While "Building boom on 'Hill' brings jobs, N-unease," the June 18 editorial about the construction program at Los Alamos National Laboratory, accurately describes the economic opportunity and controversy associated with the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Project, it's important to clarify the national security purpose of the replacement facility.

Contrary to the editorial's assertion, plutonium pit manufacturing operations have been, and will continue to be, performed at an existing facility known as the Plutonium Facility. CMRR will be a world-class working laboratory for the science of actinide elements, including plutonium and uranium. The CMRR facility will enable the laboratory to continue its contributions to maintaining and certifying the U.S. nuclear stockpile while sustaining the moratorium on nuclear testing. Further, it will support work in counter-terrorism, nuclear forensics, and nonproliferation.

CMRR will better protect the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment, compared with the facility it replaces.



It's believed that the fix is on to trade off some of our state-owned land to accommodate a special-interest project (supposedly no zoning required) to design and build a Health and Human Services super complex. This site would cluster all HHS agencies, such as the Health and Social Services Division, Children Youth and Families Division, as well as the Department of Health. The complex would have an estimated 786,000 square feet of space — five times the size of the proposed Super Walmart directly across Interstate 25 and next to Nava Adé, Camino Carlos Rey and Richards Avenue, and all connecting to Rodeo Road.

There is a new Rail Runner stop proposed to serve this development. The new La Cienega railstop is 2.8 miles to the south. The Rail Runner stops across from the existing HHS buildings now, with very low use from employees. Why another? Why trade our state-owned land? Why pay retail dollar?



President Barack Obama says he will begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 2011, but some feel we should end this illegal and immoral war much sooner. This earlier withdrawal would make sense because our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan appear to have been about controlling natural gas pipelines, as well as of previously known resources such as lithium, gold, copper, etc. The pipeline scenario has been well served by both Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who worked deals with Afghanistan during their tenures with Halliburton and Chevron, respectively.

So how do we end the war? Some experts suggest stopping the killing immediately. End all combat operations. Stop the drone operations in Pakistan. Close all our bases in Afghanistan and begin complete withdrawal of all our troops. This all sounds simplistic, but seems better than another
$3 trillion war like the one in Iraq. We cannot afford all these wars.





I keep waiting for Congress to give the Minerals Management Service — the government entity with oversight that signed off on the BP "long string" well in the Gulf — a Tony Hayward-style grilling. I suspect it will be a long and fruitless wait. The government is not in the habit of devouring its own.