Nuclear Power Plants, Sí! Nuclear Weapons, No!

Yes, it seems to me to be altogether reasonable for a person to be against the continuation of American R&D on nuclear weapons, while encouraging the drive toward the eventual world-wide abolition of these absurdly horrific weapons, and simultaneously to be for the continued push to build and operate more nuclear power plants in America.

Last night (Aug. 2, 2011), on C-SPAN, I watched the Senate hearing on nuclear power plant safety, chaired by Sen. Boxer (Environment and Public Works Committee.) Four NRC commissioners were seated as witnesses, as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman, Dr. Jaszco.

The following is the text of a note that I sent today to Sen. Boxer:

Senator Boxer, in the context of your review of concerns that were expressed recently by members of the general public regarding the disaster at Fukishima Daiichi, and its possible implications for nuclear power plant safety in the USA, I agree with the pertinence of the observation made last night by your colleague Sen. Alexander that "each year in the USA there are 38,000 auto-related deaths on the highways" (as well as 100,000's of serious injuries).

It is, therefore, astonishing to me that members of the general public, who would no more consider giving up driving their beloved cars (cars which, over a 50 year period of use could, demonstrably, lead to their death with probability ~0.01, and/or to their serious injury with probability ~0.1) than they would consider giving up eating tasty but unhealthy foods (foods which, when consumed over the course of a lifetime, could lead to serious health problems, and even early death, at predictable average rates); they, nevertheless will excitedly agitate over the possible dire consequences of radiation releases from nuclear power plants, power plants which, in their ~50 yearlong history of use, have never been shown to be the cause of a single human death in the USA. 

Senator Boxer, it seems to me that you could be more of a leader than a follower on this issue, and could stop catering to the, in my view, irrational fears expressed by some members of the general public. You may be aware of the fact that, when the incandescent light bulb was first introduced into wide use, ~100 years ago, there were many urgent expressions of fear by members of the general public concerning the possible ill effects of the "unnatural glow" emitted by, what was then, a very unfamiliar light source.

Interestingly, nowadays, libertarian elements in our society complain bitterly about an incipient ban by the federal government on the sale of the now very familiar incandescent light bulb; i.e., to be banned by the feds because it is so inefficient, in terms of energy use, and because there are much better alternatives available in the form of plasma lamps and solid state illuminators. Evidently, while familiarity breeds contempt (or love, in the case of libertarians), unfamiliarity can breed suspicion and even fear.

Whatever! Or, as some say in California, New Mexico,and other places of diverse culture: "Cada loco por su tema."

What's Sig Hecker Up To?

Appearing in the latest issue of Physics Today /July 2011 / is an article entitled “Adventures in scientific nuclear diplomacy’’, by past director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sigfried Hecker .

This may be nothing more than a straight-forward exercise in self-promotion. Or it may be a sincere attempt to  encourage scientists and engineers, who might have an interest in public policy, to become more involved in the creation of that policy. Alternately, it may be part of an ongoing effort to cast doubt on the advisability of the United States federal government’s proceeding further along a road toward nuclear disarmament.

Headings in Hecker's Physics Today article include:

“From competition to collaboration”

“Lab-to-lab contact”

“Securing Kazakhstan”

“Collaboration with China”

“South Asia’s nuclear risks”

“The most difficult countries in the world”

“Scientists’ important role”

Under this last heading Hecker asserts that:

Twenty years after I started lab-to-lab contacts, I believe more firmly than ever that scientists can be an important part of international security diplomacy. Scientists look through different lenses than politicians and build different relationships – often deeply personal friendships. They speak a common language and usually respect each other, which makes it easier to build trust. Communications are more less formal, with email instead of diplomatic cables, and scientists can explore a broader spectrum of solutions than government officials can.

Fair enough; however, Hecker also includes a figure from his much earlier article  entitled “A tale of two diagrams”, in Los Alamos Science  26, 244 (2000) (an issue devoted to plutonium metallurgy and chemistry, Hecker’s area of technical expertise.) The point of that article was to show that, prior to 2000, American understanding of plutonium metallurgy and chemistry was incomplete. An implication of this, although not stated explicitly, was that conclusions being drawn about the continued and long-term reliability of the American nuclear weapons stockpile should be regarded with some skepticism.  

As I have remarked before in this blog (blogpost entitled “Nuke Enthusiasts Fight New Start Treaty”, November 21, 2010), Hecker was a signatory to a letter admonishing theObama administration that the latest Nuclear Posture Review unduly constrained the R&D of nuclear weapons at the nuclear weapons laboratories and, therefore, placed the US nuclear deterrent in jeopardy.  I reprise these remarks below:

The New York Times today is running a William J Broad story about the New Start Treaty, and its relation to controversy over upgrading of the US nuclear deterrent, with corresponding costly nuke building programs at the DOE/NNSA's nuke labs, especially LANL and ORNL, but also the Kansas City Plant. In order to entice a few Republican Treaty ratification votes, Pres. Obama is offering more money for nuke program upgrades, but the Republican point man on this issue, Sen. Jon Kyl, still says no.

The Los Angeles Times contains a more comprehensive story about Hecker's trip to N Korea, pointing out that he traveled with Jack Pritchard, a former US ambassador to S Korea, and a current publicist for S Korean interests. According to the LAT, both Hecker and Pritchard will shortly give a talk about their trip to the Korean Economic Institute, Pritchard's organization. They had both also just finished briefing the Institute for Science and International Security, a group focused on world-wide nuclear proliferation matters.

Hecker, a past director of LANL and a strong proponent of continuing the American nuclear weapons program, was a signatory to a May 2010 letter by 10 former nuke lab directors criticizing the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. The former directors asserted that the NPR restricts the creative freedom of scientists and engineers who work at the nuke labs, thus denying the nation the full benefit of its nuclear weapons designers' expertise, and placing the nation at unnecessary risk of a possible future nuclear attack. 

One wonders about the timing of the release of information about Hecker's latest visit to N Korea, and the effect that this information might have on the New Start Treaty ratification process.
                                                               ......

Perhaps it’s time for Dr. Hecker to give us all a clearer view of his true intentions. If these are benign, then a good next step might be to publicly renounce his support for the May 2010 letter criticizing the Nuclear Posture Review.

National Park Status for Nuke Labs?

Since 2004, parts of the Department of Energy nuclear weapons R&D centers at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation have been under consideration by the National Park Service, as candidates for NPS sites commemorating the creation of nuclear weapons. 

Recently, in July, 2011, and after much study by the NPS, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recommended to the US Congress that they proceed with the writing of legislation bestowing National Park Service status on these three sites. Materials relating to this NPS recommendation may be found at parkplanning.nps.gov/mapr.

A spokesperson for the NPS points out that there are many precedents for the incorporation of sites commemorating war related events into the NPS. Such sites have been in the form of National Monuments, National Memorials, and National Military Parks.

What is unusual is that the new NPS recommendation is for the creation of a National Park to commemorate the Manhattan Project. But, past national parks have been designated to protect and preserve, for the enjoyment of future generations, areas of surpassing natural beauty, not areas associated with the massacre of 100,000's of noncombatants, in the nuclear heat of past battles.

It seems to be true, however, that some advances in military science and/or practice may always be deemed by some military enthusiasts to be worthy of some public recognition in perpetuity.

And, this may be a problem for President Barack Obama, who strives to limit the rate of spread of nuclear weapons technology, and promotes the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons, but also must placate the most militaristic members of the US Senate.

After all, how better to move toward the abolition of nuclear weapons than to try to marginalize ideas of their military usefulness while also attempting to stigmatize the role that they play in the formation of national policy? But it is difficult to imagine stigmatizing the holding and R&D of nuclear weapons, while at the same time celebrating their creation. That is, it is difficult to imagine celebrating the creation of nuclear weapons without also celebrating their continued existence. Difficult but, I suppose, not impossible. So, good luck with that Mr. President!

Finally, as a contribution to the general bemusement, I recapitulate here remarks made during the finale of the US Senate debate on the New Start Treaty (recorded in the US Senate on 12-22-10). These remarks were in the nature of heartfelt objections to the Treaty by Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. According to the cherubic Sen. Sessions: 

 1) The Treaty is a step on the road toward President Obama's goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, which is a leftist goal and a dangerous fantasy.

 2) The notion that the Treaty will make Russia more cooperative in its relations with the US is false. Russia has shown itself to be uninterested in cooperation with the US since it blocked United Nations Security Council attempts to condemn North Korea and, in 2008, attacked its neighbor Georgia.

 3) The Obama Administration has unilaterally given away US missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, thus, showing itself to be insufficiently committed to missile defense.

 4) The US Senate should state clearly that the goal of zero nuclear weapons is undesirable and even impossible.

 5) The goal of zero nuclear weapons is a cock-a-mammy and dangerous idea.

 6) The idea of a world without nuclear weapons is ominous and chilling.

 7) In the Nuclear Posture Review of this past spring, Pres. Obama made clear that his goal is a world without nuclear weapons. However, ex-Sec. of Defense Schlesinger has said that he believes that a world without nuclear weapons is a utopian idea.

 8) The maintenance of a large US arsenal of nuclear weapons is the best way to encourage the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. If the US continues to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, this will lead other nations, which don't now have nuclear weapons, to develop their own.

 9) The Obama Administration has made it clear that the New Start Treaty is a step on the road toward its goal of a world without nuclear weapons. But, to me this is not a dream, it's a nightmare!

 10) By reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the US is relinquishing its leadership role in the world.

More recently, and also from Alabama, the following story has emerged, as reprinted by The Tennessean and The Tuscaloosa News from an Associated Press report, dated July 20, 2011, and datelined Mountain Creek, Alabama:

"The last of the more than 60,000 Confederate veterans who came home to Alabama after the Civil War died generations ago, yet residents are still paying a tax that supported the neediest among them."

"Despite fire-and-brimstone opposition to taxes among many in a state that still has 'Heart of Dixie' on its license plates, officials never stopped collecting a property tax that once funded the Alabama Confederate Soldiers' Home, which closed 72 years ago. The tax now pays for Confederate Memorial Park [Park Director Bill Rambo], which sits on the same 102-acre tract where elderly veterans used to stroll."

LANL Data Mushrooms into Cloud

Cities of Gold Hotel and Casino, Pojoaque, NM/ June 7, 2011, 5:30 PM-7:30 PM:

The RACER environmental database team, and the New Mexico Community Foundation (NMCF), held a public meeting to describe the results of a recent audit of RACER data, and to introduce the planned use of cloud computing technology as an enhancement to the RACER database.

The audit was designed and conducted by the Risk Assessment Corporation (RAC), the original creator of RACER, under contract to  Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Agency (DOE/NNSA). DOE/NNSA is currently the sole support of RACER and also funds ~10% of ongoing NMCF operations. A RAC employee presented the audit findings to an assembly of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and New Mexico Environment Department  (NMED) personnel, along with a few members of the general public. Altogether, approximately 30 people were in attendance. The purpose of RACER is ostensibly to make LANL and NMED environmental data accessible to the general public.

The audit uncovered numerous discrepancies contained in RACER data, when compared to data supplied by LANL to the auditors. Because of these discrepancies, the RAC presenter judged the current interface through which LANL has been supplying data to RACER to be a "failure".

However, in the next presentation a LANL staff member described reasons for these discrepancies, and the strategy which soon would be employed to correct them.

A second LANL staff member then elaborated on the planned use of cloud computing technology to enhance the RACER database.

During the course of this last presentation, and as a result of the question and answer session which followed, it became clear that the DOE intends to replace its LANL environmental database, now being held redundantly on servers at LANL and by RACER, with data residing only in the Cloud; i.e., on public access servers owned by the Locus Corporation, and provided under a new DOE/NNSA contract. For future users of this data, Locus will also supply display software surpassing in versatility what is now being offered by RACER.

That the DOE may wish to cut costs by contracting out the management of its environmental data seems unexceptional. Indeed, the ability of LANL staff to make use of its environmental data may well be facilitated by a more efficient data management scheme. Whether or not this new arrangement will facilitate or inhibit use of LANL environmental data by the general public is another question.

It appears to me that, at present, there are very few users of this data among the general public; viz., few or almost none, as judged by tallies reported by the RACER site-meter. Will the invocation of a more versatile data display tool encourage more use of LANL environmental data by the general public? Judging by my own experience with RACER, and with display software generally, I'm dubious of such a theory.

Unless, that is, one has in mind the use of environmental data as a new form of entertainment (perhaps a 3D environmental movie hosted by a sexy captain DOE-America?) ... and a distraction for the general public from its worries about the real nuclear weapons R&D going on at LANL, with all of its likely accompanying environmental contamination.

CMRR-NF SEIS Hearings in New Mexico

Public hearings were recently held by DOE/NNSA, in which comments were solicited from the general public on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) of April, 2011, regarding proposed construction of the ~$6 billion facility for plutonium R&D at LANL. These hearings were a part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, mandated by the U. S. Congress, and were held on the evenings of May 23-26, 2011 in Albuquerque, Los Alamos, Española, and Santa Fe, NM.

The Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility (CMRR-NF) discussed is being designed to replace a similar, but said to be outmoded building (CMR) constructed in the 1950's. If constructed as planned, the CMRR-NF will enable DOE/NNSA/LANL's continuation of the performance of nuclear weapons R&D at Los Alamos for approximately the next 50 years; in particular, R&D activities related to plutonium chemistry and metallurgy. These activities would have applications to stockpile stewardship, as presently understood; i.e., to the production of new plutonium triggers to replace weapons that have been damaged or destroyed during active surveillance.

However, the CMRR-NF is also a keystone of DOE/NNSA's plans for the continuation of the U. S. nuclear weapons program for the next 50 years. An essential part of these plans is the centralization of all  plutonium related activities at LANL, with the collection and storage of weapons grade plutonium in underground vaults at CMRR-NF. The CMRR-NF could also support the large-scale production of plutonium pits, or triggers, of new and untested designs if DOE/NNSA should ever convince a future U. S. Congress to revive the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.

It is interesting to recall that plutonium pits, or triggers, are really only essential for the detonation of miniaturized thermonuclear weapons which, although small in dimension, can be designed to be weapons of almost limitless explosive power. A single very powerful thermonuclear weapon exploded over a major metropolis could result in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Thus, in our current political environment, in which the role of nuclear weapons in national policy is being down-played, and in which the contemplation of the use of any weapon of mass destruction is being stigmatized, thermonuclear weapons would seem to be of little value.

On the other hand, weapons of more limited power, such as atomic weapons, can be fashioned from uranium alone. The atomic weapon dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was just such a weapon, and its design was so simple that it did not even need to be tested before use. As is well known, however, the design of the plutonium based device dropped on Nagasaki did require testing before use, since its design was fraught with difficult engineering challenges. Thus, if there were to be any future for nuclear weapons, based say on their presumed deterrence value, then uranium weapons might easily suffice. In fact, initial concepts of the RRW were for just such a uranium based atomic weapon. However, in this, advocates for the "more is better" approach seem to have prevailed.

I attended the last 3 of the public meetings held to encourage public comment on construction of the proposed CMRR-NF. The emphasis in comments made by the public was different in each of these 3 meetings.

The Los Alamos meeting was rather small: 7 comments were pro-LANL and pro-construction; 3 comments were anti-LANL. The pro-LANL comments asserted the importance of the proposed construction to the local economy, as well as the importance of LANL to the local economy, generally. A few patriotic themes were also struck by the pro-LANL speakers.

The Española meeting was larger: there were 4 pro-LANL comments, 2 of which were by the same individuals who had spoken at the Los Alamos meeting; and there were 34 anti-LANL comments. The anti-LANL commenters mostly expressed outrage at the environmental contamination which they believed LANL operations were causing and which, they implied, activities at the CMRR-NF would worsen.

The Santa Fe meeting was equally large: there were 2 pro-LANL comments, but by the same 2 individuals who had spoken at the previous meetings; again there were 34 anti-LANL comments, of which only 4 were by people who had spoken in Española. The anti-LANL sentiments were now largely centered on moral concerns; i.e., the immorality of continuing with the U. S. nuclear weapons enterprise.

Thus, it appears that the local community is much more motivated to express opposition to the proposed CMRR-NF construction project than it is willing to express support for the smathering of new jobs that the project will produce; viz., over all, 65 citizens opposed the project while 8 expressed support.

The period for written public comment on construction of the CMRR-NF building extends to June 28, 2011, and citizens may email DOE/NNSA at NEPALASO@doeal.gov (Attn: Mr. John Tegtmeier, CMRR–NF SEIS Document Manager) expressing their views on this controversial matter. Copies of such communications should be forwarded to the offices of Rep. Ben Ray Lujan and to Senators Bingaman and Udall.

Comments on LANL Draft Community Relations Plan

The Draft LANL Community Relations Plan of May, 2011 (LA-UR-11-10608), the "Plan", was mandated by Sect. 1.12 of the LANL Hazardous waste Facility Permit, issued by NMED for the state of New Mexico on December 28, 2010 (RCRA Renewal Permit, the "Permit")

The Permit mandates that LANL create a Plan which will:

 1) Establish an open working relationship with the public

 2) Establish a productive government to government relationship with the tribes

 3) Keep the public informed about Permit actions of interest

 4) Minimize disputes and resolve differences with the public

 5) Provide a mechanism for dissemination of information to the public

 6) Provide a mechanism for public input to the Permittees

The Plan asserts compliance with Permit mandates because:

 1) LANL hazardous activities have become more transparent and responsive to the public

   a) As measured by the annual survey of attitudes of local community leaders toward LANL, and the evolution  toward more positive attitudes over the last several years

   b) Mechanisms facilitating exchange of information and opinions with the public have been set up; e.g.,  an email address at envoutreach@lanl.gov; information repositories, electronic at www.lanl.gov and printed  media at LANL's Oppenheimer Center; a schedule of formal meetings and briefings; tours of LANL facilities; the NNMCAB.

 2) Government to government relations with the tribes are being promoted

 3) Professional facilitators are being employed to conduct public meetings

........................................................................

However, I believe that the Plan is inadequate for the following reasons:

It seems that all of the cited Plan elements have been ongoing for many years. Thus, the Plan is a collection of previously existing programs; no programs were created specifically to comply with the mandates of the Permit. As to the individual Plan elements:

 1a) The annual surveys of the attitudes of local community leaders toward LANL is insufficient to convincingly demonstrate approval, or disapproval, by the local community of LANL behavior. A better means of determining the opinions of local community members would be to survey these opinions directly. Moreover, the annual survey of local community leaders has been ongoing for several years and could hardly be counted as a part of a new plan to improve relations with the general public.

 1b) All of the mechanisms and entities mentioned here by LANL have been in existence for many years and cannot be considered a part of a new community relations plan.

 2) Government to government relations with the tribes have long been promoted by the DOE and are also nothing new.

 3) It has long been DOE policy to employ professional facilitators to keep order at public meetings. Therefore, this element is also not new.

Furthermore, the enumerated Plan elements do not even include all of the existing LANL community relations programs. For example:

 A.) The Plan makes no mention of the RACER electronic database. RACER is an online record of measurements made by LANL and NMED of the concentrations of a large number of contaminants of groundwater and soil all around the Pajarito Plateau over a period of many decades. RACER was created with DOE money, and the accumulation of its important environmental data is an ongoing process.

 B.) The Plan makes no mention of the New Mexico Community Foundation and its commitment to providing a regular forum for the exchange of information and opinions between LANL personnel and members of the general public. The NMCF has recently been funded by the DOE to accomplish this important task and it's hard to understand why LANL's Plan does not claim part ownership of this group. After all, LANL includes the NNMCAB in its Plan. Yet the NNMCAB is wholly a DOE creation.

 C.) The Plan makes no mention of the NEWNET air quality data available, online and in real time, to the general public.

 D.) The Plan makes no mention of the Bradbury Museum, an important part of LANL ongoing community relations. Perhaps this is because the Bradbury invites contributions from the general public, for which it provides exhibit space. Some of these contributions are very critical of LANL operations, past and present.

 E.) The Plan makes no mention of the many other materials available through the existing LANL Community Programs Office.

Worse, the Plan's authors have made no attempt to accommodate the demands of local citizens, presented during the public RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit hearings:

 A.) There is no mention of the extensive information on environmental contamination compiled by the LAHDRA project, which was funded by the DOE, and is available online in the LAHDRA final report.

 B.) No attempt has been made to create a repository of historical records describing the involvement of DOE/LANL in the lives of local citizens and in the life of the surrounding communities. It was suggested that such a repository of historical records should be established at Northern New Mexico College.

American Physical Society and Nuclear Arms Control

American Physical Society April 2011 meeting (Saturday, April 30, 2011 - Tuesday, May 3, 2011) Hyatt Regency Hotel, Garden Grove, CA

This meeting was mostly about cosmology, astrophysics, and particle physics; however, there were two short sessions devoted to matters of nuclear arms control.

The first of these sessions was entitled "Nuclear Weapons" and was chaired by Patricia M. Lewis of the Monterrey Institute of International Studies. The first speaker,  Rebecca Johnson of the Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy; was not actually present but addressed the attendees through Skype. RJ is a staunch advocate for nuclear disarmament, and presented some well thought out positions in support of her cause. The next speaker was Jay Davis, the first director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA, formerly the National Security Agency), and a knowledgeable apologist for the NW industry. JD seems to advocate for the notion that, as the number of nukes in the US arsenal is reduced, the amount of work required to ensure deterrence increases. He further suggests that, if the number of nukes in the US nuclear arsenal were to approach zero, then the work required to ensure deterrence would approach infinity. (Zeno's paradox). During the question and answer period I asked JD if he could say why it might not be possible to "stigmatize" NWs in the same way that chemical and biological weapons had been stigmatized (as had been pointed out by RJ, during her talk), thus short-circuiting the tortuous build-down process that he implied might require an infinite amount of effort to complete. He answered that chemical and biological weapons had never been of much strategic significance, in contrast to NWs.

The 2^nd session was entitled "The Status of Arms Control". The 1st speaker was S. Drell of SLAC who spoke about "What happens to deterrence as nuclear weapons decrease toward zero." He made several points which I recorded as: 1) It was understood at the height of the Cold War that nukes could not be defended against (Star Wars schemes did not work or were unreliable, he said), so that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) became the only viable policy. 2) Rejecting MAD, the task of US nuclear weapons policy is presently to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. 3) Between 1940 and 1990, the number of nuclear weapons capable states had increased at the rate of one every 5 years. 4) Since 1986, US policy became increasingly one of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. 5) He wonders, however, if nuclear deterrence can be effective without nuclear weapons. In answer to my question about the importance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), he said that he believed it to be very important, and if the US failed to ratify this treaty, then the rest of the world would not trust us. At no time during his talk did he address the apparently self-serving quality of current US efforts to "rid the world of nuclear weapons".

The next talk was by Marvin Adams of Texas A&M (formerly of LLNL, LANL and the JASONs) entitled "Confidence in nuclear weapons as numbers decrease and time since testing increases". MA is a buffed looking, carefully spoken, and studiedly reasonable guy. He waxed on, in a seemingly well-informed way, about the travails faced by the poor nuclear weapons labs as they struggle to perform their critical mission (whatever that is) in the face of the threat posed by reductions in the numbers of nukes in the US nuclear arsenal.

The last talk in this session was by Edward Levine a staff member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations entitled "Securing support from a skeptical Senate for further strategic arms controls". EL is a well-spoken Democratic Senate staffer who talked about the difficulty of getting reluctant Republican senators to agree to any controls on US nuclear weapons. During the question and answer period I asked him why he thought that the 3 present weapons Labs directors had publicly supported the Obama Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, while 6-8 former weapons Labs directors had condemned it. He said that he believed that this was because the 3 present directors were all members of the new generation of Lab weapons physicists who were comfortable with Stockpile Stewardship whereas the former directors were members of the older generation, unfamiliar with SS. I said that I thought it more likely that the present directors, working as they did for an executive branch agency, felt themselves to be personally vulnerable and were circumspect in the expression of their opinions. He responded that he thought that this was a cynical point-of-view.