Re: FFTF not dead yet ...

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

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