Conflicts of Interest/Disclosure
Is the Nuclear Engineering Department funded in part by the NRC, DOE or nuclear power industry (vis a vis grants, etc)? Has anyone on this project/monitoring team worked for nuclear power plant operators in the past or does anyone intend to in the future?
Thanks in advance for the full disclosure.
bump.......also, at noon
bump.......also, at noon today, please pray. It's a global effort for all to pray for Japan and the Pacific Ocean water.....if you miss NOON then pray anyway.
Still waiting for official response from UCB team on this one...
The original post asks simply for disclosure about funding for the Nuclear Engineering Department as a whole and whether "anyone on this project/monitoring team worked for nuclear power plant operators in the past or does anyone intend to in the future?"
We know from Google that Professor Chivers operated a reactor for 6 years while serving the country in the Navy (http://igcc.ucsd.edu/cprograms/PPNT/IGERTfellows03.php) and that he's given instruction on naval nuclear plant operation & maintenance at the Idaho National Labratory (http://bnrc.berkeley.edu/bnrc-researchers/dr-dan-chivers).
It would be great to get full disclosure here since I would imagine that anyone whose career depends on nuclear power as viable energy source probably has at least some inherent bias about defending the safety of the technology. I certainly could be wrong but it's interesting that this question still hasn't been answered.
The only response I've seen was a more limited comment by Professor Chivers on another thread (http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2234):
"Well put, Joe . . . I hope everyone on this forum understand our only interest to to provide the public with clear answers about what we are measuring and what it means. We are not funded through any government agency for doing this work and we are not directed by anyone pertaining to what we release and what we are testing . . . We are nuclear scientists and engineers and not health physicists, so frankly, we should step back from making any further health risk estimates other than what we have presented. Our calculations and assumptions are transparent and we understand that some may have issue with how we present the data. Please understand that we are trying our hardest to maintain a level of balance and honesty within our reporting."
It's pretty clear (at least in my mind) that there's no outside influence on the data here and that we're extremely fortunate that the team is willing to work so tirelessly to provide this data. As I recall from another previous post by Professor Chivers, members of the team live in Northern California, have children, etc so they also have an interest in any adverse health effects here.
All that being said (and absent a statement to the contrary from the team) I would imagine that some of the folks here would reasonably anticipate working for the nuclear power industry in the future and would view any sort of massive change in public policy against the nuclear power industry as problematic from a career perspective.
My best guess as to what the response will be (whenever they get to it) will be that some members of the department have in the past (and may in the future) work in the nuclear power industry but that any statements that have been made in this forum regarding potential health risks from the radiation levels detected are made solely in their capacity as scientists and concerned citizens and based on available literature.
I look forward to hearing from the team on this one.
Thanks again for reporting this data.
Ok, here you go: We are
Ok, here you go: We are funded primarily within our group by DHS for basic research of radiation detection systems that would be used to detect objects such as dirty bombs or materials that would be used to make dirty bombs. This research involves a great deal of work in trying to detect trace levels of radiation within a complex and varying natural radioactive environments. The nuclear engineering department does not act like a corporation so other professors are independent and are funded differently than us. There is not a chain of command here other than within our own groups.
As far as my previous work, I was a qualified naval nuclear reactor operator for 6 years prior to entering Berkeley. This gives me a unique perspective on how reactors operate and radiation in general as I have been qualified to work in high radiation areas since that time. Currently, I do not have any affiliation with DOD. I have also never been affiliated nor received any funding with any nuclear industry corporations such as GE, General Atomics, Westinghouse, etc.., I hope this clears things up.
Also, most of our students
Also, most of our students are not bound for nuclear industry. Our students are geared towards research in the high energy physics, nuclear physics, medical imaging, and the national laboratories. There is absolutely no concern within our students that their research will be regarded as detrimental to their job prospects, just the opposite actually. We train our students to be able to understand at the greatest detail how to gain knowledge experimentally, and design optimal systems given the physics of a certain problem. We pride ourselves in our independence and we attract students that want to learn at a very high level and want to impact their world. This is a very special place and we would never let it be tainted by government or industrial intrusion.
Thanks
For taking time to outline all of that Professor Chivers--hope that you didn't take offense to the question.
Thank you for your candor. It is SO hard to trust ANY sources
of info and what you are doing is critically important for people like me with kids who have to make decisions based on what info we can glean from the media and government sources (which are woefuly inadequae at times).
It is natural to distrust the industry or those with vested interests and it is critical to f9ind resources like yours to provide hard data and analyses. While I trust the data you provide I also must say that the service you are proiding here is amazingly important and appreciated (even where I might bitch and moan about comparing ingestion of radionuclides to flying cross country, which the EPA and others still repeat over and over and it really hurst their credibility).
The rumor on this forum that there are those who want you to stop these discussions and the release of the info you have provided and the answers you provide sounds ridiculous but must be taken with some degree of possibility because for whatever reasons what you are doing is BETTER than anything else most of us can find anywhere to alleviate worry or get a proper perspective.
I myself worked in several capacities both in the industry and outside it in government and as a private citizen on safety issues and regulation. The industry is deep and powerful in manipulating the info as the TEPCO situation has made absolutely clear.
Your candor is appreciated and PLEASE keep this forum and this public info going. I cannot express in words how important your work and this site are. Thanks to all of you. Keep open minds and keep your imaginations working as we who know too little and are dying for info and want to share and get perspectives from you folks NEED your expertise and your patience with us.
JST, UTC, EDT, PDT? Saying
JST, UTC, EDT, PDT? Saying noon is all relative.