Yucca Mountain Science Questioned...Scientists Allegedly Falsified Data... Read Excerpts Here4/5/2005
 Recently, information was released by the Department of Energy that suggest Federal employees falsified data regarding the safety of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project. As a result, Gibbons said, "It is imperative that Congress take action, initiate its own investigation, and halt this project in it tracks."
As the sole geologist in Congress who has continually questioned the DOE’s claim that a high level nuclear repository could be safely built at Yucca Mountain, Congressman Gibbons understands the painstaking process of ensuring that your data is collected and analyzed correctly and sometimes you get frustrated with this process. However, never do you falsify or manipulate your data to get a desired result.
On April 5th, Gibbons participated at a Congressional hearing held by fellow Nevadan Congressman Jon Porter and testified, “It seems clear to me that not only is the science with regards to this project compromised, but I fear the greater problem is the atmosphere of pushing forward --no matter what the evidence says-- and opening Yucca Mountain at any cost."
“These most recent allegations of false documentation and fabricated scientific evidence are so serious that the FBI is now conducting its own investigation into the matter,” added Gibbons. “Public safety has been and always will be the central focus of debate over the Yucca Mountain. Any allegations alluding to improprieties in the handling and gathering of scientific evidence that could eventually jeopardize the health and safety of the people of Nevada must not be handled lightly.”
Below are some of the emails that now put into question the integrity of the Yucca Mountain project. (emphasis added and blanks are redacted by federal officials due to the ongoing investigation)
• E-mail from presumed Federal employee (PFE) to 6 PFE’s dated 04/03/1998: “I have some maybe bad and maybe good news that you should be aware of….There are some implications that I did not realize until I talked them over with PFE yesterday: basically, either our infiltration model is wrong or our __ flow model is wrong or both.”
• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed USGS employee 2 dated 05/11/1998: “Still don’t know quite how to handle the air temp glitch. I’m continuing to keep mum about this, but, from a scientific integrity standpoint, it is tempting to let the end users know exactly what was provided to them in terms of effectively cooler future climate simulations. Problem is, I don’t know how to do this without looking bad.”
• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed USGS employee 2 dated 12/17/1998 06:57PM: “The work plan __ has put together as a result of the meeting this week includes model hand-offs….We’re not sure how smoothly this is going to go but this is the approach. Like you’ve said all along, YMP (Yucca Mountain Project) has now reached a point where they need to have certain items work no matter what, and the infiltration maps are on that list. If USGS can’t find a way to make it work, _____ will (but for now they are definitely counting on us to do the job). I can no longer wait for USGS to figure this out; I’m moving ahead according to the __/______ work plan we put together this week.”
• E-mail from presumed USGS employee 2 to USGS employee 1 dated 12/17/1998 11:47:08 PM: “I agree with your analysis. We only win if we get the final product out.” “The bottom line is forget about the money, we need a product or we’re screwed and will take the blame..."
• E-mail from presumed USGS employee 2 to USGS employee 1 dated 4/2/1999: “Science by peer pressure is dangerous but sometime [SIC] it is necessary.”
• E-mail from USGS employee 1 to presumed Federal employee (PFE) dated 3/30/2000: “The programs, of course, are all already installed otherwise the ___ would not exist. I don’t have a clue when these programs were installed. So I’ve made up the dates and names (see red edits below). This is as good as its going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff, as long as its not a video recording of the software being installed.”
Back to Issues |
