[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FFTF not dead yet ...



Well there were also a lot of comments on the Draft PEIS arguing for
retaining the FFTF.  One of those was mine, by the way.  This cost
effectiveness stuff really gets me.  Here you have a facility that is a prime
irreplaceable research facility  and it's argued that it's not "cost
effective" and billions are poured into other new DOE projects (that shall
remain nameless) of really questionable value.   We all know of examples we
can cite.

Proposals to upgrade the HFIR and ATR at the expense of the FFTF sound to me,
excuse me, suspiciously like "we want the money to go to Oak Ridge (or INEEL)
instead of Hanford."  I would propose upgrading the HFIR and ATR facilities
as well as retaining the FFTF.  Shouldn't we be sticking together on these
proposals?  Shouldn't we be supporting each other?  Is the country so poor we
can't afford all these facilities?  

How much is spent on Citizens' Advisory Boards each year, and what has been
the return in the form of new scientific knowledge (goodness! what an idea! )?

Contrary to Dr. Gawarecki's assumption, the PEIS looked to many of us like a
thinly veiled attempt to ditch the FFTF.


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com