Tuesday, February 06, 2007
They're gonna f*ck Sandia now, too ! ! !
James W. Brosnan/Albuquerque Tribune Reporter, Tuesday, February 6, 2007
WASHINGTON — The head of the National Nuclear Security Administration said today he is strongly considering expanding a program of random drug testing for employees at security-plagued Los Alamos National Laboratory to all employees at all NNSA facilities, including Sandia National Laboratories.
"This makes sense to me," acting NNSA Administrator Tom D'Agostino told the Tribune after an NNSA budget briefing.
But he said he first wants to evaluate the drug testing program at Los Alamos, which was only initiated last year after a secretary was arrested during a drug bust and found to be in possession of classified and unclassified documents on a flash drive.
The director at Los Alamos, Michael Anastasio, also began drug testing all new hires at the lab, not just those who work in secure areas.
Sandia has always had drug testing for new employees, but follow-up drug screening is limited to drivers and certain other employees in sensitive areas, said Sandia spokeswoman Stephanie Holinka.
At hearings in the House last week on security problems at Los Alamos, some members of Congress were surprised to learn that drug testing is not already required at the eight NNSA labs and plants.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told the House Armed Services Committee last week that he expects to look at expanding drug testing throughout the weapons lab complex. The budget President Bush sent to Congress on Monday calls for a 17.4 percent increase in spending at NNSA on physical and cyber security.
D'Agostino told the Tribune he would make the decision on drug testing at NNSA facilities in consultation with Bodman.
D'Agostino also reporters today that they are well underway with efforts to seal all open computer ports at NNSA facilities either through changes in software or physically sealing USB and Firewire ports.
© 2006 The Albuquerque Tribune
[Insanity spreads like bird flu. But there are voices of moderation at Sandia, like retired physicist Alan Zelicoff; yes, people actually speak out; see attached.
A former Sandia scientist who fought against random polygraph testing at the laboratory said random drug testing is "another foolish decision" and "worse than worthless." Dr. Alan Zelicoff, a physicist with a medical degree, predicted that up to 10 percent of the employees at the labs will trigger positive results on drug tests because of anti-depressants or other legitimate prescriptions. Zelicoff opposed the polygraph tests initiated by Gov. Bill Richardson, who was energy secretary in 1999. Zelicoff left Sandia in 2003 and now works for a medical software company and does consulting. Zelicoff said he supports drug testing of new hires and "for cause," when a manager detects suspicious or erratic behavior in an employee. He said the managers of the labs are trying to avoid the risk of being sued by testing all employees for drugs.
I need to change my ethic so that I can take joy in being an evil creep. Maybe LANS can give courses in it, eh?
I get the feeling that LANS came in here with a real attitude of "Us vs. Them." That's their primary achievement so far, IMO.
Yeah, right, Bill! "Campus-like" is exactly the phrase I'd choose to describe Los Alamos National Laboratory ... (Tee-hee. Snort! It's about as tough to keep a straight face when thinking about LANL's "campus-like atmosphere" as it was for Richardson when Mike Wallace interviewed him about how he, Bill, was just trying his very hardest to protect Wen Ho Lee's reputation.)
I'd like to know which anti-depressants can do this? I was taking two anti-depressants when tested for drugs and all results for the drugs tested came in at 0. The drugs tested for included pot, meth, alcohol, pcp, coke and a few others I don't recall.
Anyone have knowledge of someone in a program currently requiring drug testing that got the boot for a real false positive?
Nevertheless, like the man said, everyone or no one, or else LANS is just inviting a lawsuit.
As long as the test is done at a NIDA-certified (or whatever the subsequent organization it) lab, getting screwed by a false positive is very, very, remote.
I would be far more worried about a "Fitness for Duty" investigation, where the boys from Ten Thousand Waves can pull your badge because they don't like your attitude.
Chemistry is real, "attitude" is arbitrary.
You are a TRUE BELIEVER! 'Admirable'!
I still worry about anyone who TRULY BELIEVES that "Chemistry is real, 'attitude' is arbitrary."
My attitude as a Libertarian Dog is pretty solid. -Regardless of my "chemistry."
Also, I'm a true, patriotic AMERICAN dog, if that counts for anything, anymore. And if my rights as an American dog mean anything to anybody.
--Pat, a true, blue heeler (mix, not purebred)
.. riiiiiight ..
.. since everyone is "guilty until proven guilty", testing positive simply "proves" that you're a stinking druggie and no one will listen to a stinking druggie anyway so it proves that our tests are never, ever wrong!! .. see!!
By the way I understand that it is not a wise idea to use pot and heavy machinary at the
same time, however, a good Berkely
education shows that fine weed and fine science can sometimes go hand and hand.
Some new kind of designer drug "avaiable" from some kind of dispenser "machinary" in "Berkely"?
(Or, hey duude, maybe that should read "dezyner" drug? Y'know, man?)