Los Alamos Replies

The article "Cruel Wind From The North For Los Alamos" that appeared in the October 17 issue of The Scientist (page 2) probably provided a service to your readers in bringing a sensitive and interesting issue to their attention. The Canadian government has approached the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) seeking $75 million to assist in the construction of a "kaon factory" in Vancouver, British Columbia. The Canadians are also seeking financial support from other countries interested in this area of research. Their proposal would use the present TRIUMF cyclotron as the injector stage of the proposed facility. The DOE and NSF have asked their Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) to provide input in formulating a response to the Canadian request. NSAC thereupon established a subcommittee that must assess, among other considerations, the impact of supporting the Canadian endeavor on present activities at the Los Alamos and Brookhaven National Laboratories. The Los Alamos National Laboratory proposes to construct a scientifically broadly based facility using the existing Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF) accelerator as its injector. Both the Canadian and Los Alamos proposals have the capability of providing a hundredfold increase in the intensity of certain meson and hadron beams over those available today. Although I feel you did a service in bringing this situation to a wider audience, the actual content of the article is wanting. As director of LAMPF I do not "fear that their operation may fall victim to the Energy Department's desire to attract international partners for the superconducting supercollider." It is the stated policy of the DOE to separate the costs of SSC construction from adversely impacting other areas of science. I believe that statement and, hence, do not fear that future projects crucial to the development of nuclear physics will be traded away for the SSC. Next, the quote ascribed to me, "there is really only room for one," is at complete variance with my view. The question of how many facilities are required is a detailed question having to do with scientific opportunity coupled with the costs and capabilities of the proposed facilities. Perhaps the confusion arises because your article implies that the scientific program to be pursued at the proposed facility is only high-energy physics. The high-energy physics community has an interest in aspects of the research to be carried out, but the research community most concerned about the future existence of this capability is the nuclear physics community. Indeed, as my opening paragraph states, this is the community in the United States being asked to formulate the response and to presumably provide the support. Thus, the issue of how many facilities are required goes far beyond the perspective of the high-energy physics community. The Los Alamos proposal addresses future needs in nuclear science, and also provides a world-class pulsed-neutron spallation source for forefront research in condensed-matter physics. Your article further suggests that the Canadians could complete construction of their project by 1993. I have never heard of such an early completion date from any of their responsible spokespersons. The Canadian government is not scheduled to decide whether or not to proceed until the end of calendar year 1989. It is not credible, given what we know about the technical difficulties of building such a machine as well as the magnitude of the project, that they could complete it by 1993. A completion date of 1995 pushes credibility to the limit without being ridiculous. I would be happy to be corrected on this matter because it would indicate that several difficult problems have been solved. I know of no basis for the statement, "it appears likely that only the Canadians will get the nod from DOE." It could be that your reporters have access to better information than is available to me, but I doubt it. Good reporting, especially on such a sensitive issue, requires that one refrain from such unwarranted and gratuitous inferences. GERALD T. GARVEY Director of LAMPF Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, N.Mex. 87545 The completion date of 1993 for the Canadian project is the date anticipated by David Henderson, director general of the Canadian Ministry of Science. Our conclusion that "it appears likely that only the Canadians will get the nod from DOE" represents a consensus that emerged from interviews with more than a dozen scientists at LAMPF and at universities that work with LAMPF. - The Editors

Los Alamos Replies

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of