Sunday’s Associated Press report that the process for narrowing down sites for the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility was flawed certainly lends more power to opponents of locating the federal research facility in Athens.
From reading the story, it sounds like a Bush political appointee with the U.S Department of Homeland Security and certain members of Congress have bent the rules and acted capriciously in compiling the short list of possible NBAF sites. The First Dolt’s political flunky elevated a Mississippi community that scored a lower overall evaluation than nine other sites, including a second one in Athens.
It shouldn’t be hard to understand why some of the folks opposed to putting NBAF in Athens harbor a mistrust of the Bush administration and federal government bureaucracy.
The Athens anti-NBAF group have cited numerous reasons why they don’t want the high-security lab here, but one concern, and a valid one, is the human factor. No matter how secure a facility may be, the involvement of humans in the equation provides the risk, however small, of a breach. Now with the recent revelation of the Bush’s toady’s work, you have to wonder what other shortcuts might be under the radar.
Are there any NBAF supporters out there who find this latest story alarming or of concern?
- Don Nelson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Who IS running this asylum?
Well, I don't trust the Bush administration, and I especially don't trust any federal bureaucracy, but I don't see at all how the revelations about gaming the selection process affect the merits of the Athens site.
It's interesting that this Athens anti-NBAF folks didn't discover this monkeying around, the AP did. Of course, I'm sure that the anti's will milk it for all it's worth.
If the list hadn't been monkeyed with, the College Station Road site would have been higher, and the anti's would be making all the same outrageous claims about it.
So given the unique circumstances that Athens has two sites, the truncation of the list has nothing to do with the actual merits of Athens as a desirable site.
As to other "shortcuts under the radar", is that it? Just a generalized speculation that there might be some hobgoblins in the attic? I'm sure that it there are other shortcuts, the good people at the AP will ferret them out, or if not them, the local loonies will make some up.
Correction
The College Station and South Milledge sites had identical scores (90).
Apparently the SMA site was picked because of concerns about CSR's topography and construction at the USDA lab. More tomorrow.
I have to find myself in
I have to find myself in agreement w/ the ghost (a scarey place to be?). So there's politics involved in locating a multi-million dollar federal facility? I'm shocked to learn such a thing!
But there's a difference between the politicos in DC who make the decision on where to locate a facility and the Dept of Agriculture scientists who will actually be the ones doing the experiments. As a supporter of NBAF, I only find this unnerving in one sense: we'll have to listen to the anti-NBAF crowd get their collective panties in a wad about this, claiming it's a reason why the science isn't safe etc.
shocked I say
You're right that there is nothing really shocking about the role of politics in decision making, especially with the Bush league team running things. But the concern is that they doctored the numbers to include some and exclude others on the list. I have said earlier that I expected NBAF to go to Texas because of political pressure, but you would hope the sites were vetted by the rules and it came down to the decision makers choosing between comparable sites. Then political influence wouldn't be so horrendous. Regarding the second Athens site, I can't help but think it was taken out of play because there are so many residences near it.
The good news is that the
The good news is that the scores of other sites had to be doctored to match or exceed Athens'.
I never heard any serious
I never heard any serious discussion of the College Station Road site anyhow. I suspect the 'eliminated' sites had already been eliminated... What does seem new is that Plum Island is now seriously in the running, and it wasn't before. With the GAO report, the assurances by our bio-professionals that safety technology has gone way beyond any need to locate on an island, seem to have fallen flat...
"the assurances by our
"the assurances by our bio-professionals that safety technology has gone way beyond any need to locate on an island, seem to have fallen flat"
Not really. The only reason it's on Plum Island to begin with is because 50 years ago when the current facility was built that was the only way they knew how to prevent an outbreak of foot and mouth from spreading. Today we have much more complex and sophisticated facilities that can control outbreaks. If Plum Island is back in the running it's not because it's an island.