The Case Against Bruce Ivins
August 13th, 2008
|
| Share |
Having investigated the 2001 anthrax attacks for seven years, the FBI finally thinks they have found the perpetrators in scientist Bruce Ivins. Ivins committed suicide shortly before authorities were planning on arresting him for the attacks. Early on in the investigation, the FBI had named Dr. Steven J. Hatfill as a “person of interest.” Hatfill responded to the with public denials of the charges and by filing a lawsuit against the agency, which he later won for over five million dollars. Personally, I think Hatfill deserved every penny of that money for being falsely blamed as a bioterrorist in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The incident was more than simply a false lead, it turned out to be a PR nightmare for the government. This may be why the investigation took so long and collected so much evidence before zeroing in on another suspect.
The result has been a mountain of evidence, which the FBI claims, points nowhere but to Bruce Ivins as the lone perpetrator of the attacks. Investigators were confident their evidence would stand up in court, but now that Ivins is dead they will not have the chance to put their case before a jury. The FBI had been increasing the pressure on Ivins and those around him in the past months, although only after they had acquired a large amount of evidence that he was involved. Now much has been made public yet legal barriers still exist in unsealing all the information. Authorities are releasing more information, as legal authorization continues to be granted.
The case against Bruce Ivins is largely circumstantial. There are pieces of foresnsic evidence which point to his laboratory as the source of the anthrax used in the attacks, but much of the case is based on the fact on the movements, words and actions of Ivins, none of which alone proves any involvement in the case. There seems to be little dispute that Ivins was a man who suffered from numerous mental health issues and had more than his fare share of personal and social conflicts. His actions, however, were clearly very suspicious and much of the FBI’s case is based on the fact that only a limited number of persons are believed to have had access to the anthrax used in the attack and that extensive interviews and investigations were able to rule out nearly all of them in the attacks. Except, that is, for Ivins.
Despite the amount of evidence provided, the critics have been coming out of the woodwork on this one. The Wallstreet Journal ran an op-ed piece headlined “Bruce Ivins Wasn’t the Anthrax Culprit” and cites reports that the anthrax spores had a ‘coating’ not avaliable to Ivins, although reports of the coating may have not been correct. Another story claims that it was a simple frame-up. Ivins former attorney called the case “speculation.” There remains a great deal of critism of the case against Ivins, mostly due to the fact that most of the evidence is circumstantial. Many have called for direct forensic proof of a link from Ivins to the letters, the mailings and the anthrax used and cite the inability of the FBI to provide any 100% conclusive forensic evidence proving their case as a major weakness.
To me, this reaks of the CSI effect. The effect of (stupid) popular television shows and high publicity trials like those of OJ Simpson have lead to a popular belief that convicting a person of a crime is all about getting forensic evidence that indisputably shows their involvement. Increasingly, the public expects prosecutors and investigators to be able to provide every detail in how a suspect committed a crime and to show forensic evidence tying the suspect to all aspects. For Ivins, it seems that not having any tangible proof that places him at the mailbox where the envelopes were mailed or indisputably links him to the letters, to the exclusion of all others, means he must not have done it. Of course, if this were the case in real life, then trials would be a lot easier and few would even plead not guilty in light of such conclusive evidence.
Whether or not Ivins would have been convicted in court will never be known. The FBI believes that Ivins acted alone and is considering closing the case. Having conducted an exhaustive investigation they are confident they have the correct person and that all other potential leads have been adequately checked out. Here is a list of the evidence – decide for yourself.
Evidence (Circumstantial and otherwise):
- The Anthrax was found to be of the “Ames strain” and was found to be a combination of cultures originally grown at Fort Detrick mixed with material originally cultured at the Dugway Proving Ground. These genetic fingerprints definitively proved the anthrax originated from the US bioweapons research program. The strains would have been avaliable in US government research laboratories but no other known sources existed.
- Exhaustive genetic evaluations of the spores from the anthrax attacks identified sub-populations which carried a very distinct series of mutations. The FBI eventually narrowed this down to four distinct mutations present in the anthrax used in the attacks, some of them as small as a single base-pair mutation. Over 1000 samples of anthrax were tested and the mutations were found to be unique. The only samples which tested positive for this pattern of mutations were all directly related to a “large flask” of spores which had been developed by Irvins in 1997 and which he is described as having been in “sole custody” of.
- Irvings is known to have spent many “long nights” at the Fort Detrick laboratory around the time of the attack giving him the opportunity to acquire the spores. He is one of only a very few individuals who would have access to weaponized anthrax spores of this type at all and is the only one who is known to have access to the spores in question with the unique genetic profile.
- The particular envelopes which were used in the attack were found to only have been sold in Maryland and Virginia, Fort Detrick is located in Maryland in a area where the envelopes were sold.
- The location where the anthrax letters were mailed (Trenton, New Jersey) was only about a three hour drive from Fort Detrick. The FBI has not commented on whether they have any evidence placing Ivins in the vicinity at the time the envelopes were mailed. However, sources have indicated that Irvins took a somewhat unusual leave on the day the letters are believed to have been mailed, September 17 2001. Irvins came to work at the laboratory but only stayed a short time before signing out for the day without giving any reason. He returned late in the afternoon.
- In 2002 the US Army investigated an unusual incident in which there was apparently an athrax spill outside the secure laboratory used by Ivins. Ivins did not report the spill but apparently attempted to decontaminate the area on his own using bleach. Further investigation revealed as many as 20 unreported contamination events which occurred in late 2001 and 2002 in which Ivins attempted to decontaminate the area by himself, disregarding reporting and containment protocol. This is highly unusual.
- Around the time of the attacks, Ivins borrowed a lyopholizer from another laboratory for unreported reasons. The lyopholizer is used to convert the liquid cultures into dried spoors, a step which would have been necessary to produce the powder found in the envelopes. Although reports indicate that some of Ivins work may have involved the legitimate use of a lyopholizer, it was generally uncommon in his line of research and therefore not avaliable in his laboratory, which usually only worked with the bacteria in a liquid form.
- The FBI determined that the anthrax used in the attacks had been grown sometime within two years previous to the attacks of 2001 by analyzing the isotopic composition of the powder. This is consistent with the anthrax vials Ivins had which the FBI suspects were the source but ruled out the possibility that it may have been an older source which had been stolen or removed from a weapons program in previous years.
- Ivins had shown some disturbing mental health issues including recently making numerous statements to a counselor indicating “a history dating to his graduate days of homicidal threats, actions, plans, threats & actions towards therapist.” His therapist, Jean C. Duley, was so frightened of Ivins, who had also made direct threats against her, that she had an order of protection placed on him, although this apparently did not stop him from continuing to threaten and stalk the therapist. Duley has indicated that she had a strong suspicion of Ivins involvement in the anthrax mailings since early in the therapy sessions.
- Ivins had a history of mental issues including paranoia, depression and apparent delusions which had concerned some of his colleagues before. Emails sent to friends and colleagues had caused concern before. As early as the 1980’s, others had felt threatened by Ivins or believed he was stalking them. Medical records, wittiness testimony and prescriptions for antidepressants and other medications have been presented which show Ivins to have been a longtime sufferer of numerous mental and emotional health issues.
- The mailbox where the initial anthrax letters had been sent was located next to a Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority house. This, of course, could be a complete coincidence, but the sorority was the subject of one of Ivins longest standing obsessions. In 2007 he wrote, under an assumed name “Kappas are noted for being lovely, highly intelligent campus leaders … Unfortunately, they labelled me as an enemy decades ago, and I can only abide by their ‘Fatwa’ on me.”
- Officials became suspicious of Ivins after determining that he had repeatedly sent them the wrong samples for evaluation and testing. As part of the anthrax investigation, officials tested thousands of anthrax culture samples from government research laboratories and private organizations. When samples from the laboratory were requested, Ivins submitted samples which were determined not to be from the sources the FBI had requested. When investigators finally collected samples from Ivins laboratory they turned out to be completely different from those he had submitted. Ivins never provided an explanation for this.
- During the investigation, Ivins had repeatedly offered help to the FBI but many of his statements were later determined to be inaccurate or deceptive. He offered the names of several other colleagues who he pointed to as potential suspects. He demonstrated a somewhat unusual enthusiasm to help in the investigation. In 2002, Ivins volunteered to aid the Red Cross in supporting a search effort by authorities as part of the anthrax investigation. As a weapons scientist and an individual who had been consulted with about the matter, he was not supposed to be involved in such activities and should have been aware of this.
- In November 2001, he sent a series of emails and photographs of himself in his laboratory working with anthrax to colleagues. Some found these messages unsettling, including Dr. Nancy L. Haigwood who recalled “I think this was someone who desperately wanted attention drawn to himself as a special person, as a hero.” In 2002, the American Society for Microbiology sent out an emailed memo asking members to report anyone whom they suspected may have been involved in the attacks. Haigwood reported her concerns about Ivins.
- As investigators began to take interest in Ivins he became increasingly evasive. He provided accounts of his whereabouts and actions at the time of the attacks that investigators did not find credible. Documents revealed that Ivins had an unusual spike in late night activity at the laboratory at the time of the attacks in 2001, but he was unable to provide any verifiable explanation for this. Later, Ivins stated that he had gone to the laboratory to get away from stress and indicated that “Home is not good.”
- The language of the letters sent in the anthrax attacks of 2001 contained similar and sometimes identical wording to that found in several emails sent by Ivins at the time. He had also sent emails warning of the potential for anthrax or chemical weapon attacks and showing a near obsession with the attacks.
- A search of Ivins home reportedly found unsent letters to other members of congress which may be similar to the anthrax attack letters, although the FBI has not yet released all the details of the matter. If reports that they are of the same nature turn out to be true, this may qualify as the “smoking gun” of investigation.
- Ivins may have had motive for sending the letters. In addition to his need for recognition and delusions, he had been involved in anti-abortion activities, including being the precedent of an anti-abortion activism group. Two of those who received letters were targets of the anti-abortion movement, which Ivins may have become fanatical about. Additionally, Ivins had a history of complaining about the lack of concern over bioterorism and had indicated he did not feel appreciated for his work.
- Ivins had been extremely upset shortly before the attacks over the status of vaccine research he had been involved in. In the late 1990’s, a vaccine Ivins had helped developed was coming under fire for possibly causing illness. The effectiveness of the vaccine was also called into question. Senator Tom Daschle, one of the individuals who received a letter had written to the Defense Secretary questioning the effectiveness of the vaccine program. The vaccine which Ivins had contributed to required multiple doses to provide satisfactory protection from anthrax and the effectiveness of the immune response over time was not proven. Shortly before the time of the attacks, the vaccine Ivins had helped develop was suspended from production. At the time, newer more advanced vaccines were becoming avaliable. The competing anthrax vaccines appeared to be more effective and well tolerated, but Ivins disputed this and took the matter personally.
- Searches of Ivins property found numerous guns, tasers, pepper spray, counter-survaliance equipment, ammunition, body armor, disguises and other suspicious items which may have been related to paranoid fears of attack or plans for an escape from authorities. Investigators also found an “anger checklist” and other items which raised concern about the mental stability and plans Ivins had.
- Ivins committed suicide shortly after it became apparent that he was becoming the primary target of the investigation. This is not proof that he was the perpetrator and some have claimed that the suicide was the result of anxiety caused by the investigation, which had hounded Ivins and questioned family members. Despite this, it is highly unusual for an innocent person to respond in such a manner and under most circumstances. Many suspects are eager to provide exonerating information and mount an aggressive defense. The fact that Ivins actions in absorbing into his own paranoia and then killing himself are so unusual and suspicious by itself does not prove anything, but it certainly does not help the case for his innocence.
Personally, I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Ivins was behind the attacks and probably acted alone. The bigger concern for me, however is how this portrays the state of bioweapons laboratories in the US. Why was such an unstable and troubled individual allowed to continue work that involved direct access to the materials? While I generally do not like the idea of the government monitoring the private lives of citizens, I think it’s entirely legitimate to expect those who are involved with such sensitive jobs to disclose their mental health issues and to have suspicions reported to supervisors. If there is any suspicion of instability, the individual should be given a research position that does not involve such direct access to materials.
Beyond this, I’m stunned that any person, regardless of clearance would be allowed to be the soul custodian of something as dangerous as weapons grade anthrax or that they would be allowed to come and go from their laboratory without authorization, at all hours of the day and night as they please. Samples of infectious diseases as potent as anthrax should be treated with the same precautions used for nuclear materials, priceless jewels or other sensitive items. The laboratories should be constantly monitored by CCTV and activities recorded. Samples of the material should be kept under lock and key and only allowed out for efficients experimental needs and with accountability and auditing down to the milligram or less. All activities in such a laboratory should be well documented and random inspections of materials, records and procedures should be done frequently.
To me it seems obvious that such measures are not only necessary but a matter of common sense. Inhaled anthrax is nearly 100% fatal and the material used in bioweapon research laboratories is especially potent and a serious matter of national security. But while I’m unsettled by the quality of laboratory security I think the FBI actually did a pretty damn good job on this investigation. It seems like all potential leads and suspects were followed to their end and the cost of the investigation was about fifteen million dollars, which really is not too bad for a seven year investigation of such enormous scope and with such complex forensic challenges.
Finally I’d like to thank Mr. Ivins for saving us all the hastle, expense and drama of a trial as well as the expense of housing him for the rest of his life or going through any long appeals process. I also appreciate being spared any drama-queen prison interviews on 60 minutes or having to deal with any other crap like that. For once, Ivins, you did the right thing and imposed the death penalty on yourself, saving everyone else the trouble. And no, I don’t see this as “escaping justice” or “avoiding being accountable.” As far as I’m concerned Ivins is no more a winner than Herman Goering was for being able to gag and choke on cyanide instead of going to the hangman as planned. Think you showed me Goering? Well, you didn’t, because you’re dead – you loose. The same goes for Harold Shipman. Dr. Shipman sure as hell wasn’t a champion as he hung by his undies in a prison cell.
Of course, Goering, Shipman and Ivins can’t actually hear my thanks, because they’re dead and the cease to be. It’s all rhetorical, which is exactly how it should be!
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 13th, 2008 at 9:37 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, History, Misc, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 14th, 2008 at 12:04 am
That is a very damning observation that security of weaponized pathogens is treated with indifference while solid radioactive waste which is much less hazardous is given full escort when moving in public.
I also feel no pity for Ivins, although from what we hear of conditions in the U.S. prison system, he probably did get off lightly.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
DV82XL said:
It seems pure insanity to me that something like weapons grade anthrax would be treated like this. I agree that any laboratory that handles something like that, which is something that is easy to turn into a weapon that is very deadly and could be grown into a large quantity from a small sample and ontop of that is so insecure. Someone with ill intent could do more harm with this than a few grams of plutonium!
I agree, the cultures should be kept in a vault and signed out for finite amounts of time for use in research and have records of why they are removed and when they are returned and if any is missing. They should any “hot lab” which uses this kind of thing should not be open to just one person’s casual comings and goings. They should be supervised and have to sign in and out and keep record of activities. There should be video cameras observing all the major areas.
Even banks use security procedures and cameras and record-keeping to make sure no one individual is ever responsible for a transfer of large amounts of cash for Christ sake!
I could make the case that biological weapons like this need to be treated with MORE supervision and caution than radioactive items. For one thing, all you have to do to keep radioactive material from walking away is send everyone through a portal monitor. Also, nobody is going to be able to sneak out something very acutely radioactive in their pocket without a big lead cask.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 12:21 am
I guess it’s not up to me to decide if he is guilty or not. That would be up to a jury except now it won’t be. Still, I’m pretty much 100% convinced it was him. I think the FBI did a very good job in being super thorough and checking this guy over many times and researching all the alternatives very well. They obviously did it and took their time because of what happened with Hatfill. They ****ed up on a big profile investigation and got caught. They knew eyes were on them and could not afford it again. It sounds like they are 100% confident of all the investigation and the evidence sounds very damning. Also, they’re being open about it and releasing it all as much as they can, which is the right thing to do.
The evidence sounds very very damning to me. Just the fact that he took an unscheduled day off and that he also was working late nights without being able to come to an explanation is VERY damning by itself when you consider they are pretty certain his lab was the one and only had a small number of people possibly able to get into it. Also, killing himself like that seems to seal the deal for me. He didn’t even proclaim his innocence or explain he just offed himself. Clearly this was a man capable of doing this.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 12:32 am
The evidence is more than compelling, it is extremely damning. People have been convicted on far less. I think when you consider the extent of the investigation into every possible source and how well they tied it to his lab and then look at him it’s air tight.
If every crime really did have evidence as conclusive as the killer’s fingerprints all over the body and a video tape of the killing from a security camera, then there would hardly be any use for courts and trails,
Good ridence!
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Good information. I did not know much about this but I read some of the articles you have linked and it has me well convinced. There are just a few actions by him that stick out as huge red flags especially when he was only one in a very few if they proved it was from his lab. It sounds like he was under their noses. I read the report of unsent letters in his house being found but I don’t think they released the contents yet. If it turns out they are the same as those sent and say stuff like “WE HAVE ANTHRAX ALLAH IS GREAT” then that will be the smoking gun. He’s guilty as sin though. They did their homework this time and made sure.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:13 am
“The location where the anthrax letters were mailed (Trenton, New Jersey) was only about a three hour drive from Fort Detrick. The FBI has not commented on whether they have any evidence placing Ivins in the vicinity at the time the envelopes were mailed. However, sources have indicated that Irvins took a somewhat unusual leave on the day the letters are believed to have been mailed, September 17 2001. Irvins came to work at the laboratory but only stayed a short time before signing out for the day without giving any reason. He returned late in the afternoon.”
Note that the FBI excludes the possibility he went to Princeton during the day. They say he would have had to make the 7 hour trip that night. See today’s Washington Post. Which means his wife would have had to known he was missing all that time (until after midnight). Are you suggesting she did?
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:15 am
“Searches of Ivins property found numerous guns, tasers, pepper spray, counter-survaliance equipment, ammunition, body armor, disguises and other suspicious items which may have been related to paranoid fears of attack or plans for an escape from authorities.”
Hatfill had a silencer.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:19 am
“The only samples which tested positive for this pattern of mutations were all directly related to a “large flask” of spores which had been developed by Irvins in 1997 and which he is described as having been in “sole custody” of.”
Yes. He had sole custody of the mixed strain in the flask and then it was given out on known occasions. (To 4 labs, I believe). 100 people are known to have access. If each of those 100 people grew it once, there would be 108 samples etc. I have sole custody of a bowl of strawberries until I walk around the room handing them out. Then if those strawberries are capable of self-replicating, you see the problem. He would have no reason to use the strain known to be associated with him. He was the “go-to” guy in the literature for the Ames strain.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:21 am
You point out his decontamination in 2002. He therefore had reason to be very upset and depressed. He destroyed evidence. He obstructed justice. It would be as if he was working in the FBI laboratory and they screwed around with the results. Very serious stuff indeed. He might have even committed suicide over the prospect of going to jail and having his career ruined all because he didn’t want Ft. Detrick to take any more bad press such as had mushroomed in 2002.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:26 am
You say his emails show a near obsession with the attacks. I’ve read all the emails and postings and it is not true.
His field and narrow specialty was defense against an anthrax attack. I would hope he would know that Ayman Zawahiri’s senior colleagues had threatened to use anthrax to retaliate for the rendering of its senior leaders. The one email that has been quoted on September 26, 2001. A man in a biohazard suit had been featured on the cover of TIME magazine. Articles had run in all the major press about the cropduster inquiries. To rely on the email as evidence of five capital murders is specious.
Instead, one should ask questions like: What does his wife say. Was he gone 7 hours on September 17, 2001? Attorney Keim has dropped the ball in not addressing this issue.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:30 am
The hero business by the Portland woman and the omnipotent comment by the estranged brother is right of the FBI’s profile handbook. When a Special Agent is not informed enough to know the details of the proper counterintelligence analysis, they fall back on the work of Special Agent Puckett’s study of serial killers handed in as her homework assignment in September 2001. What this case needed was counterintelligence expertise by CIA analysts, not folks more experienced at finding that the firefighter liked watching the fires.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:33 am
On profiling generally, Malcolm Gladwell, author of “Blink”, wrote an excellent article in the New Yorker last November debunking it. He quotes one study — well, I could never explain it as well as he did.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
You know, it’s possible for this all to be put in one comment.
I don’t know that his wife knew he was away or not. Clearly the man was prone to late nights out at the lab or elsewhere and complained about his home life.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Again, it seems you will eat whatever your government tells you and assume it is true then congratulate them for a job well done. Think about the fact that if they could not find the perpetrator (or even if they were the perpetrator) the way to appease the public would be to find someone to pin the blame on and show as the suspect. The ideal way to do this is to have all the evidence ready and then all of a sudden have the man die just like that. His death makes it seem all the more convincing and now he cannot defend himself and it will never see a trial.
They did this before, you know. Haven’t you ever heard of a man named Lee Harvey Oswald?
Do some research and don’t be so quick to believe everything you hear from the powers that be.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
DV82XL said:
The accountability for radioactive sources tends to be extremely high. All the things mentioned here from vaults to cctv to security clearance generally apply and then some in any government facility. I think that there seems to be a big concern about it on all levels. The first thing that comes to mind of a politician when it comes to securing something are radioactive substances. It’s hard for me to imagine going into a laboratory and walking out with one in the manner that is apparently possible with anthrax. I don’t think anyone with any clearance would be able to have that kind of casual access.
Radioactive has become such a buzzword for dangerous and scary and it is such a big deal for any problems that it seems to have encouraged tight control to the point of being unnecessarily tight in some circumstances. Those who run the facilities understand that even a tiny error like sending a small amount of a radio nucleotide to the wrong destination will be a big deal and heads will roll. It’s entirely disproportionate though, because they sometimes apply unnecessary controls to small mostly harmless sources and may not have as extensive safeguards for more dangerous ones. It’s a bureaucratic thing so it depends on the circumstances.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Just for comparison, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulations prohibit the disclosure of location, routing and timing of shipments of nuclear materials, such as spent fuel.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
DV82X said:
I am not sure what the actual regulations are involving whether or not you can disclose the routing location or shipping of spent fuel or other nuclear materials but many of the locations are common knowledge. People know that there is nuclear material at Pantex, ORNL, LANL, nuclear power plants and so on. I’m sure in Canada everyone is aware that there is nuclear material at nuclear material at nuclear power plants and also at places like Chalk River.
One thing I do know is that any weapons or weapons-grade material shipped in the US is not commented on. When they do ship a weapon it may be obvious. When the navy sends a nuclear-tipped missile to be placed in a submarine, it travels in a big truck surrounded by a convoy of security. They will not confirm or deny that it is a nuclear weapon but everyone knows that a large cylinder sent to a submarine base with that kind of security is a nuclear missile.
I honestly don’t know what the regulations would be for something like spent fuel. We have not shipped civilian spent fuel in many years.
I imagine Canada takes precautions like the US and most other countries do when they ship anything radioactive.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
George Cross said:
Yeah, that was the loser who shot JFK out of a desire to do something with his life and then he got shot by Jack Ruby, another loose cannon who wanted to be part of history. He’s also the guy all the conspiracy theorists say must have been the fall guy for a big plot.
What about him?
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
An Actual Scientist said:
AECL uses dry cask system that have been designed for truck and rail transport and Canada’s regulatory body granted approval for barge shipments as well, however this has not been done in practice to date. These casks are also used in the three above-ground dry storage facilities now operating. The y are known as Castor Containers, an acronym for “cask for storage and transport of radioactive material.
Security, as I mentioned above is largely a function of secrecy. The number of people aware of any movement, the cargo, its route, and its timing are compartmentalized. This has system worked very well for us, and to the best of my knowledge no shipment has been interdicted by ether criminals or protests.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
DV82XL said:
I don’t know that the whole spent-fuel shipping thing has been entirely worked out in terms of protocol. It should have been by now but it seems like it’s perpetually up in the air and in limbo what with Yucca mountain so far behind and it seems every damn aspect of the project is being stalled by every kind of 11th hour appeal and tactic you can imagine.
In general though, I do not believe military materials or waste that is shipped is released to the public ahead of time, but when it is transported there is generally extraordinary security. This is not just for spent fuel shipping but any radioactive material used in government research is handled with very high standards for security – far far beyond the apparent casual attitude that is reported in the bio labs where scientists can walk in at any hour and borrow equipment and do as they wish without much control of the material.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 12:16 am
@ An Actual Scientist: Haven’t you expressed some hard feelings for government science programs or stuff you’ve done not being appreciated? Should we be concerned???
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I’m usually very skeptical of the government’s word but the evidence does seem overwhelming. I know there is more evidence out there like what they found in his house and what his family members said in interviews and it is under seal because of the investigation and will need a court order to be made public. I understand that the documents have been put in to get more unsealed and made public and the wheels seem to be turning. The FBI has an opportunity to fix that black eye they got in the past investigation and they should by making it all public. Good information.
Quote Comment
August 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Q said:
Certainly not! No, doing something like harming others to try to make one’s job more important is inexcusable and I’d never consider it.
Let me also explain that I’m not angry at the government or at anyone in any way. Yes, it is true that I have expressed some frustration about policies, but it’s not a personal thing that I ever feel I am being attacked or the government is out to get me or my job or anything.
It is frustrating to see the government terminate a program when it has made great progress and at the same time fund something that is all but useless. It is frustrating to see that some course of action is taken when it’s 180 degrees away from what the research indicates is the best course of action. It’s frustrating to see the government overpay for something or put the wrong people in charge of something or start-stop-start-stop a program which could be over more quickly and cheaply if they would just make up their mind.
However, I need to stress something and that is that this is where I have taken off my scientist hat and put on my “Joe Taxpayer” or “Mister Public” hat. I don’t let this change my work because I value and understand the importance of objective science and I would not want to compromise that.
The other thing is that I get personal satisfaction and it does not matter that much to me that I receive awards or attention. I enjoy the fact that I get mental stimulation and constantly learn something new and solve problems. Recognition is nice and appreciated but it’s not something I feel starved for.
I’ll also say that while I admit that there have been times when it gets personal and I do get a sense of having my own credibility or honesty attacked, but this has only happened on a few very rare and small occasions generally when I made the mistake of trying to answer some questions by some politically opposed groups. I do not take any offense to having my work questioned or my data invalidated. If it turns out that someone else has a better way of doing things then I’m perfectly happy to learn that things have progressed past what I have done. There have been times when other things were displaced inpart by work I did.
If I am wrong about something and it is scientifically proven that I am, then I accept this and I appreciate that things have been fixed.
This guy was not at all comparable to a level-headed scientist who had a few quibbles about funding or procedure. This guy was a vindictive, paranoid, obsessive individual who apparently though he was justified in taking things into his own hands and going beyond the role of researcher.
Quote Comment