6 ms·

They keep saying that profit seeking was the issue, but taking selfies with plutonium, running a lab for 4 years that produces nothing, and not having any emplo

They keep saying that profit seeking was the issue, but taking selfies with plutonium, running a lab for 4 years that produces nothing, and not having any employees that don't understand the most basics of nuclear physics does not sound like profit seeking. It sounds like someone just has way too much money and runs a nuclear weapons lab as vanity project.

xeromal 4y ago
In the article, it looks like the public workers before the buyout were also careless so it sounds like people who work around dangerous plutonium just become careless over time.
heavyset_go 4y ago
If you continued to read the article, you'd see that there was a culture of throwing caution to the wind to increase productivity at not only that lab, but other nuclear facilities around the world. Hell, the article even went on to say that workers at the facility even came up with a euphemism for orders that ignored basic safety protocols, they called them "Bubba said" orders. And the article said that after those criticality events, those in charge of the facility and safety of personnel just had people keep working instead of evacuating.
- ars 4y ago
  > And the article said that after those criticality events, those in charge of the facility and safety of personnel just had people keep working instead of evacuating. And how exactly did they convince those employees to keep working? The employees are not making extra for not following rules, do people really just not care about their lives? (I don't for a second believe someone working in a nuclear lab would be unaware of criticality, so ignorance can't be the explanation.)
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    There is a very gung ho culture in labs about safety. It slows you down to do things right and when it comes to reviews the cowboys (and girls) who do things wrong but fast get better reviews because they get more done. Nuclear labs kill the people inside them at worst. Bio labs ... Well there's a reason why I think covid was the worst lab accident in human history.
    - bumby 4y ago
      I’m not sure why you’ve been downvoted but this is a very prevalent attitude at hazardous facilities that are run by contractors. In particular, when the hazards are relatively low probability events and there are perverse incentives to roll the dice in the name of productivity. In a previous job in a hazardous facility, I’ve had very senior managers sit me down to tell me I don’t want to get the reputation for slowing things down by enforcing safety rules. I’m personally glad I’ve moved on with my career.
      - rdtwo 4y ago
        I think this is universal. The safety rules go so overboard that the critical ones get ignored with the stupid ones because employees don’t know which ones are the important ones. If everything is critical nothing is
        bumby 4y ago
        This is very true. At a certain point, management needs to be willing to prioritize what safety requirements they are willing to endorse. The worst of both worlds is when leadership isn't willing to formally do so, but push an informal culture to ignore safety rules. It’s worse when it’s low probability but high severity risks. Sometimes something that is critical but low probability is more easily conflated with not being a legitimate risk. I dog think it’s telling that the article made it seem like the entire safety team quit en-masse
        s0rce 4y ago
        This is major issue in my experience. Even introducing new benign chemicals can lead to lengthy reviews and project delays. I've also found that when I've asked directly how to safely handle something the safety people don't have an answer and end up with an extremely conservative approach that doesn't appear to be driven by actual risks (severity or probability).
  - borski 4y ago
    I didn’t for a second believe someone working in a nuclear lab would have brought together that many high purity plutonium rods in close proximity, but apparently I was wrong.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - concordDance 4y ago
    > do people really just not care about their lives? Nuclear in general is very over regulated and over safety conscious. This leads to many pointless or overly cautious rules, which slow things down and lead to people ignoring ALL the rules, including th important ones.
- ars 4y ago
  > other nuclear facilities ... "Bubba said" orders Right, those Bubba said order are from a different lab, not the "profit motive" Los Alamos one.
  - bumby 4y ago
    The lab that quip was from is managed and operated by for-profit contractors. I believe the intent was to relate how common it is to make safety shortcuts to boost productivity. With that said, I'm not sure it call all be attributed to a profit motive. The article also states that this lab was historically the best funded and generally considered above scrutiny, which led to a culture of arrogance.
- rdtwo 4y ago
  Doesn’t that happen in every manufacturing or dangerous environment? I always assumed the bubba said or similar euphemisms exist everywhere
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    If true, that sounds like a serious indictment of manufacturing power sources with the ability to destroy a good portion of the Earth. That does remind me of the incident where a technician dropped a socket off a wrench and quite nearly detonated a 9 megaton bomb in Arkansas.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      This type of thing is common in all industries - so much so that one way that railroad workers would strike is to “work to rule” - follow every single safety regulation to a T causing productivity to plummet. Many safety rules can be summed up as “don’t be a dumbass” but trying to proceduralize that can be difficult. It’s part of the reason nuclear stuff is so expensive - you have to work to rule every single time.
      - rdtwo 4y ago
        They typically end up written in such a way that no work can be done if rules are followed
        bombcar 4y ago
        Yep - there’s no compiler and the workers are basically forced to be there interpreter and deal with contradictory or impossible rules.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        Indeed, if memory serves, the incident I mentioned above was somewhat attributed to an old rubber buffer that was supposed to be pressed against the ICBM - by regulation, it should have been replaced due to age but wasn't, and it was dry and cracked so it did not form a good seal which allowed the socket to fall through. That failure to follow regulation caused the (non-nuclear) explosion of an ICBM, killed a person and injured others, and nearly caused a nuclear explosion on US soil. I suppose it should be expensive.

xeromal 4y ago

In the article, it looks like the public workers before the buyout were also careless so it sounds like people who work around dangerous plutonium just become careless over time.

heavyset_go 4y ago

If you continued to read the article, you'd see that there was a culture of throwing caution to the wind to increase productivity at not only that lab, but other nuclear facilities around the world. Hell, the article even went on to say that workers at the facility even came up with a euphemism for orders that ignored basic safety protocols, they called them "Bubba said" orders. And the article said that after those criticality events, those in charge of the facility and safety of personnel just had people keep working instead of evacuating.

ars 4y ago
> And the article said that after those criticality events, those in charge of the facility and safety of personnel just had people keep working instead of evacuating. And how exactly did they convince those employees to keep working? The employees are not making extra for not following rules, do people really just not care about their lives? (I don't for a second believe someone working in a nuclear lab would be unaware of criticality, so ignorance can't be the explanation.)
- thrown_22 4y ago
  There is a very gung ho culture in labs about safety. It slows you down to do things right and when it comes to reviews the cowboys (and girls) who do things wrong but fast get better reviews because they get more done. Nuclear labs kill the people inside them at worst. Bio labs ... Well there's a reason why I think covid was the worst lab accident in human history.
  - bumby 4y ago
    I’m not sure why you’ve been downvoted but this is a very prevalent attitude at hazardous facilities that are run by contractors. In particular, when the hazards are relatively low probability events and there are perverse incentives to roll the dice in the name of productivity. In a previous job in a hazardous facility, I’ve had very senior managers sit me down to tell me I don’t want to get the reputation for slowing things down by enforcing safety rules. I’m personally glad I’ve moved on with my career.
    - rdtwo 4y ago
      I think this is universal. The safety rules go so overboard that the critical ones get ignored with the stupid ones because employees don’t know which ones are the important ones. If everything is critical nothing is
      - bumby 4y ago
        This is very true. At a certain point, management needs to be willing to prioritize what safety requirements they are willing to endorse. The worst of both worlds is when leadership isn't willing to formally do so, but push an informal culture to ignore safety rules. It’s worse when it’s low probability but high severity risks. Sometimes something that is critical but low probability is more easily conflated with not being a legitimate risk. I dog think it’s telling that the article made it seem like the entire safety team quit en-masse
      - s0rce 4y ago
        This is major issue in my experience. Even introducing new benign chemicals can lead to lengthy reviews and project delays. I've also found that when I've asked directly how to safely handle something the safety people don't have an answer and end up with an extremely conservative approach that doesn't appear to be driven by actual risks (severity or probability).
- borski 4y ago
  I didn’t for a second believe someone working in a nuclear lab would have brought together that many high purity plutonium rods in close proximity, but apparently I was wrong.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- concordDance 4y ago
  > do people really just not care about their lives? Nuclear in general is very over regulated and over safety conscious. This leads to many pointless or overly cautious rules, which slow things down and lead to people ignoring ALL the rules, including th important ones.
ars 4y ago
> other nuclear facilities ... "Bubba said" orders Right, those Bubba said order are from a different lab, not the "profit motive" Los Alamos one.
- bumby 4y ago
  The lab that quip was from is managed and operated by for-profit contractors. I believe the intent was to relate how common it is to make safety shortcuts to boost productivity. With that said, I'm not sure it call all be attributed to a profit motive. The article also states that this lab was historically the best funded and generally considered above scrutiny, which led to a culture of arrogance.
rdtwo 4y ago
Doesn’t that happen in every manufacturing or dangerous environment? I always assumed the bubba said or similar euphemisms exist everywhere
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  If true, that sounds like a serious indictment of manufacturing power sources with the ability to destroy a good portion of the Earth. That does remind me of the incident where a technician dropped a socket off a wrench and quite nearly detonated a 9 megaton bomb in Arkansas.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    This type of thing is common in all industries - so much so that one way that railroad workers would strike is to “work to rule” - follow every single safety regulation to a T causing productivity to plummet. Many safety rules can be summed up as “don’t be a dumbass” but trying to proceduralize that can be difficult. It’s part of the reason nuclear stuff is so expensive - you have to work to rule every single time.
    - rdtwo 4y ago
      They typically end up written in such a way that no work can be done if rules are followed
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Yep - there’s no compiler and the workers are basically forced to be there interpreter and deal with contradictory or impossible rules.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      Indeed, if memory serves, the incident I mentioned above was somewhat attributed to an old rubber buffer that was supposed to be pressed against the ICBM - by regulation, it should have been replaced due to age but wasn't, and it was dry and cracked so it did not form a good seal which allowed the socket to fall through. That failure to follow regulation caused the (non-nuclear) explosion of an ICBM, killed a person and injured others, and nearly caused a nuclear explosion on US soil. I suppose it should be expensive.