Re: Braidwood letter to P5, etc.

From: Richard K. Yamamoto (
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 11:42:23 CDT

Dear All,

     I think this is a great start. I've checked some typos and added a
few words of my own. Charcters to be deleted are surrounded by ( ) and
those that I've added are surrounded by [ ].

Best regards,


On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Ed Blucher wrote:

Dear Braidwood,
    Here is a draft note to P5, largely based on a letter from Joe
Formaggio. Please send comments by 4 pm today. We sill send a revised
version to P5, probably with copies to HEPAP and NuSAG committee members.


Mike and Ed

Dear P5 Committee Members:

     We are sincerely disappoint(ment)ed by the recent decision to deny
both the Braidwood and Double-Chooz experiments research and
development funds to evaluate a future react(ion)[or] neutrino
experiment. Our discomfort in the decision imposed on the two
collaborations stems not from the decision of whether one experiment is
funded over the other: each collaboration presents a strong case for
making the measurement. Our discomfort lies in the pre-emptive decision
made by choosing one experiment without a proper technical and
cost-analysis review of any of the experiments. It is the mandate of the
community that decisions of funding be based on both merit and cost. This
indeed was the recommendation of the NUSAG report. The recent decision,
however, completely disregards this approach, as the decision was made
before any proper technical/cost review was carried out.

It is imperative that the scientific community ensure that we do the
best science based on the physic(al)[s] and technical merits of a given
experiment. (Society additionally requires) [The broader community
expects] that such projects be carried out in a cost-effective manner.
The importance of improved US-China relations should not overide these two
principles [and the sacrifice of good science should not be overlooked in
these negotiations]. We believe the recent decision by the DOE to bypass
this process is a bad precedent for our community. We request that the
decision regarding reactor experiments be reconsidered, and that the
original cost/technical assessment be used as the judge of which
experiment should be carried forward. [Many man-years of hard work have
been put in by committee and panel members, the APS, and certainly by the
researchers themselves, all working to get the best science for the
Taxpayers' money].

The Braidwood Collaboration

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Apr 18 2006 - 03:10:19 CDT