Grumman and Battelle as well as several small firms seeking subcontracts for part of the work

Under the university's management, Argonne has been reprimanded for its handling of nuclear material. According to Argonne officials, nuclear materials were mislabeled - but never unsecured - in 2004.

Despite these problems, the university says it welcomes competition for the non-weapons lab, which focuses on high level physics, chemistry and energy. The lab is 25 miles southwest of the Chicago Loop.

[...]

Full Story

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; 10:58 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has abandoned research into a nuclear "bunker-buster" warhead, deciding instead to pursue a similar device using conventional weaponry, a key Republican senator said Tuesday.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said funding for the nuclear bunker-buster as part of the Energy Department's fiscal 2006 budget has been dropped at the department's request.

[...]

Full Story

I just returned from a trip to Ohio State U. to give an invited physics colloquium about some fine theoretical work my colleagues (and I) are doing here at LANL, and also to talk with young people there about conditions at the Lab. Some have the distinct impression that UC has already been awarded the contract. One guy even said he was sure he saw it in print last week. (I disabused him of that notion. I hope nothing happened while I was gone that I didn't hear about...) All the professors, postdocs, and graduate students that I met at OSU were concerned that the events of the past couple of years have done untold and unnecessary damage to a fine scientific institution--one young person called it "the nation's leading resource for science." That's honestly how we are viewed, at least by a significant number in academia.

My own view on the contract bid, which I will restate here for clarification, is that it appears to me that the LockMart/UT team is doing a more professional job of presenting its case, in public at least, than Bechtel/UC. By saying that, I was hoping that the latter team would be prompted to be more forthright in addressing the concerns of all of us (including us semi-retired guys). It appears that they are so hamstrung by legal issues that nothing more will be forthcoming. I truly had hoped for better, but have come to realize that it doesn't do you any good to hope for a savior. -From either camp.

That's just my impression.

Hi Doug,

Popular Science lists in it's November 2005 issue the top ten worst jobs in science. LANL comes in at #5, under the category 'Nuclear Weapons Scientist'.

______________________________________________

WORST JOBS IN SCIENCE

#5 Nuclear-Weapons Scientist
-They've mastered fusion. Next up: filing
This job hasn't been any fun since the disastrous espionage trial against Wen Ho Lee in 1999. Now it's gotten worse. Lee was a naturalized citizen who had worked for 20 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory's highly prestigious X Division, where some of the world's biggest eggheads handle the applied physics of our nuke stockpile. The FBI suspected him of selling secrets to the Chinese.
After some seriously abusive jailhouse tactics, for which an appalled federal judge apologized, Lee pled guilty to one, almost trifling, count of mishandling classified data and was immediately released (the judge sentenced him to the 278 days of solitary confinement he had already served). Nevertheless, the X Division's sterling reputation had been badly tarnished.
Not long after, more classified data-storage tapes went missing and then showed up behind a copy machine, and the FBI returned for more interrogations... er, interviews.
Then, in 2004, came an eye-burning laser accident with an intern, and yet another case of missing data tapes. In a lab-wide lecture, the since-retired director called his scientists "buttheads" and "cowboys" (never good for morale) and ordered a lab shutdown so that the scientists could learn to file paper like pro bureaucrats, not absent-minded professors.
But wait, those last missing tapes? An FBI investigations concluded that they probably never existed in the first place; it was all a clerical error. But the damage had been done. For the first time since Oppneheimer, the federal government put Los Alamos's management up for industry bid, offering an annual $79-million contract - nearly 10 times as much as the University of California is now paid to run the lab - and fed-up scientists are retiring in droves.
As for the younger braniniacs, surely they can find a job in academia, right? Not exactly, lamented one X Division scientist, who declined to be quoted for fear of retribution. Since most of their work is classified, there's often no record of having ever published anything.
--Original article as printed in Popular Science, November 2005 pp76-77
John Galvin

___________________________________

We placed ahead of semen washers and Orangutan pee collectors, but behind manure inspectors and human lab rat.
Have a happy day!

-Scott
Scott Valentine
Nuclear Materials Technology

___________________________________

My friend says, "I can hear the chant around the Lab even now: "We're Number Five! We're Number Five!"

(If Bechtel/UC wins, can we also chant: "Seven more years! Seven more years!"?)

Now might be a good time to remind everybody of a couple of issues regarding the use of this blog.

1. Those wishing to comment on an existing post must register with blogger.com in order to do so.
2. Anyone may request that material be posted to this blog, either attributed or anonymously, so long as the subject material meets the posting guidelines.
3. I have made identical offers to members of both the Los Alamos Alliance and to the LANS LLC regarding the use of this blog to disseminate any material pertinent to the bid process that they felt would benefit the LANL community.
   
4. I request that contributors to this blog remain civil, and to adhere to the posting guidelines. Anyone who ignores this request will be banned from the blog, and I will lodge a complaint with blogger.com against owner of the account from which the unacceptable contributions originated.

--Doug

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT - news) said on Tuesday third-quarter profit rose a better-than-expected 39 percent as the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor boosted sales of electronic systems, government satellites and deliveries of its C-130J transport planes.

Lockheed, which makes fighter jets, cargo planes, Patriot missiles and sells a range of technology services, also raised its full-year profit forecast, largely due to a one-time gain from a stock investment, and made its first forecast for 2006 profit, within the range of Wall Street's estimates.

[...]

Full Story

Doug:

This is my response to the anonymous LLNL employee that you posted under "Watchdog group returns to the hill"

Thanks,

John

__________________________________________

To my colleagues at LLNL:

I’m sure you are all aware of the issues that have brought us to this point in the contract competition. While the security of a continuation of UC “leadership” may be desirable from an emotional standpoint the facts of what has occurred at your sister lab should make you wary.

Arrogance and ignorance are not complimentary traits but they are both traits that the UC hierarchy possesses in abundance. It is the lethal combination that made Nanos refuse to admit his gross incompetence and allowed him to cripple a vital national asset. If he had done this on his own I would not be so concerned for you. However, the backing and encouragement that he received from Foley and UCOP should cause you to worry. Even now that the facts have become public UC refuses to admit their willful misconduct, which resulted in the death of our colleague, Todd Kauppila. At every step throughout this tragic series of events UC management has stonewalled and lied in a coordinated effort to try to deflect the blame that they have earned.

When dealing with ethically and morally bankrupt individuals, such as those that infest the upper echelon of UC, you should all be aware that what happened to us could happen to you. I consider myself fortunate that the ineptitude that UC displayed in their handling of the CREM II incident was also displayed in their attempted cover up of the facts. Had they been competent in the art of deception I might have faced stiff punishment for something that never occurred. The next person that ends up in the scapegoat's pen might not be so lucky. These people have shown their true colors and it’s only a matter of time and circumstance before they again exercise their prerogative to punish the innocent in order to protect themselves.

I hope that the coming changes that you all face will not be as painful or as costly as what we have endured over the last 1.5 years. As you make your decisions don’t make the mistake of forgetting what happened in Los Alamos or delude yourself into thinking it can’t happen again. Your vigilance is all that will ensure a smooth transition.

Best of luck,

John N. Horne

By John Arnold
Journal Staff Writer

Safety and security improvements, the next generation of nuclear weapons and preparing for a new lab manager were among the topics that Los Alamos National Laboratory director Robert Kuckuck discussed during a wide-ranging speech to lab employees Monday.

During the hour-and-a-half-long meeting, which was open only to lab staffers, Kuckuck praised workers for improving lab operations that were at the center of embarrassing administrative, safety and security lapses in recent years, according to lab spokesman Jim Fallin.

"(Kuckuck) wanted to make sure people understood that he recognizes that were it not for the hard work and due diligence displayed by the staff here, we would not be where we are," Fallin said. "And it's a much improved position from where we were a few months back."

[...]

Full Story

October 25, 2005

“Thank you for an outstanding year, I am proud to be part of this Laboratory.”
-- Laboratory Director Bob Kuckuck

Laboratory Director Bob Kuckuck praised the progress Lab employees have made in the areas of stockpile stewardship, science, threat reduction, security, safety and business operations over the last year. “This Laboratory is essential to the country, it is going to remain essential – that is not going to change,” he said during a talk Monday in the Administration Building Auditorium at Technical Area 3.

[...]

Finally, he explained the Lab’s transition project designed to prepare for “the most efficient transition and orientation of new management” under the new contract. He said that it is important to deliver a fiscally sound Lab, good community relations and high work force morale. A Web site will be established for daily communications on the transition.

[...]

Full Story

Submitted by "W76 LEP"

__________________________________________-

The idea that a new contractor is going to land in
LANL without a huge disruption to LANL and the LANL
workforce is fiction. Attached is an ad that ran in
the Santa Fe New Mexican this weekend. The ad, posted
by UT, is for several positions in the new LANL should
LAA win the contract on December 1. This certainly is
the purgative of the new contractor, but the ad is for
several job descriptions that are in STB presently.
These jobs are at the TSM level, not at the level of
division leader or even group leader. Imagine, UT is
advertising for TSM level jobs (already), yet the
Robinson/Cook piece on the future of LANL claims that
only minor changes are coming. It is not like LANL
does not have deep bench strength in the area of these
postings. Taken to its logical conclusion, LM/UT is
going to bring in hundreds of new personnel to LANL
should they win the contract. Wonder why the LANL
staff is so stressed about a new contractor coming on
board? Everyone wants better management, business
systems that work, and a relation with congress and
DOE that keeps us from being a punching bag. However,
what is the real intention of LAA? What capabilities
and functions are going to be maintained?

Brad and Doug (I think) have both called out LM as
being a better choice for LANL in the future.
However, I am not convinced based on the evidence
presented. Either new LLC will bring business systems
and operations, but the is present LANL the workforce
they want?

[For the record, I have not stated on this blog which LLC I favor, Nor will I, until after the contract winner has been announced. This venue is available for all to express their views, and I have no intentions of influencing what is presented here. Brad, like any other contributor is free to speak his own mind. --Doug]

Watchdog group returns to the Hill

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

SANTA FE - Citing rapid and uncertain changes bearing down on the nuclear weapons complex, one of New Mexico's most persistent disarmament groups has decided to return to its roots in Los Alamos.

The Los Alamos Study Group will open a new office on the Hill beginning in early December.

"It is the end of an era at Los Alamos, one way or another," said Greg Mello Friday. "We thought it would be good to be closer to the lab and part of the community."

At a press conference Friday, Mello discussed disagreements between House and Senate versions of funding for nuclear weapons activities for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

[...]

Full Story

Doug, please accept this submission for anonymous posting on your blog.

___________________________________________________

2010, Welcome to LAPPP (Los Alamos Pit Production Plant) former site of Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Finally, it is out in the open: last week NNSA announced its plans to turn LANL into a pit production facility. An earlier post on this blog discusses whether or not last year's Nanos debacle was actually part of a clever conspiracy to change LANL's mission from "National Science" to "Plutonium Pit Production". Regardless, the cards are now on the table.

The questions raised by this recent announcement (see http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/10/nuclear-agency-looks-to-expand-lanl.html) include

• How can Los Alamos not become the next Rocky Flats?
• Can science and pit production coexist? Because
• Who wants live near and work at a pit factory? And finally,
  
• Given this newly-revealed mission that NNSA has in mind for LANL, does it really matter who wins the contract?

Sometimes things change for the better, sometimes for the worse. This new "mission" for Los Alamos is a change for the worse.

By Russell Max Simon
Journal Staff Writer

A project to increase security at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has continued to draw criticism from several Los Alamos groups, despite plans to break ground on the project within the next few days.

The Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce, the Los Alamos Commerce and Development Corporation, and the Los Alamos Ski Club, with the support of the Los Alamos County Council, have all lined up in opposition to two security checkpoints that would control traffic on West Jemez Road between the Omega Bridge and Camp May Road.

Citing post-9/11 security concerns, the National Nuclear Security Administration, a quasi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy, has been planning to upgrade the security around the lab for years, according to NNSA staff.

[...]

Full Story

At the behest of an avid, or at least insistent blog reader, these op-ed pieces from today's Sunday Albuquerque Journal are presented. They seem to be shortened versions of posts that have already made their appearance here on the blog.

--Doug

________________________________________________


http://www.abqjournal.com/north/opinion/

You will see the followng and then follow the links:


Letters to the Editor


Storefronts Favor Lockheed
OTHER VOICES: First of all, let me restate my original objection to the
whole benighted idea of privatizing Los Alamos National Laboratory. It is
based on faulty assumptions about "failures" (unique to LANL, allegedly) in
accounting, security, and safety that have occurred over the last seven
years, and an even faultier assumption that the University of California has
been "running" Los Alamos all these 60-odd years, just like it runs its
campuses in California. The decision to compete the contract is without
objective basis, but it is a fait accompli— it will be done— and as a
result, LANL will be different in almost every aspect, no matter whether
Bechtel (and UC and other minor players) or Lockheed Martin (and University
of Texas and other minor players) "wins" the bid. (Sunday, October 23,
2005)


Giving Lockheed Control of LANL Would Be Disastrous
What would former President Eisenhower think of the competition to manage
Los Alamos National Laboratory? One indication might be the warning from his
1961 farewell address: "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist." (Sunday, October 23, 2005)

It appears that the conspiracy theorists might have gotten it right after all. Or not. As far as the end result goes, it really doesn't matter. Bottom line, as is now clearly identified in John Fleck's Albuquerque Journal story, NNSA plans to turn Los Alamos into a pit factory by 2010.

In case you are having trouble remembering, the conspiracy theorists claimed that Nanos was brought in as LANL director, without the benefit of a national search, at the insistence of Admiral [Captain, whatever] Brooks for an express purpose. Nanos' mission: disrupt the shit out out of the lab, and by so doing run off as many people as possible, easing the transition of Los Alamos National Laboratory from a science laboratory into a pit factory. Oh, and by the way, coincidentally replacing the now shut-down Rocky Flats.

As I said, it really doesn't matter at this point whether the conspiracy theorists were correct or not, the end effect appears as if it will be the same.

What makes all of this interesting is the convoluted path we all had to take to get here. First, our out-of-control former laboratory director did everything in his power to run off as many non-DOE/NNSA customers as possible. Through this same process, he also managed to run off a large number of non-weapons scientists. Then, as soon as is was deemed an appropriate waiting period, NNSA announced that by 2010 LANL will be a Rocky Flats replacement pit factory, producing 30 - 40 new pits per year.

A very interesting question to ponder is where does this leave the two LLCs with respect to winning the contract for LANL? For that matter, in what new perspective does this news allow us to view Paul Robinson and Don Cook's recent "science mission statement"? If NNSA really does want to turn LANL into just a pit factory, without all that nuisance "science" getting the way, could it be that LANS really is the shoe-in as the next contractor?

Roderick Spode

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer

Whoever wins the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory will have to take care of the lab's people if they want to keep the contract, the U.S. nuclear weapons program's top official said Friday.

"The most valuable resource at Los Alamos is not the high-tech equipment, but the people," Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in an interview.

The University of California has managed Los Alamos for the federal government since it was founded during World War II. But amid management scandals, Brooks' agency has opened the contract up for bid.

[...]

Full Story

By John Fleck
Copyright © 2005 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer

Federal officials are considering asking for more money to expand Los Alamos National Laboratory's plutonium manufacturing capabilities, the head of the U.S. nuclear weapons program said in an interview Friday.

The money would allow Los Alamos to make new plutonium parts for the "Reliable Replacement Warhead," the nation's first new nuclear weapon in a decade and a half, said Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Sometime after 2010, Los Alamos could be making plutonium parts for 30 to 40 new warheads per year, Brooks said.

[...]

Full Story

Journal Staff Report

Two women who work at Los Alamos National Laboratory maintain they have suffered harassment and retaliation for filing a 2003 lawsuit alleging the lab pays its female employees far less than men.

In two separate new suits, filed in federal court earlier this month, Veronique Longmire and Laura Barber maintain they were "harassed and intimidated by LANL managers" via "inappropriate comments and interactions" after initiating the 2003 pay litigation.

The new suits also contend that in retaliation for filing the pay complaint:

Longmire and Barber were passed over for promotions, despite "demonstrated performance and extensive experience."

Their requests to pursue educational opportunities were denied, "while similar requests from male employees were approved."

They were given lower employee evaluations and lower salary increases.

Both women are employed in the lab's Technology Transfer Division.

[...]

Full Story

When Los Alamos emerged from the secrecy of the Manhattan Project after World War II, it was given a name that could be spoken out loud and a mission for the good of the country: Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, or LASL for short--LASL rhymes with "hassle"--and the mission was declared to be "science."

Some years later (about 20 years ago), the name was changed by Congress in its infinite...uh...wisdom to Los Alamos National Laboratory, or LANL for short--LANL sounds like "flannel" with the "f" kicked out of it--and the mission was changed to "nationalism."

Now, there is a great revival of interest in Washington for "faith-based" initiatives in government, and therefore, some see the possibility for much more secure funding for the Lab by cashing in on this new trend. They might even imagine doing research, scientific or engineering, on "Intelligent Design," no matter what the subject. (For example, X Division could begin to do "Intelligent Bomb Design.") So some say the Lab's name could therefore be changed to Los Alamos Faith-Based Laboratory, or LAFBL for short.

I oppose doing this to the Lab for two reasons: (1) strict separation of church and state, and (2) the acronym when pronounced out loud.

There is a pattern of mutual destructiveness that has been fostered at LANL in the past several years by bad management. Some program managers, in their infinite capacity for malicious interference, have caused furious struggles among the staff for diminishing resources in work for others, LDRD, and even some dibbles of programmatic money for basic research in support of weapons physics.

It reminds me of an old Mexican parable. A stranger comes into a dusty Mexican village and sees some kids playing in the street with a bucket sitting nearby. It seems to him as if there's furious noise and splashing going on inside the bucket. The stranger moves closer, looks down into the bucket, and sees it has several crabs inside, struggling madly to get out. But there's no lid on the bucket, and he tells the kids that they should put a lid on to keep the crabs from escaping. One of them, an older girl with pigtails and bright black eyes, looks at him with deep scorn and says, "Mister; everybody knows you don't need a lid on a bucket of crabs! When any one of them gets near to climbing out, the others pull him back down."

It's just a parable. Right?

(-from an anonymous teller of parables)

In doing a web search I did find this site for LANS, and there is a pdf downloadable fact sheet there.

http://www.lansllc.com/

-Doug

New hand out material is available at the Los Alamos Alliance storefront office. I requested an electronic copy of it for distribution on the blog. It is entitled “Science with the Mission in Mind”, and was written by Paul Robinson and Don Cook. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Science Magazine, 14 Oct 2005, p. 218

A key facility for hydrodynamic tests faces questions that could impact a U.S. nuclear weapons complex in transition

Experts inside and outside the U.S. government agree that researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) are not blowing up stuff often enough....



.... But all is not well at DARHT. Completed in 2003 to replace an older, less capable instrument, the $350 million facility has missed a series of technical deadlines. A report last month by the DOE inspector general (IG) says the problems could delay refurbishment of the W76, a warhead aboard submarines that officials worry might be degrading over time. "Without critical hydrotest data, scientists lose one of their most important tools for evaluating … the performance of key weapons components and the reliability of the stockpile," says the new IG report. ^* DOE officials disagree with the IG's assessment, saying the hydrotest program is on track and has provided outstanding data this year. .......

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5746/218

Doug, with respect to the incipient thread on the alternative (and therefore correct...) interpretation of the checkpoint survey, could you post (anonymously) a link to this web page?

http://www.stargate-consultants.ca/artalma.htm

It's one of the most insightful views of morale and an R&D organization that I've ever read. When my wife, whom I asked to read it as a reality check, got to the parts on "Managerial Actions that May Inhibit Employee Need Satisfaction" and "Why Are We Not Motivating and Leading our Scientific Staff More Effectively," she durn near cried -- as did I when I read it the first time. Do you recognize anything here?

Thanks.

Letter to the Newsbulletin
Oct. 19, 2005

Checkpoint survey - an alternative interpretation

I examined the data from the "Checkpoint Survey" and come to somewhat
different conclusions than detailed in the Daily Newsbulletin article on
Oct. 14. On the one hand, I would agree that there seems to be high
confidence in the safety and security of operations. But the disturbing
part emerges when one examines trends over the past three years in
questions associated with morale, communication and confidence in
management. There is a sustained downward trend, or notable drop, for the
following survey questions:

* I have a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of the
Laboratory as a whole
* I feel that existing channels for employee communication with upper
management are adequate
* The Laboratory keeps employees informed about matters affecting them
* I would recommend [the Laboratory] as a good place to work
* Laboratory management will act on problems identified in this survey
* Productivity in my group has increased during the past year
* Priorities or work objectives change so frequently I have trouble
getting my work done
* I feel the Laboratory encourages and supports innovation and creativity.

It also is important to note that "Morale in my group is high" is at the
subterranean level of 32 percent and "Managers are held accountable for
unethical behavior" has plunged to 37 percent.

What can be done about this? I am increasingly disturbed by the lack of
meaningful dialogue between management and staff on these issues, and on
the whole issue of "what went wrong" in 2004. Granted, we are in the period
of waiting for the contract award, but wouldn't it be advisable for the Lab
director and the associate directors to act on the low state of morale and
confidence?

We have just been through a period termed by Physics Today as the "annus
horribilis," a period that I would characterize as the worst times of the
institution in 60 years, and I can't recall being invited to a single
meeting to discuss problems faced by the technical staff. (One exception is
a meeting held by ADSR Terry Wallace, which wasn't exactly advertised to be
along those lines but apparently went there anyway.) We appear to be in
"head in the sand" mode when it comes to fixing the gulf of mistrust
between management and staff. It would appear that there is an abundance of
reasons for pessimism about our future prospects.

--Bernard Foy

From today's LANL NewsBulletin:

October 19, 2005

Laboratory Director Bob Kuckuck will speak to Laboratory employees next Monday morning, Oct. 24, in the Administration Building Auditorium at Technical Area 3.

In the 10:30 a.m. talk, Kuckuck will discuss how Laboratory employees' exceptional efforts in 2005 are helping him change the perception of the Laboratory; what Lab workers are doing together to create a better place to work; and why he believes the future of the Laboratory is a bright one.

Employees who have L and Q badges can attend the talk in the auditorium. Standard escorting rules are in effect for all other badgeholders. The talk will be broadcast live on LABNET Channel 9 and on desktop computers through Real Media and IPTV technology.

From Anonymous:

________________________________

I was told last night that Nanos is now in Albuquerque working at KAFB. His new position is Director for Nuclear Weapons for the Air Force. Have you heard anything about this? I'm trying to confirm it.

Submitted by Kevin Boland:

__________________________________________

You are invited to attend a Santa Fe screening of Last Best Chance

The Henry L. Stimson Center, in cooperation with the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), will hold a public screening of the film Last Best Chance on Saturday, October 22, 2005 from 2:00-4:00 p.m., at St. John’s College (Great Hall) in Santa Fe, New Mexico as part of its Local Worldviews initiative.

Following the film, nuclear security and proliferation experts will participate in a discussion with the audience on the various issues raised in the film.

Last Best Chance is a docudrama that shows the threat posed by vulnerable nuclear weapons and materials around the world and underscores what the stakes are. It was produced by NTI, with additional funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

This Local Worldviews event is free and open to the public. Additional information is available online at www.stimson.org/newcentury. Information about NTI and Last Best Chance is available at www.lastbestchance.org.

The following is a submission which the author requested be submitted anonymously. I usually reject submissions that attempt to invite religious discussions on this blog because I believe that the workplace should adhere to the same principals of separation of church and state that was one of the founding precepts of this country. I personally don't care what religion or sect or cult an individual feels strongly about as long as that person does not try to influence me with his beliefs. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that many "true believers" simply can't keep it to themselves, in the work place or out of it.

However, this particular submission request, naive though some of the questions it poses are, seemed somehow to warrant feedback from the "scientific community". Not only that, but it had no misspellings in it (highly unusual for a submission request to LANL, The Real Story).

--Doug

___________________________________________________

I am a high school student interested in a career in physics, and I stumbled across the LANL blog some time ago and have been following it for a while. A lot of the discussion of management there has made me question whether I want to go into physics as a career, but I've been told by people who would probably know not to pay too much attention to all of that. What bothers me more is the constant criticism of religion. Are that many scientists really atheists? I'd heard of the stereotype, of course, but in my experience before now I hadn't really found anything to support it-- very smart people seemed to be able to believe, though they usually don't completely agree that all the stories are absolute scientific fact. And that's what I'd say about myself. But when you hear you people talk, it seems like no one believes, at all, and that you hate anyone who does. When you put that on top of the fact that it seems like everyone complains about the things that go on there, it seems like a really horrible place to work. And maybe a really horrible field to work in at all.

Is that right? Will I be told some physics secret in college or graduate school that negates the possibility of God and answers all questions? And if so, why don't y'all just give it to us now? And will college and graduate school turn me into someone who seems to hate the rest of the world? I'm sure not everyone there is like this, but it seems like it sometimes.

Thank you for your time

ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

Doug Beason, associate director for threat reduction at Los Alamos National Laboratory, has put himself out there in his new book, "The E-Bomb."

Literally. He was a test subject during an experiment of the non-lethal weapon system called "active denial." Active denial is one of several forms of directed energy (DE) that are under development in the American arsenal and one of the two main electronic weapons featured in the book, an insider's unclassified look at warfare's future defenses.

Beason has also put himself into a controversial arena, heavily guarded by competing weapons bureaucracies on one hand, and peace and disarmament activists on the other. Human rights groups, for example, complain that active denial, a flash of unendurable pain that leaves no marks, might also be used for torture.

"It hurt like hell, but I'm glad I did it," Beason said during a recent interview about his encounter with the active denial beam.

[...]

Full Story

Congratulations, Doug!
Job well done!
Only about one more shoe to drop...

-Brad

From Anonymous:

________________________________________

It isn't just St Pete who has marked NIF as dead. There have been many
scientists at LLNL calling it bad names for years.. mostly pork names.
And like all the bad news that various scientists at LANL would speak
about other LANL scientists and projects for years.. the NIF talk has
perculated to the top of the sewage chain. The snide comments about NIF
from scientists at other DOE facilities just added more floaters.

In the last 6 years, Secretary Abraham and Bodman both had listed NIF as
a dead program. Even Hobson's House committee listed it as useless at
one point but I am guessing the large California delegation changed
that. The main reason I have heard these days for killing NIF is that
most of the scientists there dont believe it will ever work.

Which seems to show that we as scientists have communicated poorly with
the American public for the last 10-20 years. I do not see the populist
scientists that talk to the average American in a clear way. I look at
my copy of Feynman's lectures, Sagan's Cosmos and realize how they
opened my mind to things that my school system didnt have. I remember
reading Isaac Asimov's books on science and beginning to learn to ask
bigger questions about everything from the human body to black holes. I
also remember bringing up some questions in these books in college and
LANL as an intern and being told that anyone who read crap like that got
the ignorance they deserved..

For many years, we have shown this scorn and lack of empathy for
people's beliefs, thoughts, and actions.. Instead of trying to open
horizons, we act like aristocrats right before the French Revolution. We
deserve this money because we know better, you cant understand us
because you believe in God, and a ton of other slights that have build
up into torrent of hate towards us. And yes... this country will
probably rue the effects of the Anti-Science Revolution as the French
eventually did guillotining(sp) of the masses.. but to be honest some of
those people brought it on the rest :(.

These days, the budget of this country will be decided on questions
like: pay for a nuclear laser fusion device or pay for grandma's
medicine.. [and a bridge to nowhere Alaska, and pork here and there.. ]
but Mom and Dad are going to focus on the medical and fuel bills and say
that has a lot more priority than some whiney scientists who would
probably just piss on them for going to church on Sunday anyway.

Anyway.. thats my beef.

It's only Monday, but I've already picked out the "Comment of the Week".

Submitted by "Finknottle" on the

http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/10/is-this-real-reason-for-lanls-seven.html

post:

______________________________________________

"Is THIS the real reason for LANL's seven years of trouble?"

I would say "No." Look for complicated conspiracy theories if you prefer, but the real causes for our problems at LANL lie with us, our management, and with the complete disengagement of the University of California. LLNL and LANL have needed strategic planning for a long time. UC provided none. Our lab has repeatedly needed tactical planning and damage control. We received none from UC, and we provided none for ourselves.

UC lost the contract for LANL because it deserved to. It really is that simple. It is past due time for a change.

Oh, and that Cheryl Rofer person ("WhirledView" blog author of the commentary piece that precedes this article) did get one thing right in pointing out that many LANL staff are voicing "an almost religious hope that Lockheed will make everything okay when they win the contract." But, since she clearly has never been to LANL and seen the deplorable state of management here, she has no way of knowing that things will only improve when Lockheed takes over. She could do a better job of sounding less ignorant when pontificating about conditions at LANL