Re: Stop the madness

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 2/4/02 8:49:31 AM Mountain Standard Time, liptonw@dteenergy.com writes:



> I never said that it's entirely our fault.  You imply that none of it's our fault.  I'm definitely closer to "the truth."  (If you disagree with this assessment, please list those problems that you think are our fault.) In any event, the problems that are our fault are the only ones that we can fix.  

 Before the mid-1980s, DOE was pretty secretive about even the unclassified stuff that it did (I gave a talk at Hanford in 1976 and I really did experience some of this at first hand) and pretty nasty to people like me who tried to penetrate the secrecy.  However, that had pretty much ended by 1989 (that's 12 years ago). For example, Mike Lawrence opened up the Hanford archives to considerable fanfare in 1986, and I used to take my students on tours there from that time on -- they got to see BWIP, the FFTF, the tank farms, etc.  Mike appointed the Hanford Citizens Forum in 1988 (I represented Sierra Club).  The charges of "hiding behind secrecy" were pretty much spurious more than ten years ago.


It is, by the way, illegal to "hide behind" classification.  It has always been illegal.  It is not done.  The fact that some things were classified and have since been declassified DOES NOT MEAN that they should never have been classified.


The charges that "DOE tells lies" were always spurious.  The agency bumbles, as do all bureacracies.  Some of the EISs reflect two phenomena: they were done by the low bidder and they were reviewed by people whose background was inadequate for such review. Even that has been steadily corrected.  A poorly done EIS that is challenged and forced to improve is not a crime.  Generally, the EISs have improved.


The charge that "DOE talks in jargon that we poor lay people just can't understand"  was always trumped up and is trumped up now.  (I was once accused of being "intimidating" at a public meeting.  Whether I was or wasn't, what kind of an accusation is that anyway?)


Since about 1990, and especially during the Clinton administration, DOE bent over backward to pander to the anti-nukes, and continues to get slapped down for its efforts.


Before all this pandering started, when I was actually representing Sierra Club at public meetings and hearings, I always found the DOE people approachable and ready to answer my questions.  I found the hearings to be fair and impartial.  I found I could call DOE people afterwards and discuss issues with them.  In 1985, on a visit to DC, I got a private presentation on performance assessment, and you know, I was absolutely nobody.


The scream now is "DOE doesn't involve us (presumably the public, actually the anti-nukes) in decision making"  well why should DOE?  I sure do not want those Luddite know-nothings making decisions about radioactive material!


We had a citizens advisory board for Sandia which ended after accomplishing nothing. wasting a good deal of federal money, and doing nothing but providing a forum for anti-nuclear lies and distortions. 


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com