tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post6878498792926094338..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: Frank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-56088904586845802902008-06-20T16:42:00.000-06:002008-06-20T16:42:00.000-06:00Do I see a lawyer trying to discourage potential c...Do I see a lawyer trying to discourage potential class members?<BR/>=============================<BR/><BR/>NO - a lawyer giving an honest assessment.<BR/><BR/>This is NOT like the tobacco case.<BR/><BR/>The tobacco case had a statistically<BR/>significant sample - MILLIONS of people.<BR/><BR/>We have here a SINGLE case - and the <BR/>burden of proof is on the PLAINTIFF.<BR/><BR/>Without a statistically significant<BR/>number of plaintiffs in a class action;<BR/>this suit is heading for DISMISSAL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-72364682885821762042008-06-20T09:59:00.000-06:002008-06-20T09:59:00.000-06:00"The Plaintiff would have to prove a causal relati...<I>"The Plaintiff would have to prove a causal relationship by the "preponderance of the<BR/>evidence" standard. Because it's really not possible for the medical community to assign cause to an individual case of cancer; it is doubtful plaintiff can meet<BR/>the burden of proof."</I><BR/><BR/>That sounds like the argument tobacco companies tried to make.<BR/><BR/><I>Additioanlly, as the article states,<BR/><BR/>"The federal law, enacted in 1957,<BR/>governs liability-related issues at<BR/>nuclear facilities and indemnifies<BR/>government contractors involved in<BR/>nuclear accidents"</I><BR/><BR/>The dumping of the radioactive waste was not an accident.<BR/><BR/><I>"I see this heading toward a grant of summary judgment, i.e. dismissal.<BR/><BR/>"Plaintiff isn't going to carry the day with both the science and law against him."</I><BR/><BR/>Do I see a lawyer trying to discourage potential class members?Frank Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-18669709373114591862008-06-20T08:11:00.000-06:002008-06-20T08:11:00.000-06:00There's probably no way to know for sure whether t...There's probably no way to know for sure whether this guy's cancer was caused by exposure to LANL wastes, or some other cause instead (like getting too much sun).<BR/>====================================<BR/><BR/>The Plaintiff would have to prove a causal<BR/>relationship by the "preponderance of the<BR/>evidence" standard. Because it's really<BR/>not possible for the medical community to <BR/>assign cause to an individual case of <BR/>cancer; it is doubtful plaintiff can meet<BR/>the burden of proof.<BR/><BR/>Additioanlly, as the article states,<BR/><BR/>"The federal law, enacted in 1957, <BR/>governs liability-related issues at <BR/>nuclear facilities and indemnifies <BR/>government contractors involved in <BR/>nuclear accidents"<BR/><BR/>I see this heading toward a grant of<BR/>summary judgment, i.e. dismissal.<BR/><BR/>Plaintiff isn't going to carry the day<BR/>with both the science and law against<BR/>him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-54948448374818958002008-06-19T15:06:00.000-06:002008-06-19T15:06:00.000-06:00Other a more positive UC news front...--------June...Other a more positive UC news front...<BR/><BR/>--------<BR/>June 16, 2008<BR/><BR/>The University of California is pleased to announce a new research opportunity funded by a portion of the management fees that may be awarded to the University for the management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) based on an annual performance evaluation process included in each of the two management contracts. The Regents of the University have directed that this net fee income, anticipated to be approximately $20M/year, be allocated to research that is related to the missions of the laboratories and emphasizes collaborations between University faculty, staff and students and the research staff of the laboratories. Letters of intent are due June 27 and full proposals are due Aug. 4.<BR/><BR/>http://www.ucop.edu/labresrfpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-80196772712700011072008-06-19T10:50:00.000-06:002008-06-19T10:50:00.000-06:00There's probably no way to know for sure whether t...There's probably no way to know for sure whether this guy's cancer was caused by exposure to LANL wastes, or some other cause instead (like getting too much sun).<BR/> <BR/>No doubt the UC will be paying out lotsa money to make this go away.<BR/><BR/>The Zia Company still exists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-60243405543542094482008-06-19T10:18:00.000-06:002008-06-19T10:18:00.000-06:00Ah, but the Pentagon does useful work for the nati...Ah, but the Pentagon does useful work for the nation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-35724639199540273862008-06-19T09:52:00.000-06:002008-06-19T09:52:00.000-06:00Mr. Congressman, looks like it's time to call for ...Mr. Congressman, looks like it's time to call for the shut down of the Pentagon. From the tone of the news story below, it's clear that too many cowboys and buttheads are working for the DOD...<BR/><BR/><BR/>www.ft.com/cms/s/0/<BR/>04dfa24c-3db6-11dd-bbb5-0000779fd2ac.html<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------------------<BR/> * US Nuke weapons parts missing, Pentagon says *<BR/>-----------------------------------------------<BR/><BR/>By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, Financial Times<BR/>Published: June 19 2008 05:13<BR/><BR/>The US military cannot locate hundreds of sensitive nuclear missile components, according to several government officials familiar with a Pentagon report on nuclear safeguards.<BR/><BR/>Robert Gates, US defence secretary, recently fired both the US Air Force chief of staff and air force secretary after an investigation blamed the air force for the inadvertent shipment of nuclear missile nose cones to Taiwan.<BR/><BR/>According to previously undisclosed details obtained by the FT, the investigation also concluded that the air force could not account for many sensitive components previously included in its nuclear inventory.<BR/><BR/>One official said the number of missing components was more than 1,000.<BR/><BR/>The disclosure is the latest embarrassing episode for the air force, which last year had to explain how a bomber mistakenly carried six nuclear missiles across the US. The incidents have raised concerns about US nuclear safeguards as Washington presses other countries to bolster counter-proliferation measures.<BR/><BR/>In announcing the departure of the top air force officials earlier this month, Mr Gates said Admiral Kirkland Donald, the officer who led the investigation, concluded that both incidents had a “common origin” which was “the gradual erosion of nuclear standards and a lack of effective oversight by air force leadership”.<BR/><BR/>Mr Gates added that the Pentagon was evaluating the results of a “comprehensive inventory of all nuclear and nuclear-related materials [conducted] to re-establish positive control of these sensitive, classified components”.<BR/><BR/>Adm Donald briefed Congress on the results of his investigation on Wednesday. Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on the classified report.<BR/><BR/>A senior defence official said the report had “identified issues about record keeping” for sensitive nuclear missile components. But he stressed that there was no suggestion that components had ended up in the hands of countries that should not have received them.<BR/><BR/>But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said the revelation was “very significant and extremely troubling” because it meant the US could not establish the positive control referred to by Mr Gates.<BR/><BR/>“It raises a serious question about where else these unaccounted for warhead related parts may have gone,” said Mr Kimball. “I would not be surprised if the recent Taiwan incident is not the only one.”<BR/><BR/>A senior military officer said the military leadership, including Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was “deeply troubled” by the findings of the Donald report. He added that they would be paying close attention to recommendations for improving nuclear safeguards that Mr Gates has asked James Schlesinger, a former defence secretary, to make.<BR/><BR/>Gordon Johndroe, National Security Council spokesman, declined to comment on the disclosure about the unaccounted for components. But he said the “the White House has confidence that secretary Gates through his actions with the air force is addressing all of these issues”.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com