Re: Braidwood letter to P5, etc.

From: Hans Jostlein (
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 13:26:58 CDT

Hi, Ed et al.

It is a good letter.
I would agree with those who suggested to remove the reference to China and
This would be just an assumption on our part and does not support the main
thesis of the letter.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Blucher" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:58 AM
Subject: Braidwood letter to P5, etc.

> 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.
> Thanks.
> Mike and Ed
> Dear P5 Committee Members:
> We are sincerely disappointmented by the recent decision to deny
> both the Braidwood and Double-Chooz experiments research and
> development funds to evaluate a future reaction 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 physical and technical merits of a given
> experiment. Society additionally requires that such projects be
> carried out in a cost-effective manner. The importance of improved
> US-China relations should not overide these two principles. 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.
> Sincerely,
> The Braidwood Collaboration

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