text:
Illinois Policy Institute Event features columnist Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune
The Illinois Policy Institute held a Policy Solutions 2010 Forum on Saturday, June 16, at the Holiday Inn in Willowbrook. A Continental Breakfast and Lunch were served.
The forum highlighted specific policy solutions that focused on empowering individuals, families, businesses, and taxpayers, solutions that have been proven to win.
Policy experts and politicians took part in the following four panel discussions:
Health Care Reform After Obamacare: What States Can Do.
Spending Limits: A Common-Sense Solution for the Budget.
Spotlight on Springfield: Transparency and Government Reform in Illinois.
30,000 Kids: The Fight for Education Reform.
Prior to the introduction of the Keynote Speaker, Dennis Byrne, Chicago Tribune columnist, CEO John Tillman informed the attendees of the growth which has taken place since he came to the Illinois Policy Institute three years ago – July 2, 2007. At that time the Illinois Policy Institute was a very small organization with only two employees. Now it has grown to fifteen, plus interns. Besides its Chicago office, another Illinois Policy Institute office is located in Springfield a few blocks from the Capitol. Executive Vice President Kristina Rasmussen heads the Springfield office.
Tillman described the Illinois Policy Institute as an organization that markets liberty-based public policy. He believes liberty-based policies are the best way to turn Illinois around, although it does take courage to remain firm. Of importance is to advocate why you feel as you do and why you feel your way is the better way.
In keeping with this spirit John Tillman introduced Dennis Byrne, indicating that he was the right Keynote Speaker for the Saturday Forum as he writes so well about freedom-based issues.
Dennis Byrne began by telling the gathering that all of us were in search of liberty and how it is found at the Illinois Policy Institute. Byrne told of the determination that publicly exists to change things, and that not only can things be changed, but they MUST be changed! In speaking about the massive debt, Byrne reminded all how a few years ago a trillion was never mentioned. Now it's a trillion here and a trillion there.
Byrne indicated that Public Sector Unions are the biggest in obstacle in obtaining liberty. Opposition to the Chicago Walmart was given as an example of union opposition.
Byrne then went on to tell how a job in the public sector union used to pay less, but after the person retired the rewards compensated for the underpayment while employed. A similar job in the private sector now pays 1/3 more, along with very generous pension benefits. Illinois has seven state pension funds with $80 billion in unfunded pensions.
How did all this come about? Denns Byrne attributed it to the ability of unions to strike for higher pensions and higher wages. Directing his remarks to the powerful Chicago Teachers' Union (CTU). Byrne first told about the union's opposition to vouchers. Presently the CTU is demanding a reduction of class size and that 200 of the lowest performing teachers not be fired first. Firing, according to the union, must be in line with its approved tenure policy. And even though the Education Board has the legal right to raise class size, the CTU is standing firmly against any increase in class size.
The president of the CTU has called it audacious to treat teachers in such a shabby way, but what is more reprehensible than the current $800 million education deficit? Does the union have a way to find the $800 million?
Although children are often cited as the beneficiaries of union demands, Byrne indicated how a closer look at motivation tells another story. There is fear that younger, better, and more enthusiastic teachers would be hired at lower pay. In times past teachers used to look out for one another. They were willing to sacrifice for the common good. This behavior has been replaced with statements such as "I've earned it" and "don't you dare touch my pension."
In closing, Byrne offered political candidates in attendance this advise: "Your election or reelection is not as important as doing what is right."
Further, in regards to the healthcare monstrosity, candidates must indicate what they like and don't like about the bill — what should go and what should stay — followed by improved and workable healthcare ideas.. Byrne cautioned that if candidates don't act in this manner, the Republican Party will be pegged as the party of "No."
Closing remarks were given by Kristina Rasmussen. Two salient points: 1) Remember that policy changes lives and, 2) It is important to learn how to sell ideas to the political middle.
John Tillman called the Saturday, June 26th Illinois Policy Institute Forum just the beginning. According to Tillman, "We can and we must put forward positive solutions to our state's issues — solutions that empower families, foster entrepreneurship and job creation and get Illinois back on the path to prosperity."
This summer the Illinois Policy Institute will be launching the Illinois Turnaround Campaign to build momentum for a full-fledged rebirth of the state of Illinois. You can be a part of getting Illinois back on the path to prosperity. Contact: www.illinoispolicy.org
Lake Bluffers face a dilemma over Blair Pool
When walking into my local Lake Forest Bank and Trust Company this past Saturday morning, I was greeted by a large poster board sign which read: LAKE BLUFF POOL SLATED FOR CLOSURE AT THE END OF 2011! SHOULD WE CLOSE, REPAIR OR REPLACE?
Upon being told that a printout version of the announcement wasn't available at the bank, I drove to the Lake Bluff Park District and picked up a printout and comment form.
According to recent audits by the Lake Bluff Park District, it has been determined that significant repairs would be needed to meet the recently established Federal pool standards of the aging main pool (37 years old) and the wading pool (19 years
The Board is considering several options. The options include short-term repairs to the existing pools or the construction of a new facility.
Under the construction of a new facility, Concept Drawings A, B, and C — all subject to revision — are pictured in color, along with a description detailing how each of the three plans differ from one other.
In studying my printout, I found there was little difference in cost among the proposed Concept A, B, C plans. The budgeted costs of Concept A and B were identical at $8.25 – $8.75 million, while the Concept C plan came in at $7.0 – $7.5 million, roughly a million less.
It was surprising to learn that the Repair Existing Poll option budget of $6.75 – $7 million closely matched the proposed cost of the Concept C plan.
A Task Force has already agreed that the best option is to redesign and replace the existing pools.
I have come to the conclusion that the proposed Concept B plan gives more bang for the buck. A new and improved feature of Concept B would include a separate lap and leisure pool with a depth of 0 to 4ft, to keep younger kids away from deep water. A separate water circulation systems would also allow different water temperatures for each pool.
There is an important drawback in these challenging economical times. A Capital Replacement/Improvement Plan must be funded. The Park District Board has not yet determined how much the plan would cost each Lake Bluff household.
If Lake Bluff residents, however, indicate a lack of support for either repairing the existing pools or replacing the pools, the Park District will need to permanently close the pool facility most likely at the end of the 2011 season.
As a Lake Bluffer, your input is needed at a Lake Bluff Park District Community Meeting scheduled for June 28 at 6:30 p.m. at the Recreation Center, 355 W. Washington Ave. You can also provide feedback at www.lakebluffparks.org or fill out a comment form available at the Recreation Center.
One final comment, given the cost of building a new pool facility and the short time the facility is used, it would seem logical to think about a dome over the pool, or an enclosed pool, so that it could be used year around?
Illinois gun laws not stopping Chicago violence
It was shocking to learn that over this past weekend (June 18 – 20) 54 were shot in Chicago's latest spate of gun violence, leaving 10 dead.
According to a remark heard the same day on the WLS-AM Don and Roma show, the individual speaking claimed that gun violence has become the norm for people raised in a culture of violence.
Chicago is in deep trouble if culture is responsible for all its shooting incidences and deaths.
Doesn't Illinois have the most stringent gun laws in the nation?
And what was the response of Mayor Daley to this weekend's bloody gun violence? "Guns don't produce. They produce the evils of society."
Mayor Daley just doesn't get it! Guns in the hands of responsible individuals can fight and discourage crime.
Those who wish to use guns to kill won't be stopped just because a gun ban is in place.
Are electric rates being minipulated in Illinois?
A recent report in the Chicago Tribune, Zion plant powers up for teardown, touches on an issue that has been quietly simmering in Illinois since the 2,100 MW dual reactor Zion Nuclear Plant (located about 40 miles north of Chicago on Lake Michigan) was shuttered prematurely in 1998, after operating for approximately 25 years. The plant is owned by the Exelon Corporation of Chicago, which presently owns and operates six other nuclear facilities in Illinois. Exelon's CEO is John W. Rowe.
The Zion plant is part of the Midwest power grid. It's 2,100 MW of power would provide electricity to consumers in northern Illinois and in adjoining Mid-western states.
According to a Chicago Tribune article published on Friday, June 11, 2010, Exelon has until November to cancel its contract for decommissioning the Zion plant. If the contract is not canceled, the licenses for the reactors will then transfer to Energy Solutions in Iowa, which will begin a seven year process of dismantling the two units. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/northnorthwest/ct-met-zion-nuke-plant-0610-20100610,0,2106142.story
In 1997, when the decision was made to shutter the Zion plant, the Chicago Tribune informed the public that Zion was closed not because of safety, but because of economics. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-04-18/news/9704180116_1_nuclear-plants-new-steam-generators-edison-announcement
Exelon has never been required to explain and provide supporting economic and market analysis for its decision to withhold — and now eliminate forever — this significant source of electrical energy from the market, with its potential impact on electric rates.
If Exelon believes that it cannot run Zion's units at a profit, then why hasn't Exelon at least offered the Zion Nuclear Plant for sale to third parties? Presumably the return from a sale would be better than the cost of decommissioning.
In 2001, at the beginning of his very brief stint as head of Exelon's nuclear unit, Corbin McNeil publicly asked why the Zion plant was not being reopened. In response, Exelon issued a public statement, saying, "It would not make economic sense" to do so. McNeil's departure from Exelon followed soon after, with less than a year on the job (2001 – 2002).
0116_001.pdf (41.9 KB, download)
In 2007, David Hollein, a senior Westinghouse nuclear engineer, asked John Rowe why Exelon didn't restart Zion, presumably in order to supply its low-cost power to the citizens of Illinois at a time when prices were going sky-high? The response was a carefully crafted letter containing the statement: "Based on a variety of criteria, we continue to believe that restart of the Zion plant is not a business priority of the Company". Hollein has intimate knowledge of every Exelon nuclear plant in Illinois and is a current resident of northern Illinois.
Zion- Exelon le… to Hollein.pdf (80.9 KB, download)
Last week, Rod Adams, who runs a sophisticated blog on nuclear energy, called Atomic Insights, provided informed opinion supporting a formal evaluation of the restart of Zion. The quotes cited here are excerpted from a posting Adams made on Monday, June 14:
Restoring Zion would not be terribly difficult from a technical point of view. It would not be "cheap", but for something in the general neighborhood of $1-5 billion dollars, the plant could become a fully licensed (both Zion licenses are not due to expire until next year) and operable greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plant with perhaps 20-40 more years of operational life remaining.
In other words, the plant is still intact and is still being patrolled and monitored. No one has been selling off components for scrap. NRC standards have changed a good deal since Zion was first constructed, and there is probably a need to do some component replacement (steam generators, for example) and system upgrading, but there is apparently no technical issue that is too large to overcome. http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/ (Public Versus Private Power – It is time to Reopen The Discussion)
Rod Adams' other excellent blog postings which feature Zion can be found at the following sites: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2008/06/could-zion-nuclear-power-station-be-html and http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/search?=exlon+and+zion
A thoughtful consideration of the facts surrounding the Zion/Exelon controversy, suggests that a restart of Zion by Exelon would lower electric rates in its service area and reduce the profits from Exelon's other units. To withhold this source of electrical power for such a purpose would be equivalent to intentionally manipulating the market to maintain high prices, and if done for that purpose would be illegal
According to the same article by Rod Adams, a current or former Exelon insider has apparently confirmed that the main reason Zion has been kept closed is because withholding the supply intentionally keeps prices higher for Exelon's other supply.
he article states:
My sources tell me that the issue {regarding the reopening of Zion} is not technical, but financial. The financial issue is not whether or not the project cost is too much for the amount of capacity that can be delivered, but the effect that the additional capacity will have on the market price for electricity in the service territory. These people were classical trained business. They think is is perfectly legitimate to make the determination that if adding capacity lowers customer prices to the point where the total company revenue would be less than it was before, the investment in restoration would be wasted and should be avoided.
See http://atomicinsightsblogspot.com/ (Public Versus Private Power – It is time to Reopen The Discussion).
Illinoisans deserve a complete investigation. Is Exelon simply wasting or destroying a valuable asset that could be used to ease prices in midwest electric power markets? Customers have already mostly paid for Zion in stranded cost charges and have pre-funded the decommissioning. Restarting Zion could materially reduce customer prices, besides adding "new" capacity to the grid.
Is our government taking sides against consumers? Collusion between state legislators and power companies to keep electricity rates high cannot be tolerated. Legislators won't be tempted to cheat their constituents unless there's something in it for them. One such 'sweetheart' deal was attempted by Exelon and reported by Steve Daniels of Crain's Chicago Business: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=38114
In the larger energy debate, all sides agree that nuclear power is a desirable source of electricity. Restarting Zion appears to make good sense. Locally and even regionally restarting Zion promises to bring down electricity costs. Nationally, restarting Zion is in line with federal energy policy to increase the use of nuclear power. Restarting Zion is a better investment than building another new facility somewhere else. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02obama_wants_to_invest_in_nucle.html ("Obama wants to invest in nuclear energy" – Transcript by Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 16)
There is an active grassroots effort in Illinois to have Zion restarted and not simply wasted. It is an important battle that must be won. The window of opportunity is still open, but will close forever in a few short months. The time is now to raise the issue, to demand our government serve us by exercising its power.
If you live in the mid-west—where your electric rates may be affected—contact your state legislators and your state utility board. By standing together we will present a strong and united voice for truth, accountability, and transparency
A potential "smoking gun" is revealed in the premature closing of Zion's dual Nuclear Plant in 1998
There is a potential "smoking gun" in the Zion/Exelon debacle which has been going on since the mothballing of Zion in 1998.
Presently there are many individuals who believe Exelon shuttered Zion in 1998 to keep its 2,100MG supply of power from the market so as to keep its profits high along with the rates paid by energy consumers. I am leading a grassroots movement to reopen Zion. Decommissioning must not be allowed to happen.
Although long suspected, nuclear expert Rod Adams revealed on Monday, June 14, 2010, that there is an Exelon source who appears to confirm that the main reason for Zion's closure was to withhold its huge 2,100 MG supply of power from the market to keep prices higher for Exelon's other generation units. In so doing the shuttering of Zion allowed Exelon to keep its overall prices and profits high and the rates paid by consumers for electricity. The smoking gun is found in the 10th paragraph of Rod Adams' Atomic Insights posting: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/ Public Versus Private Power – It Is Time To Reopen The Discussion It is as follows: "My sources tell me that the issue (Zion's closing) is not technical, but financial. The financial issue is not whether or not the project cost is too much for the amount of capacity that can be delivered, but the effect that the additional capacity will have on the market price for electricity in the service territory. These people were classically trained businessmen, they think it is perfectly legitimate to make the determination that if adding capacity lowers customer prices to the point where the total company revenue would be less than it was before, the investment in restoration would be wasted and should be avoided."
The people of Illinois paid for Zion and deserve a complete investigation and explanation of why the plant cannot be economically run by a supplier to inject cheap power into the Illinois power market to reduce the market clearing price for power. Exelon must demonstrate that is has not and is not killing this source of generation in order to keep market clearing prices high for its other numerous generation units. The people of Illinios have a right to know:
Whether Exelon is simply wasting or destroying an asset rather than letting it fall into the hands of a competitor who would drive the price down for Exelon's other generation units? Has Exelon ever tried to sell Zion (or give it) to another supplier or at least offer it to the market to see if any responsible party will take it over and run it to produce its cheap power for the people of Illinois and the region?
Whether Exelon is pushing ahead to remove Zion's power source forever from the market place, in whole or in part, to limit supply to keep market-clearing prices high for their other generation units (Withholding supply is a well-known tactic used by generators to increase the price for their remaining supply in the market place.).
Rod Adams runs a sophisticated blog on nuclear energy called Atomic Insights. His articles talk about the success of the Brown's Ferry restart and give good insight into why the start of Zion should be evaluated and its decommissioning delayed: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2008/06/could-zion-nuclear-power-station-be-html and http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/search?q=exlon+and+zion
RALC hosted Steve Tucker, Health Insurance Industry Expert, on Thursday, June 10
The Republican Assembly of Lake County, Raymond True, Chairman, met on Thursday, June 10, at the Comfort Inn in Mundelein.
Following opening remarks, the introduction of guests, new member acknowledgments, and one minute speeches on any topic by RALC members, guest speaker, Steve Tucker, was introduced by Chairman Raymond True. Steve Tucker is a Health Insurance Industry Expert.
Steve Tucker and Dr. Arie Friedman, a 10th Congressional District, have spoken at many venues, without pay, to alert the public about the pit falls of Obamacare. Contrast this with the national campaign by the Obama administration that will be headed by Tom Daschel and Victoria Kennedy. $125 million of taxpayer's money has been allotted for Daschel and Kennedy to educate the public about Obamacare through TV, radio and the print media.
The question first asked of RALC members was how we got to Obamacare? Steve Tucker's answer was short and to the point — "Obama turned lying into an art form."
One lie repeated time and again is that coverage can't be gotten if there is a pre-existing condition. This is untrue. The only time insurance can be canceled is if insurance fraud has been committed on the application.
Another lie is that your insurance will be lost if moving from one employer to another. According to Hippo, a law passed and signed 14 years ago by President Clinton, if changing employers, it's possible to get new health insurance, even with an preexisting condition, within 63 days of leaving the former employer. This covers 90% of policy holders. Under Hippo privacy concerns were guarded. Hippo privacy laws will be dead under Obamacare.
Of great concern to insurance companies is that by 2014 every policy written must follow strict guidelines set down by Obamacare, except those companies selling discount and schedule plans. Companies selling these policies were described as "predatory" companies by Mr. Tucker. They offer cheaper prices, but their benefits reflect very poor coverage as to what the policy holder needs.
Steve Tucker explained the margin on which insurance companies operate. It is a 65 – 35 per cent margin. Meaning that for every dollar taken in insurance companies are required to pay out sixty five cents in benefits. Once the margin goes up to 85 – 15 under Obamacare, company survival will be impossible.
Come January 1, 2011 the American people are in for a big shock when millions of letters will be going out informing policy holders that premiums are going up. Some health insurance companies will opt out of health insurance in favor of other types of insurance. Other will be forced to close. Individuals looking at paying higher premiums will undoubtedly be hoodwinked into buying from predatory companies where premiums are lower but coverage is slim and might not even cover most health needs.
After Obamacare passed in March people were asking where their health cards were; many Americans will be surprised to find out that enrollment in Obamacare isn't even possible until 2013
In the minds of many of the RALC audience was why insurance companies didn't fight the Obamacare bill before it was passed? Originally it was said that the punishment would be prison time and a "sizable" fine if health insurance wasn't purchased. Obamacare does set the beginning fine at $95, and it goes up every year that insurance isn't purchased. The catch! There is no teeth in the enforcement of the fine. Strongly worded letters will go out, and the letters will keep coming, but no action will follow. Even so, 159 agencies are to be set up to manage Obamacare and 16,500 new IRS agents hired at a cost of $10 billion.
Romneycare in Massachusetts was criticized by Steven Tucker as a big failure. Yet Obamacare was based on Romneycare in Massachusetts. President Obama has taken Obamacare and spread it across the nation. People are buying and dumping their policies in Massachusetts. When sick they buy, when well they dump.
When first initiated in Massachusetts, Romneycare was slated to cost $88 million. Now the cost has mushroomed to $4.2 billion even when fines, although small, are being collected for not buying health insurance.
As a preview of what Obamacare will bring, Mr. Tucker read off a list of eighty three companies who have already stepped up with estimates of what their 1st quarter losses will be starting in 2013.
Some of the companies on Tucker's list included: Walgreens ($44 million); R.R. Donnelly ($3.3 million); Bristol Meyer ($3 million); ITT ($10 million); Grainger ($11 million); Catepiller ($90 million); ATT ($1 billion); and IL Tool Works ($22 million). The result: People will have to be laid off.
New to me is that under federal law, within 500 feet of an Emergency Room facility, people must be treated. It will be the same under Obamacare.
"Kids Care" received blame from Steve Tucker for some of the $13 billion deficit facing Illinois. According to Tucker, 75% of the kids enrolled in "Kids Care" are children of illegal immigrants.
A much quoted figure is that there are forty four millions Americans without health insurance (figure comes from the U.S. census bureau). There are many reasons people don't have health insurance, such as they are between jobs or they are young and don't wish to use their money to purchase insurance. But when push comes to shove, there are only fourteen million who are chronically in need of help. If subtracting the illegals from this fourteen million figure, that leaves eight million people who really need government help.
Why is a new health care system needed that will bankrupt this nation? Surely fourteen million individuals could be treated within this nation's present system and at a mere fraction of the cost!
Legislators who voted for Obamacare — like 8th District Melissa Bean — are sending letters to senior citizens telling them that Medicare payments will not be reduced, neither will there be co-payment. Most likely Bean and others believe that senior citizens can be appeased through a $250 check scheduled to be sent out by the federal government to Medicare "D" clients.
Here are several facts which expose his fantasy to senior citizens:
There will be a 21% reduction in Medicare payments to physicians.
Cuts will be made in Medicare to hospitals.
There will no longer be home health care.
Income above $85,000 a year is considered wealthy, resulting in higher premiums.
There will be a 3.8% federal tax on real estate transfers for Obamacare.
Rationing is a given. How could this not happen when 33 million people are being added to the health insurance rolls? Even so, under Obamacare there will still be 23 million uncovered individuals. What a deal Obamacare is!
Check out Steve Tucker's blog for some interesting insights: http://www.Truthaboutobamacare.com Mr. Tucker also writes for the Illinois Conservative Magazine.
Steve Tucker and Dr. Arie Friedman, a 10th Congressional District candidate, have spoken at many venues, without pay, to alert the public about the pit falls of Obamacare. Contrast this with the national campaign by the Obama administration that will be headed by Tom Daschel and Victoria Kennedy. $125 million of taxpayer's money has been allotted for Daschel and Kennedy to educate the public about Obamacare through TV, radio and the print media.
Check out Steve Tucker's blog for some interesting insights: www.Truthaboutobamacare.com Mr. Tucker also writes for the Illinois Conservative Magazine.
Nancy J. Thorner 331 E. Blodgett Ave., Lake Bluff, IL 60044 (847) 295-1035
Shenanigans in Illinois District 58?
Lauren Turelli, a Lake Forest resident, is the Republican candidate on the November ballot who is challenging Representative Karen May in the 58th District.
I've been a supporter of Lauren Turelli since the time she decided to enter the Illinois 58th District representative race in 2009. On Monday, June 7th I attended a "Meet and Greet" for Lauren in the home of a Lake Forest supporter. Mark Shaw, committeeman in West Deerfield Township, was on hand and spoke highly of Turelli as her campaign manager. Also at the gathering was Ant Simonian, former head of the Lake County Republican Federation, who is actively working on Lauren's behalf. She cautioned those who were present: "You no longer can say that you don't wish to be part of the political process or you will be part of the problem."
Lauren has always impressed me with her intelligence and her ability to zero in on the issues the day. She certainly has the qualifications to be a state rep as a former high school teacher and coach, a small business owner and a mom.
There is, however, a smell of political "dirty tricks" being employed to undermine Lauren's campaign. Ms.Turelli ran unopposed in the Feb. Primary Elections.
According to a report in the Lake Forester on Thursday, June 3, Lake Bluff's Mike Clark came forth after the primaries to run as an Independent. When it was revealed that the form Clark filed in March to organize his political committee listed his political affiliation as Democratic and his county residence as Cook, Clark blamed his attorney for the incorrect information. Federal records do show that Clark donated money to Republican candidates during the 2008 primary and election seasons.
Turelli's campaign manager, Mark Shaw, is calling for an investigation of Mike Clark, claiming that Clark's campaign workers have been telling voters that Karen May has no Republican challenger in November. It has been reported that those petitioning for names receive $1.50 per signature.
An issue of great concern is whether Independent Mark Clark is a Democratic plant whose candidacy will siphon off conservative voters so Karen May triumphs in November. It is well established that the Cook County Democrat Machine is well and alive in Lake County. There has been a concerted effort for several years by Democrats to turn Lake County from a traditionally red county into a blue one. And they are being successful. The upscale communities of Lake Forest and Lake Bluff are now represented by two Democrats in the Illinois General Assembly, Representative Karen May and Senator Susan Garrett.
If Lauren Turelli should be defeated in November because of a split vote, voters of Illinois District 58 and the state of Illinois will be the losers. Rep. Karen May will continue to vote in Springfield with the Democrat establishment, while telling voters here at home a different version of her Springfield voting record.
What beliefs does Lauren Turelli bring to the table?
That education is the key to greater opportunities and brighter futures for our children.
That Illinois can once again be a magnet for businesses and job creation.
That our agenda should be brought to Springfield, not Springfield's agenda to us.
Illinois needs more candidates like Lauren Turelli who will work for greater public transparency and accountability, as well as for ethics reform to rein in public corruption, so Illinoisans can once again feel pride instead of shame for their state. Dan Sugrue is another Republican candidate in the mold of Lauren Turelli. He is running for state rep in Illinois District 59. www.electdansugrue.com
Lauren Turelli's campaign website is www.Turelli4Tomorrow.com Lauren is the type of person you will be proud to have as your representative in Springfield.
Senate Joint Resolution 16 attempts to rein in the out-of-control EPA and its power grab
The Deepwater Horizon explosion and fire on April 20, approximately 50 miles offshore Louisiana, is still a daily news item, as it should be.
In tandem with the efforts to stop the flow of oil by BP, there is the usual blame game. The Obama White House continues to insist that the President was on the case from Day One and is blaming BP. The media's wrath is against BP and MMS (Minerals Management Service), which is working with the U.S. Coast Guard and the operator of the drilling rig to secure the well and protect the environment. http://www.mms.gov/DeepwaterHorizon.htm
Why is the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) under the direction of Janet Jackson escaping critical coverage over its lack of oversight? According to the "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan Act" signed into law in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, which superseded previous legislation going back to the Torrey Canyon oil spill in 1969, the EPA has legal responsibility for maintaining readiness for such an emergency.
The "National Contingency Plan" as described in the EPA manual:
"WHEN A MAJOR oil spill occurs in the United States, coordinated teams of local, state, and national personnel are called upon to help contain the spill, clean it up, and ensure that damage to human health and the environment is minimized. Without careful planning and clear organization, efforts to deal with large oil spills could be slow, ineffective and potentially harmful to response personnel and the environment . In the United States, the system for organizing responses to major oil spills is called the National Response System." http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/02/epa-and-the-national-contingency-plan/
Also designated in the EPA manual is that the chair and vice-chair of the National Response Team are to come from the EPA and the Coast Guard. Some might argue that the BP incident was a blow out and unlike other catastrophic oil spills; nevertheless, the National Contingency Plan does assign a prominent role to the EPA. Minerals Management Service, however, is given only a relatively minor role and yet it has taken on the role to assist the Coast Guard.
Might the EPA be far too busy dealing with "real emergencies" like carbon dioxide emissions to worry about a "minor" oil spill? It's incredible that Lisa Jackson had time to regulate C02 as a pollutant, but she can't be found when there is a serious oil spill at the bottom of the sea.
As was predicted early on in the Obama Administration when Rahm Emanuel set the tone of things to come by remarking that a crisis should never be wasted, the BP oil spill is being used as a reason to pass the Left's radical agenda including a version of "Cap and Trade."
With this in mind, Americans United, an ultra-liberal group, is running a TV ad saying the oil spill is why senators have to oppose the Murkowski resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 26 (SJ Res 26), which is long overdue, and which would rein in Obama's out-of-control EPA and its power grab
This vote takes place this Thursday (June 10). According to the the "Americans For Prosperity" website, "This resolution will stop the EPA's astonishing effort to regulate the whole U.S. economy by shoehorning global warming regulations into the 1970 Clean Air Act. http://www.americansforprosperity.org/060810-senate-vote-thursday-stoping-epa-power-g
The American people elect their legislators and leaders to do the peoples business. When unelected officials are able to act on their own to advance a political agenda unchecked by Congress and against the wishes of the American people, it results in a form of tyranny through freedom-crushing regulations which are harmful to the American people and to the future of this nation.
The commonsense Murkowski resolution would put Congress back in charge instead of the unelected EPA bureaucrats. Since the resolution is not subject to a filibuster, it will clear the Senate with 51 votes. Americans for Prosperity is asking that we call and email our senators to request that they vote for SJ Res 26. In so doing a message will be sent to the Obama administration that it is being watched, as are those who are pushing costly and destructive policies not supported by the American people,
There is a yearning for GW in America
Rock star personage can take a president only so far. If truth be told, President Obama is just as ordinary and helpless at times as are the rest of us.
When will President Obama understand that he bought the cow and now has to milk it?
The Obama administration is already into its sixteenth month, yet Obama continues to tell voters, "Remember Bush", as when he spoke on June 3rd at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh about the economy: "And now we have a choice as a nation. We can return to the failed economic policies of the past, or we can keep building a stronger future."
Despite sinking poll numbers and a questioning of his leadership skills, Obama's charade and his uplifting on-the-trail pep rallies continue. Because it has been said so often, perhaps Obama actually believes that he possesses mystical powers.
What about the Bush administration blunders of the past? :President Bush spent far too much and was roundly criticized for doing so over eight years, but Obama has outspent Bush in less than 1-1/2 years.
The Treasury Department reported on Wed., June 2nd, that the federal government is now $13 trillion in the red, making this the first time the government has sunk so far into debt.
Over the 500 days since Obama took office, he has raised the debt level by $2.4 trillion or an average of $4.9 billion a day. Even so a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, claimed the administration was "committed to restoring fiscal responsibility."
Heard almost daily is how the American economy is turning around thanks to President Obama's $862 billion stimulus bill and other measures. But how could this be when nearly 10% of the American people are still out of work?
Consider the month of May when of the 431,000 jobs added, 411,000 of them were temporary government census jobs, leaving an unacceptable 41,000 jobs created in the private sector.
Even more dismal is how the U.S. economy has lost a net total of 2.2 million jobs since President Obama signed his stimulus bill. The Obama administration is now 7.2 million jobs short of what Obama promised the American economy would support by 2010. Private sector employers have gone on strike!
Is an emergency really a good time to spend? Early on in the Obama Administration Rahm Emanuel set the tone of things to come when he remarked that a crisis should never be wasted.
Contrary to what the President's economic wizards and others claim, massive government deficit spending does not stimulate job creation or economic growth.
The Obama administration, in its attempt to shift a leadership deficit and failed economic policies back to the Bush years, is trying to make lemonade out of lemons.
It is to the credit of the American people that more and more are beginning to realize that the Bush years were not so bad after all.
Stop Following– Don't email me when people


text:
Marc Roca – What can he add to Bayern's lineup?
Alphonso Davies – Bayern's left-back debate
Christopher Nkunku – What can he add to RB Leipzig?
Xaver Schlager – Horsepower for Wolfsburg
Zack Steffen – Can he become Fortuna's starter?
Alexander Nübel – Out of Manuel Neuer's Shadow
45000on
South Caucasus
Belarus, Moldova & Ukraine
FG Gazeta
HomeGazeta
Crimea Football League – Questions Remain
Futbolgrad 0 June 30, 2015 5:15 am
The Crimea has its first football champion, now that Sevastopol has won the first championship on the peninsula after a 6-2 win against a club from small town Gvardeyskoye, which is perhaps most famous for its Russian airforce base. The tournament, which started in April, was a prelude to the new independent Crimea Football League that is scheduled to begin play in August.
According to the Russian press service TASS, the football federations of the Crimea and Sevastopol have named eight participants who are to take part in the first Crimean Football League: Tavriya Simferopol, FK Sevastopol, Rubin Yalta, FC Bakhchisaray, FC Yevpatoriya, Kafa Theodosius, Okean Kerch, and Titan Armyansk. All matches will be shown for free online, and on local television.
The league is to be run by a football governing body which is independent from the Russian Federation. UEFA visited the peninsula, however, there were doubts voiced by UEFA officials regarding whether the clubs could be financially sustainable. František Laurinec told Eurasianet.org on March 18 only "four or five" of the eight clubs in the proposed league have the financial backup needed to survive. "Also, the football infrastructure is generally very poor," he said, and added that there also exists "a shortage of qualified coaches and a general lack of funds."
The Crimean based journalist Denis Trubetskoy, in an article for the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel, has written that six out of the eight clubs will receive financial help from the Russian sport ministry in Moscow, as they would not be able to survive on their own.
Only two clubs, current champion FK Sevastopol and Tavriya Simferopol, are considered financially independent from Russia's sport ministry. Understandably, while Ukraine is not opposed to a Crimean Football League, the Football Federation of Ukraine has indicated that they would veto any participation of Crimean clubs in international competitions such as the Europa League, or the UEFA Champions League.
This makes it even more difficult for Crimean clubs to generate currency, as they are not able to supplement their finances through international competitions. Under these circumstances the financial future of even Simferopol and Sevastopol could also be jeopardized.
In addition, even though the FFU has not actively fought the establishment of an independent Crimean Football League, its leadership has now indicated that they are planning to resurrect Tavriya Simferopol in the Ukrainian city of Kherson. The establishment of a second club which uses the name and the colors of Tavriya could lead to a legal battle over the jurisdiction of the club trademark, and thus could further jeopardize Tavriya's future on the peninsula.
Despite their financial shortcomings, some clubs have now begun to put together their squads, and to name front office staff. The board of directors of FC Yevpatoriya for example is currently engaged in talks with former Manchester United star Andrey Kanchelskis regarding coaching the club. Yevpatoriya's sporting director Aleksandr Yatsun has confirmed these talks: "He arrived two days ago. Now, we settle all issues upon staffing a new team that will be built absolutely from scratch."
Question marks remain as Crimean football officials press ahead with the organisation of the competition. First and foremost, it remains doubtful whether the arrival of star coaches such as Kanchelskis, and free broadcasts of games will be enough to win the hearts and minds of the Crimean football fans. As Denis Trubetskoy has explained in Der Spiegel: people living on the Crimea may not miss Ukraine, but they certainly miss the Ukrainian Premier League.
By Manuel Veth –
Gazeta 820
AUTHOR: Futbolgrad
Match Fixing in Ukraine – The Grim Reality
Luiz Adriano – A New Ukrainian Transfer Saga
Futbolgrad Podcast – Episode 110 – Russian Premier Liga Returns to action
Marcus Berg – A chance to emerge from the shadow
Qatar 2022 and the lessons from Russia 2018
Russian Premier Liga Returns with Exciting Matchups
Futbolgrad Podcast – Episode 109 – Bring on the Russian Premier Liga
PFC Sochi – St. Petersburg's Outpost Expanded
Futbolgrad 0 April 8, 2019
UEFA Euro 2020 – Will Kazakhstan make history?
Futbolgrad 0 March 22, 2019
Futbolgrad Podcast – Episode 101 – Nursultan or bust, Euro 2020 madness
Futbolgrad Podcast – Episode 100 – The Post-Soviet Football Quiz
Futbolgrad 0 January 15, 2019
Bunyodkor Tashkent – Uzbek's Football Builders Remembered
Soviet Vysshaya Liga History – The Five Most Exotic Clubs
Futbolgrad 0 January 4, 2019
Odil Ahmedov – Uzbekistan's Quarterback Profiled
5000onon
Russian Football Hooliganism – the Caucasian Divide
Futbolgrad 1 December 2, 2013
By Yan Matusevich - Keeping politics out of football has been a FIFA slogan for years, a policy the organization strives to promote by showcasing th ...
Alania Vladikavkaz – Russian Football's Endangered Snow Leopards
Futbolgrad 0 November 28, 2013
By David McArdle - On Monday 18 November 2013, former Russian champions Alania Vladikavkaz announced that they were unable to finance the team's for ...
Anzhi – Kremlin PR in the North Caucasus
Futbolgrad 0 April 10, 2013
By David McArdle - Word association with the North Caucasus and with Dagestan in particular is changing. Instead of "insurgency", "bombings", "terro ...
João Ferreira: "In Belgium KAS Eupen is part of a significant development program for the country and the country also paid its way into this summer's Copa América." Nice pointed, because the majority of the players that team - which is owned by the government of Qatar - are fellow graduates from Aspire Academy, a well-structured project managed by João Carlos Pereira.
J D.: GO IANIS, GO...YOU ARE THE PRIDE OF ALL ROMANIANS! Good luck.
Dirk: Sad commentary on a once-proud football franchise. Hopefully it can find a way back. Thanks for the update!
Champions Zenit take on Cup Winners Lokomotiv in the Super Cup
Russia look to trash another opponent when they host Cyprus on Tuesday
Ukraine look to extend lead in Group B as they host Luxembourg
Russia host minnows San Marino in Saransk
© 2019 Futbolgrad

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Stanislaus Ulam's Interview (1979)
Stanislaus Ulam was a Polish-American mathematician. He worked on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos and later helped design the hydrogen bomb. In this interview, he discusses his work at Los Alamos and his relationship with J. Robert Oppenheimer, Hans Bethe, John von Neumann, Enrico Fermi, and other scientists. He also discusses Oppenheimer's varied reputation within the physics community. In particular, Ulam was frustrated by Oppenheimer's wordiness, which he and some other scientists perceived as pompous and superfluous. Ulam also explains his thoughts on creativity in math and physics, and why he is a proponent of nuclear power.
Martin J. Sherwin
Stanislaus Ulam: You know, after forty-five years in this country, my accent is still very hard.
Martin Sherwin: That's all right. I still have a Brooklyn accent.
Ulam: Oh, you do?
Sherwin: I left Brooklyn twenty years ago. I think even though I do know a lot of the answers to some of the questions I'm going to ask you from your book—
Ulam: Yes.
Sherwin: I think it would be useful in terms of putting it on tape and perhaps getting some other kinds of responses that aren't in your book, just to sort of start from the beginning.
Ulam: All right, fine. You want to have a copy of my book? I have it here.
Sherwin: I have a copy.
Ulam: Well, yes, but I mean, if you have questions.
Sherwin: Oh, no, that's okay. I know what I'm going to ask. I would like to know when you first met [J. Robert] Oppenheimer.
Ulam: Here.
Sherwin: When you first, well, any time?
Ulam: Here, here in Los Alamos. End of 1943 or first few days of 1944, when I came.
Sherwin: Now, did he recruit you?
Ulam: No. It was [John] von Neumann and Bethe, Hans Bethe. No, von Neumann wrote me a letter saying that Hans Bethe—you know Bethe?
Sherwin: Oh, sure, sure.
Ulam: He and some other people would like me to come. It took two months before all the formalities and, you know, during the war, reservations on the train and all kinds of sort of bureaucratic things.
Sherwin: Right. Where were you at the time?
Ulam: I was a young assistant professor in Wisconsin, Madison. The University of Wisconsin.
Sherwin: Right. When you got there, you worked in the Theoretical Division?
Ulam: Yes, right.
Sherwin: Okay. You worked on what?
Ulam: Well, in the beginning, I just discussed things with many people here. At first I worked on something connected with thermonuclear reactions. Then I worked by myself on probability problems, namely branching processes in general.
Sherwin: Now, I have a list here from the Manhattan Project records, a collection of the papers of the different division heads or group heads.
Sherwin: Did you work under? In Bethe's division?
Ulam: Bethe's, Bethe's division. There was a group of [Edward] Teller's.
Sherwin: Right.
Ulam: Oh, you have the things?
Ulam: Well, I don't know, there are some reports I wrote. But I don't think that would be here.
Sherwin: This is Teller's, for example.
Ulam: Teller, yes, reports. Here is [Robert] Bacher, with somebody else's division. Ulam's, you don't have it here, but I had written some reports.
Sherwin: Oh, you were a division leader at the time?
Ulam: No, I was not, no.
Sherwin: Now, in terms of just glancing through people down the Teller list then, two or three—
Ulam: Yes, yes. Uranium, Columbia, Hans Bethe, [Robert] Christy. What does that mean?
Sherwin: These are just the—
Ulam: Oh, joint papers. Oh, no.
Sherwin: No, these aren't—
Ulam: These are the problems, yes?
Sherwin: These are the titles of folders.
Ulam: Oh, folders, yes.
Sherwin: Right. Do you recognize anything that you might have worked on?
Ulam: Well, thermonuclear reactions and the questions of radiation. Certainly I worked—there are some reports. You can find them—I don't know, they are non-classified, some of them, and some of them may be classified—with [David] Hawkins, on probability. There is branching process, like one neutron makes few more and these make few more and so on, the mathematics of that. But that has nothing to do with Oppenheimer.
Sherwin: No, not yet. But, I'm, in certain ways—
Ulam: That was during the war. After the war, of course, I worked on all kinds of problems, hydrodynamics and the H-bomb and so on.
Sherwin: Right, right. No, I'm familiar with that. Now, when did you first run into Oppenheimer?
Ulam: Second day I was here, [inaudible].
Sherwin: In his office?
Ulam: Socially, yes. I don't know, in the corridor, socially, in somebody's office, von Neumann. Because von Neumann was an old friend of mine, and we worked together before. We talked about all kinds of problems. It was great excitement here, of course, and nobody knew for sure what would happen out of this thing. There were many technical difficulties and problems of whether the thing will go at all.
Ulam: How to assemble the bomb and neutron problems, purely experimental physics problems. Lots of theory, too.
Sherwin: How involved was Oppenheimer with your work?
Ulam: My own, he wasn't. I mean, I don't how many people were, certainly over a thousand. So, he wouldn't know every single thing. But he was incredible. He really had an idea of what's going on, what the main problems are, the status, and every sort of colloquia, where the overall picture and the status of the work was described, oh, every week. Then there were seminars in addition.
Sherwin: Do you remember the first seminar that you went to, a colloquium?
Ulam: No. It was very, very high level, of course, scientifically, and the atmosphere was informal. Oppenheimer would make comments on technical points throughout. He was incredibly quick, that was his main characteristic, I would say. Anticipating, in a conversation, he was anticipating what the other person would say. He was not, probably, as great a physicist as [Enrico] Fermi at all, or [Niels] Bohr or [Albert] Einstein. There is no real question of that. But a very, very good physicist.
Sherwin: Would you say that—
Ulam: I mean, it's hard to make comparisons.
Sherwin: No, I know, but I would like to hear you try anyway.
Ulam: Yes. Yes.
Sherwin: How would you differentiate them as physicists?
Ulam: Well, I'll tell you. Or let me ask you first, what kind of book are you writing?
Sherwin: It's a biography.
Ulam: His whole life?
Sherwin: His whole life. But it's not going to be a day-by-day account of what Robert Oppenheimer did. In a sense, I want to use him for a springboard for understanding the transition of science from the '30s through the '50s.
Sherwin: Especially in relation to politics.
Ulam: Yes. Have you seen such books as Laura Fermi's?
Sherwin: Oh, sure.
Ulam: Visitors and—
Sherwin: Yes.
Ulam: Because there was a change due to this influx of all kinds of scientists in many fields.
Sherwin: Right. Well, the first change is due to political occurrences in Europe.
Sherwin: That was the change in America. The second change is because of nuclear weapons and the Cold War.
Ulam: Radar also.
Sherwin: Radar, right.
Ulam: These were the two big projects. But already in World War I there were mathematicians, physicists, and chemists engaged, of course, in all kinds of research.
Sherwin: But after the war, they are not politically important, politically visible.
Ulam: That's right.
Sherwin: That's what the big transition is from World War I to World War II.
Ulam: Yes, and space and so on.
Sherwin: That's right.
Ulam: It's all very scientific.
Sherwin: Yeah. Another thing that interests me very much is the McCarthy period.
Sherwin: Of course, Oppenheimer, given the circumstances of his relationship with the AEC [Atomic Energy Commission], etc., is a very good vehicle for that. So that's the kind of book that I would like it to be. Therefore, I'm interested, naturally, in not only personal aspects of Oppenheimer's character, I'm also interested in the quality of his mind, of his leadership. But I'm also interested in the scientific environment in which he worked.
Ulam: Yeah, well, you can write volumes about it.
Sherwin: Yes, I know, and I have to keep it—
Ulam: I didn't know him terribly well at all. During the war, occasional visits, and after the war more. But I formed a very early opinion of him after hearing his talks in the colloquia and conversations.
Sherwin: How would you describe that opinion? He was quick?
Ulam: Very brilliant. I will say brilliant person, whatever, you know, the general meaning of the word is as accepted. If I say, he has done some very nice things before the war in theoretical physics. Of course, after the war, he was so engaged politically that he didn't have time.
Sherwin: Right. Very few post-war—
Ulam: Yes. There was a lesson I remember, he took part in technical discussions at the Institute [for Advanced Study] when I was visiting there several times. He kept abreast. He tried to be—well, I hate this word, but to describe it to you—sophisticated.
Sherwin: Do you think that was—
Ulam: He did not have the simplicities of Fermi, not to mention somebody like [George] Gamow, who was always very elementary and non-mathematical. He was very good in mathematical techniques, Oppenheimer was.
Sherwin: [Emilio] Segre, I think it was, who told me the story that Fermi passed on to him. That he went to a seminar at the Institute, and he said he didn't understand a word of what was being said.
Ulam: Fermi didn't?
Ulam: Well, if Fermi didn't, it didn't make sense in that case.
Sherwin: He didn't understand anything. He said, 'The only thing I understood was at the very end, the very last sentence. Oppenheimer then said, 'This is Fermi's theory of so and so.'" That's a story Segre always tells in order to show how complicated Oppenheimer was often making things that should have been described in a much more simple—
Ulam: Well, very few people had the talent, genius of Fermi for doing things in the natural, simple way. Fermi could use all the mathematics he wanted to, but when it wasn't necessary, he wouldn't. Some other people, you know, liked to, well, show the techniques. But the gist of the matter is something else.
Sherwin: Now, do you recall any of Oppenheimer's papers from the 1930s, any of his work?
Ulam: Well, some very famous work on, I think, leading to the theory of, yes, neutron stars. Neutron stars first and ultimately black holes. He had some joint papers and very good technical papers, but no great discovery comparable to some of [Werner] Heisenberg, [Julian] Schwinger, or Fermi, I would think. But I'm not a physicist, really.
Sherwin: What you say fits in with—
Ulam: What other people say, yes.
Sherwin: What others have said. Did you ever discuss—
Ulam: He tried to be sophisticated and use complicated language, similes, which I reacted to rather—I mean inwardly, privately—perhaps negatively. I myself prefer simplicity and natural description, if possible.
Sherwin: Do you think that that's a sure way not to accomplish what you're capable of accomplishing?
Ulam: No, it's not a sure way not to do it, but it certainly doesn't help. Because it puts you on tangents, then on the form or appearance of things, it might, it might. But I think he was a very good physicist, no question about it, and had very good students. I think that perhaps is his main achievement. He, I think, was one of the first, or the first, to show the new quantum theory in this country, in the—
Sherwin: Yes, late '20s and early '30s.
Ulam: Yes, exactly. He was precautious, perhaps. I don't remember exactly when he started this.
Sherwin: Yes, he came here, well, in the late—
Ulam: He came from Göttingen, I think.
Ulam: He was a very curious person, very curious.
Sherwin: In what ways?
Ulam: Well, some of his characteristics didn't match his technical brilliance, in my opinion. For example, giving colloquia to the general public, he would use, I would say, to my taste, too much phraseology and expression. Sometimes, you could have suspected, I don't think it was quite right, to sort of snow people. But not the really extremely well-educated ones, but sort of medium-educated people.
Sherwin: Well, one thing that you might not know that is perhaps some of the source of the nature of his language.
Ulam: Yes?
Sherwin: He was very much a poet as a youngster, wrote beautiful poetry.
Ulam: Oh, really? Yes, so that would be very nice.
Sherwin: Very extensive, both in French and in English.
Sherwin: I think kept it up all his life.
Ulam: Now that surprised me, because in his speech, I would say it was almost the opposite. It was the sounds of things, and not evoking really any deeper things. You understand that?
Sherwin: But in the construction of the sentences, one of the things that you notice is a meter, that they have a structure.
Ulam: Yes. Now, have you read some of his lectures? How are they called? They are named after somebody, several lectures in London.
Sherwin: Well, there's one—
Ulam: In England, and then—
Sherwin: Oh, the Reith Lectures.
Ulam: The Reith Lectures and so on.
Sherwin: Yes, yes, I have.
Ulam: Now, I would say the content doesn't quite match the—I don't know how you feel.
Sherwin: Well, that's interesting. You see, I'm not a scientist.
Ulam: You react to the—
Sherwin: I read them many, many years ago, even before I read the book.
Ulam: Oh, people are fascinated in the colloquia by his delivery and general presentation of things. I had not such a terribly deep impression of it.
Sherwin: Now, did you feel that what he was doing was skirting around the issues, rather than coming to grips with them?
Ulam: No, it's not the right expression, skirting around.
Sherwin: What I'm trying to do is get a sense of—
Ulam: It was frosting on the cake in some way, often. But sometimes, occasionally, there would be some very nice.
Sherwin: Yes. He certainly lived in two different worlds. One, a professional physicist, another, the public figure.
Ulam: Yes, he became—I didn't know him before.
Sherwin: He never really presented himself to the public as—
Ulam: He had admirers.
Sherwin: Yes, he did.
Ulam: You know, students. But mixed, sometimes, feelings. Of course, I understand, I had no direct evidence of it, but he would be sometimes very rough with some students in conversation, or impatient.
Sherwin: He could be impatient with just about anybody.
Ulam: He was terribly quick. That was, of course, [inaudible].
Sherwin: Now, do you remember any of the occasions at Los Alamos where you were in direct discussion with him?
Ulam: Very short. It was purely technical ones.
Sherwin: Yeah. You worked with Teller on thermonuclear issues?
Ulam: Yes. In his group at first [inaudible].
Sherwin: Okay. Now, what was the relationship between Teller and Oppenheimer during the war?
Ulam: Well, it had ups and downs. Of course, Oppenheimer appreciated Teller as a scientist, but Teller tried some of the things which were not in the mainstream of the work, and that created difficulties. Also, in some sense, it was sort of in discussion of the conflict, it was unfair, because Oppenheimer was a good actor, and it was much easier for him to, you know, react. It was unfair, slightly, on Oppenheimer's part, since he was not really the—not supervisor, but you know?
Ulam: As it were, over Teller. So Teller also became irritated, I think, on occasions. It was very complicated, the relation.
Sherwin: I'm trying to come to grips with that relationship, which is obviously an important one.
Ulam: Teller tried very much to do some things of his own, as it were.
Sherwin: Well, as I understand—
Ulam: Teller also changed, according to Gamow, as I mentioned in my book, changed very much after coming to Los Alamos and becoming involved in some of, more than was purely scientific, but wider import in public affairs.
Sherwin: He often talked about his concern with too much secrecy, for example. That was one of his—
Ulam: Yeah, I don't know how that was really mirroring of what he really thought, or was it—I have no idea.
Sherwin: Well, why do you say that? That's interesting.
Ulam: I don't know, since I have no proofs of anything.
Sherwin: Because I have come across several letters in the Los Alamos files and in other files where Teller writes that he's very concerned with the amount of secrecy that's involved. After the war, he often talked about that. On the other hand—there always seems to be an "on the other hand," you know, the Soviets are—
Ulam: Yeah. I think Teller thought that some of his ideas might become better known, or could get support, if they were told to other people or other groups or other influences, on one hand. On the other hand, he, of course, felt that if he points out the dangers, the things that he had in mind might be pushed more, or he might be given more influence.
Sherwin: Now, in Teller's insistence on working on the hydrogen bomb during the Los Alamos period, did he insist on that from the beginning, as far as you know, in the time in which you knew him?
Ulam: I think, yes, that, actually, his group was finally sort of separated.
Sherwin: Separated from—
Ulam: He went to Fermi's division, out of Bethe's division. He worked, because he had more influence with, could be more to his, I'll call it credit, on, the actions involving deuterium.
Sherwin: Now, was that something that was really off the track?
Ulam: In the beginning, certainly, yes.
Sherwin: Yes. During the war.
Ulam: Also, even for the fission project, he tried some slightly different approaches, to push some slightly different approaches.
Sherwin: Approaches that would—
Ulam: Well, I cannot tell you, because it's probably classified.
Sherwin: No, no, I understand. I'm not concerned about the details of the approaches, but I'm interested in how they fit into the big picture.
Ulam: Well, they were somewhat outside the main line to the fission bomb itself [inaudible], and the way it was actually made.
Sherwin: Now, was he pushing it because it was scientifically interesting?
Ulam: Well, certainly scientifically interesting, and it was more something that he was working on.
Sherwin: Was interested in.
Ulam: Yeah. Well, that's natural.
Sherwin: Could you say then that Teller could have been—and I'm trying to understand the relationship between Teller and Oppenheimer, not only during the war, but later.
Ulam: These are questions of personality. Characters, not so much scientific realms as personal ambitions, personal tastes, plays a tremendous role in all science, even in abstract science. It's not just a unique unavoidable direction, it's very much influenced by personal habits and experiences.
Sherwin: How would you compare Teller and Oppenheimer as scientists?
Ulam: Well, it's hard.
Sherwin: I don't mean one better than the other, I mean their characteristics, what their strengths are.
Ulam: Now, I think Oppenheimer was more mathematical. Teller had the sort of engineering imagination, if you want. I would say it's about the same, or roughly—
Sherwin: But their personalities—
Ulam: Oppenheimer was slightly—
Sherwin: Were very different. How did that affect their science?
Ulam: It's hard to say. You can't compare. It's personalities, a result of experiences, chance events in your life, and people you talk to. Influences; fathers, and so on. It has tremendous effect on the actual scientific output. In music, it might be similar. You can't really compare the pianists who are good, saying that one is—
Sherwin: But their techniques, you can hear the difference.
Ulam: But technique is not—
Sherwin: Sometimes are involved with their music.
Ulam: Right, but in music it's not the technique that really matters, it's the musical feeling, I am told. I'm not very much a musician at all myself. But I am told that it's the musical value for them, which depends on the technique but is not the same as good technique. There are some good technicians who are sort of cold or not terribly inspiring. There are others who perhaps have a little less technique, but are inspiring. I don't know.
Sherwin: Well, I'm making that analogy because the personality is often reflected in the work. In a sense, you can listen to certain kinds of music and make a good guess.
Ulam: Well, they are both good scientists. Of course, Teller also, after the war, was so much involved in politics and organization and projects that he didn't do as much physics as he would have otherwise. Maybe as a professor, I suppose.
Sherwin: Yeah. Could you retell the story for me that you tell in your book about the development of the hydrogen bomb technique that you—
Ulam: Well, what can I say in addition to what was written down there? There are these accounts of—what are these names—[Richard G.] Hewlett and [Francis] Duncan.
Sherwin: Hewlett and [Oscar E.] Anderson?
Ulam: Some others, yes.
Sherwin: Right. You think that they are quite accurate?
Ulam: Well, those that I have seen are more or less accurate, it seems to me.
Sherwin: Did you have any discussions with Oppenheimer around that period of time, '49, '50, '51?
Ulam: Oh, yes, in Princeton, we were visiting often. Once I was in Princeton for nine months, and Fermi was there, and then we went to the Institute and Oppenheimer was there. People discussed technical prospects of the H-bomb.
Sherwin: Do you remember when that was?
Ulam: I don't know. It was probably around 1949 or '50, something like that.
Sherwin: I'm sure it would be after '49, because it's in '49 when—
Ulam: Right, right, the decision was made to—
Sherwin: The decision's made in January 1950.
Sherwin: To go ahead and do it [develop the hydrogen bomb].
Sherwin: How would you describe the general sense of the attitude towards the prospects that Oppenheimer had of the H-bomb working out?
Ulam: It's hard for me to tell. I said something in my book and even mentioned the fact that this was partly not quite a joke. But that the revolutionaries, if you could consider him as a revolutionary by being the director of the project and uses of nuclear energy. Revolutionaries often don't like subsequent revolutions.
Sherwin: Right. Well.
Ulam: But, that's, of course, a purely personal, and speculative remark, since I really don't know. How can you tell other people's motives, what they really are? You can't.
Sherwin: Aside from the motives, there's a sense in terms of when people view a problem that may or not work, sometimes if you're involved with them enough in a discussion, you can see that there are just basic assumptions they have that will not let them see a resolution to the problem, or that they don't want to.
Ulam: You mean there is the prejudice or bias emotionally?
Ulam: For or against something.
Ulam: But to what extent it will influence what you finally see, is impossible to tell.
Ulam: That is a question of psychology. Psychology is not very exact science.
Sherwin: No, it's not, but neither is history.
Ulam: Right, yeah. No, history is—
Sherwin: Writing about these things.
Ulam: Nice stories, yes.
Ulam: It's more or less, as you say, image, which gives an idea of what really happened. I say that, because what really happened also doesn't have a precise meaning. That's the whole point, that it's impossible to say what it is 100% truth historically.
Sherwin: It's also impossible to say what's happening.
Ulam: Bare facts, bare facts, yes.
Ulam: But not the succession of events, and certainly not the motives. I mean, in history, I suppose you are interested in motivations and consequences of ideas.
Sherwin: Absolutely.
Ulam: These are impossible to really delve into too much. So the so-called "real truth" is hard to define.
Sherwin: Yeah. It's not impossible to delve in too much. But what is true is that there's no 100% absolute answer. What you present are analyses and arguments and points of view supported by evidence, which comes out as stories, facts.
Ulam: It's something you look through lenses or mirrors or distorting fogs often, that's not as bad.
Ulam: The actual thing—well, in quantum theory, we know you cannot define—
Sherwin: Complementarity.
Ulam: Exactly. So, some people, of course, try to make out of complementarity—well, Bohr, as you know—
Ulam: A great philosophical principle and he applied it to almost everything, to my mind a little [inaudible] for common sense sort of interpretation.
Sherwin: Oppenheimer was taken a bit with that.
Ulam: Yes, he was, yes.
Sherwin: I think perhaps that was because he was also so enamored with or influenced by Bohr. Does that fit in with your—
Ulam: He was, yes.
Sherwin: Did you ever see them together?
Ulam: Yes, several times. But it was always a mixed relation, you know. He probably felt that mathematically he is better trained than Bohr. That sort of might have consoled him for the fact that he admired in Bohr the simplicity of how he had results without seemingly much technical work, but by intuition, which was not his greatest forte with Oppenheimer.
They are sort of similar in a way, isomorphically speaking, mathematic, to the relation between Gamow and Teller. Gamow was full of qualitative ideas and they came to him easily without complicated technical processes.
Sherwin: Einstein was like that, too, wasn't he?
Ulam: Einstein, yes, learned some mathematics, but a little later in his life. When he tried to develop general relativity beyond what was now known and tried to make more unified theories, he learned a lot of mathematics. But in reality he was a physicist, not a mathematician. He learned too much mathematics and sort of diminished, it seems to me personally, it seems to me his purely physics creativity.
Sherwin: His intuitive ability.
Ulam: Yes. Of course, he was older then also.
Sherwin: Yes. Well, he wasn't all that old when he started to try and—
Ulam: No, no, no.
Sherwin: Get [inaudible].
Ulam: He's done unbelievable things as a very young man, at the age of twenty-six or whatever it was, three famous papers.
Sherwin: Right. 1905.
Ulam: The special relativity, yes, right, so you see [inaudible].
Sherwin: When the Oppenheimer hearings came about—now, I don't remember whether you mentioned anything about this in your book.
Ulam: I don't know, I don't remember it, either.
Sherwin: Yeah, I know.
Ulam: But I remember some discussions with Fermi in France. We were together in France, driving south from Paris, and discussed these hearings.
Sherwin: Do you remember what was said?
Ulam: Well, it was a very, very strange thing to me. He [Fermi] was already apparently sick. He knew that, but outward signs were very few. But we were in the [inaudible] one evening, at a place where we stopped in some valley. It was a hotel and there were stars in the sky and we were looking and sort of talking about it and he says, "Well, he'll be able to tell more about the whole story when he's up there." It sort of gave me a little shock, because I suddenly felt that he thought that he may not live to see the end of the affair.
Sherwin: Now, he died in what, '55 or '56?
Ulam: '54, I think.
Sherwin: That soon?
Ulam: Yes, '54.
Sherwin: The hearing was in—
Ulam: '57?
Sherwin: April '54.
Sherwin: You saw him in the hospital?
Ulam: Yes, right, two times. He went very quickly. It was esophagus cancer.
Sherwin: But he didn't say anything else, besides this ominous comment?
Ulam: Yeah, well, right.
Sherwin: Well, when you came back to the States—
Ulam: I don't know. Maybe you have other information of the relation between Fermi and Oppenheimer, or do you?
Sherwin: No, I actually don't.
Ulam: Why don't you talk to Segre about it?
Sherwin: I have.
Ulam: He didn't tell you how Fermi felt about Oppenheimer?
Sherwin: He told me a lot about how he felt about Oppenheimer.
Ulam: It was probably the same.
Sherwin: Personally, he was not very warm to Oppenheimer. He felt that he was—this is my wording, not his, I think—something of a fraud. Segre is very strong about the—he respects his science, but he didn't like him personally.
Ulam: Well, I don't know. He, in general, reflects, Segre, Fermi's views.
Ulam: I mean, there's no doubt that Oppenheimer was a good scientist.
Sherwin: Yes, yes.
Ulam: But how good is another question. Fermi must have felt that way.
Sherwin: Yeah.
Ulam: Talk to [Victor] Weisskopf.
Sherwin: I have talked to Weisskopf.
Ulam: Because Weisskopf has some comments by [Wolfgang] Pauli that he wouldn't tell you about.
Sherwin: About?
Ulam: About Oppenheimer.
Sherwin: Well he's told me a lot of things. Along what lines?
Ulam: Oh, about science and so on. I don't know.
Sherwin: We had sort of half an interview about Oppenheimer. I have talked to Weisskopf on several—
Ulam: Weisskopf rather liked him.
Sherwin: Yes, very much, very much. I think he was involved in sort of several ways, both politically and scientifically.
Ulam: Yes, right. Liberal, very liberal views.
Sherwin: Yes, yes. Well, when you got back to the States, after the Oppenheimer hearings, these had already been published. The various testimonies were public, and there was already that tremendous division within the scientific community between—
Ulam: Why? There were hardly any people who were against Oppie, except maybe Teller.
Sherwin: Well, Teller.
Ulam: Well, so it is not much of a division.
Sherwin: Teller on the one side, and people who supported Lawrence, and Lawrence was dying, or almost dead. [Luis] Alvarez, the Berkeley group.
Ulam: Yeah. The majority of the physicists, the overwhelming majority of physicists, thought that these hearings were unnecessary, some thought unfair. It has nothing to do with the character of Oppenheimer as a person or his scientific ability, but rather about his involvement or guilt [inaudible] of what he was accused. For example, von Neumann didn't especially like Oppenheimer, but gave a tremendously objective and correct testimony.
Sherwin: Do you have any recollections of the kinds of discussions that you ran into when you got back to the States, about the Oppenheimer hearings?
Ulam: Yes. Almost everybody thought it was an idiotic thing to do.
Sherwin: Yes, but also people were troubled by things that were even perhaps more serious than the idiocy of it. The impact that it might have on the relationship between science—
Ulam: Oh, McCarthyism, yes, of course. I mean, this is quite independent of whether you liked Oppenheimer as a person or not, or whether you admired him very greatly as a philosopher.
Sherwin: Did you ever talk to Teller about this?
Ulam: At that time, a few things. Well, not too much, no.
Sherwin: Afterwards, when—
Ulam: Teller did himself tremendous harm by that, as you know. Because in expose, martyrs are always right. It's very dangerous to sort of contribute or attack martyrs, no matter what.
Sherwin: That's a very interesting point. In a sense, Teller came out as, I suppose, the Judas of—
Ulam: It's exaggerated, but he claims that he actually said innocuous things, Teller did. But, not too innocuous, the way they could have been interpreted.
Ulam: Then there are some letters or some other things, which were not so much public. You must have read about that, [inaudible] of Teller to somebody, I don't know.
Sherwin: Well, there are some FBI interviews.
Sherwin: Stuff like that.
Ulam: Yes, so I know nothing about the letters.
Sherwin: When were you at the Institute?
Ulam: First time? Oh, when I came to this country. This was January 1st, 1936.
Sherwin: Okay.
Ulam: When I arrived. At least, it was something like that.
Sherwin: Oppenheimer became director [of the Institute for Advanced Study] in '47.
Sherwin: When was the first time after that—
Ulam: Well, I visited off and on, just for a couple of days, a few times.
Sherwin: You didn't spend a year there?
Ulam: No, no. I spent four months when I first came, but otherwise only very short visits.
Sherwin: I see. Okay. So, you didn't have a sense of his directorship there?
Ulam: No.
Sherwin: How he was running it.
Ulam: Towards the end, I understand mathematicians were mad at him.
Sherwin: Very.
Ulam: Without reason, in my opinion. Mainly, they wanted to have an appointment made of somebody who couldn't be appointed because he was a professor at Princeton, and there was a written agreement between the Institute and the university that they will not hire somebody from the university. So it wasn't his fault, but some mathematicians thought that he could have done it, and they were sort of irritated by him. That's what I understand.
Sherwin: Yes. I heard recently from one of the mathematicians, a young visiting mathematician, who knows some of the people who have been around for a long time, that there was a great deal of hostility towards Oppenheimer. That they felt that he had ruined mathematics there and made a mess of physics, etc., etc. I haven't yet had a chance to trace this.
Ulam: Well, you can find out. I think mathematicians are also, you know, often a little bit crazy.
Sherwin: Yes. Well, we are all a little crazy, in our particular way.
Ulam: Us too, indeed.
Sherwin: Yes. Now, did you know Oppenheimer socially very well?
Ulam: Yes. During the war, often we were having, it was very pleasant dinner at Mrs. [Edith] Warner's, Miss Warner's. You should write about this. He arranged weekly, often bi-weekly, dinners with a small group of people down at the Rio Grande in a house belonging to Miss Warner.
Sherwin: How do you spell that?
Ulam: W-A-R-N-E-R. That is something worth writing about, because it's a colorful thing. She was a lady that lived—I wonder where you could read about Miss Warner. But she was an older lady at the time, and Tilano, an Indian chief, would serve the dinner in her house. He lived in her house, and it's a very romantic little story. You can find out from Mrs. [Dorothy] McKibbin about that.
Sherwin: Oh, good.
Ulam: They were very nice dinners, very pleasant occasions during the war here.
Sherwin: Now, who was invited to those?
Ulam: Some people who—
Sherwin: Was it a different few people each week?
Ulam: Some were different, but often the same. I think Weisskopf was there, and I remember a few times von Neumann once or twice. We were there a few times.
Sherwin: Bethe?
Ulam: Bethe.
Sherwin: Teller?
Ulam: His friend, [Robert] Serber. Teller, I don't remember he was there, he might have been at some dinners. But Mrs. McKibbin will tell you.
Sherwin: Okay, good. Could you describe your recollections of one of—
Ulam: Pleasant, intelligent conversation.
Ulam: Everything.
Sherwin: Problems that were going on, or about culture?
Ulam: No, this was everything. Not terribly technical, because the wives were there and theoretically, at least—
Sherwin: I see.
Ulam: In fact, they were not supposed to know these classified problems. There were very good desserts, I remember.
Sherwin: For example?
Ulam: I don't know. It's brown chocolate cakes or something like that. But some kind of foods I didn't know too well, which were a little bit New Mexico. Served by this old man, Tilano, the Indian chief, who was a Pueblo, who at one time was in Europe at the Paris World Exhibition in 18-something as an Indian chief or something like that, which was very amusing to meet him. Don't forget to ask Mrs. McKibbin about Tilano, his dinners and his world.
Sherwin: I will.
Ulam: Mrs. McKibbin lived in Santa Fe. She managed this office, it was just like in an English [inaudible] book, you know, a detective story. Very inconspicuous, two small rooms, [inaudible], secretary, also, they would write some little piece of paper. It was very romantic. There was a tablet there.
Sherwin: She's writing a book about that.
Ulam: She's writing a book about Los Alamos, yes?
Sherwin: Yes, the Santa Fe office.
Ulam: She and a lady helps her.
Ulam: Yeah, yes. She's a tremendous admirer of Oppenheimer. Idolatry, maybe, you see.
Sherwin: Right. Oh, I, oh, I see what you wrote. Yes, yes, yes. Idolatry.
Ulam: Idolatry, yes.
Sherwin: Idolatry. She idolizes him.
Sherwin: Yes. Did you ever consult with the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission?
Ulam: No. I knew some people that talked to them, but no. No formal arrangement.
Sherwin: Okay. As far as the H-bomb decision is concerned—how do you feel about [Herb] York's book? I noticed that you have that on your shelf.
Ulam: Yeah, well, this whole shelf is full. York's book, it seems factual, very factual. Dry, it's a little dry.
Sherwin: No, but I meant the facts. There is nothing that you know that contradicts—
Ulam: That is wrong? No, no.
Sherwin: Any of the issues.
Ulam: No, no. Teller wrote a book, too, you know. Teller.
Sherwin: Yes. [Stanley A.] Blumberg—
Ulam: There's a book about Teller.
Sherwin: Yeah, Blumberg and—
Ulam: By two guys, I wonder how this came to be written. Because for two professional writers to do something which may sell 10,000, 20,000 copies and work for two years, it's very strange.
Sherwin: Well, I think they were hoping—
Ulam: They were hired?
Sherwin: No, I think they hoped it would sell more.
Ulam: Well no, no. I think they think—
Sherwin: It was not a very good book.
Ulam: I looked at it.
Sherwin: But, biography for a guy like Teller, if it was a good book, it might have had a chance to really—because, he's a very public person.
Ulam: I don't know, yes, because—
Sherwin: One of them is a—
Ulam: You see, I completely agree with him 100% on the reactors, and building reactors for power stations. There's an interview, maybe you have seen it, in the August Playboymagazine.
Then I sort of completely disagree with him in the second half or the second one-third. The last one-third of the article is about shelters, which seem to me to be completely futile and nonsense. But reactors, I must say, I feel good.
Sherwin: What does he argue?
Ulam: For building the reactors.
Sherwin: Which kind?
Ulam: Well, any kind that would give us energy.
Sherwin: Yeah. Of course, some kinds are more problematical than the others.
Ulam: Well, yeah, but it's [inaudible] engineering, technical questions. But I feel we should start building 200 reactors, mainly in states like Utah, Arizona, in these horrible deserts. If you can build them there, we have power brought by lines, wires, which we lose very little over even a thousand miles, you lose some 10%. There is absolute no danger around, because within 50, 100 miles, nobody lives there. I'm surprised that people don't do it. Also, the problem of waste seems to me exaggerated. But, you may, I sort of gather, have different feelings.
Sherwin: I think the waste disposal problem is just not solved.
Ulam: I don't think it exists. Why not dig? There are already holes in Nevada for the testing of bombs. Just dump it two miles down. The volumes are small of the waste, relatively.
Sherwin: Yeah, but ultimately the stuff can seep into the water table.
Ulam: How? It doesn't go up. How does it come up? Three miles, it's in the desert.
Sherwin: They seem to have to found no way, given the kind of half-life plutonium has, to make sure that—
Ulam: No, but it's so deep down! So what can it do? I don't know what's [inaudible,] because it seems to me by common sense it's not really a problem at all.
Sherwin: It sure seems to be.
Ulam: It seems to be, yes.
Sherwin: Yeah, right.
Ulam: Well, transportation of it, but even so, it's nothing explosive.
Sherwin: Oh, no, I know, yes. No, that's not the problem. It's whether or not it could—
Ulam: What is effect? Because all these anti-nuclear demonstrations involve a lot of guitar-playing people, who know nothing about it. They have a good time, listen to songs, and create a great—
Sherwin: Do you know Ted Taylor?
Ulam: Oh, yes, very well. He worked on this Orion business, which I actually started. I started that, you know, yeah, as you can read in not only my book, but in [John] McPhee's book.
Sherwin: Yes. That's right. Well, I've read it, yes, The Curve of Binding Energy.
Ulam: Yeah, right.
Sherwin: Right. I'd forgotten the name of the project.
Ulam: Orion, yes. I knew him after the war [inaudible] very well. Then he left and started working on this Orion business. You see him now in Princeton, perhaps?
Sherwin: Yes. I was with the Center for Environmental Studies this year, and he's a consultant there. Do you know Frank von Hippel, any of his work?
Ulam: Oh, a biologist from Chicago?
Sherwin: No.
Ulam: No?
Sherwin: He's a—
Ulam: There was an astronomer by that name.
Sherwin: Well, it could be. The family is—
Ulam: Yeah, big family.
Sherwin: Yeah. A lot of physicists, and that type. But he's a physicist at the Center, and writes a lot about this stuff.
Ulam: Environmental?
Sherwin: Yeah. My sense of it is, that these people are very concerned about these problems, and they're not guitar-players.
Ulam: They are what?
Sherwin: They are not guitar-players.
Ulam: No. Of course, you should be concerned, but also, it's their business. It's a new profession. Immediately in this country, people get into new professions and new jobs just—the day after Sputnik, [0:12:00] the day, suddenly there appears in the United States 1,000 space scientists.
Sherwin: Yes, right.
Ulam: Well, you see, that's the same, of course. Environmental, it's a business.
Sherwin: Did Oppenheimer—
Ulam: No. In those days, I don't think it was discussed very much. Everybody saw that nuclear energy—my guess, purely guess, is that Oppenheimer also found that it would be a source of power and a very good thing.
Sherwin: Everybody certainly hoped it would be.
Sherwin: I mean, that was the promise.
Ulam: It should be, it could be. It's just politics, which I don't think it's as innocent as it appears on the surface. I think various groups try to weaken the West in general.
Sherwin: How about the solar potential for the West?
Ulam: Zero. [Inaudible], maybe couple percent. It certainly cannot make any difference.
Ulam: A few percent by year 2000, what does it mean? Nothing.
Sherwin: Because solar just doesn't have the potential to provide enough energy?
Ulam: No, there is no way. I mean, you can have a few mirrors, heat houses, but you are not going to run big plants. The French have a few big mirrors, and you can in a couple of decades supply a few percent. You might as well forget about it for the next five, ten years.
Of course, the danger is the OPEC, the immediate danger to United States, right now. What the speech of—
Sherwin: [President Jimmy] Carter?
Ulam: Carter. I like it, although he didn't say enough. $140 billion does not strike me as very much, for ten years. You know, it's like $100, less than $100 per person per year. We really should start going, even with coal. Of course, coal environmentally is worse than nuclear energy, by far.
Sherwin: Do you think there's any chance of developing scrubber that would—
Ulam: Oh, yes. They say that can be done to diminish the—but saying that the country will be scarred is another nonsense. It's also inferiority feeling. People don't understand the science of nuclear energy, so they feel irritated.
Sherwin: Well, I think that there's something to that. But there's also an analogy that should be made. People get irritated at big corporations and big companies because they don't trust—
Ulam: Right, okay.
Sherwin: They don't trust them and they have evidence why they shouldn't—
Ulam: The government should supervise it, that's something else, but they don't say that. They are just against them. Okay, you can be against big corporations, but what do you do about automobiles? They are made by three big corporations.
Sherwin: Now, in terms of Oppenheimer, I suppose that there was nothing in terms of these modern issues that he was really involved in? All that came too late.
Ulam: You mean the reactors?
Sherwin: Environmental stuff and reactors.
Ulam: Yes, yes. Although [inaudible] was there, and all the factories were there.
Sherwin: Sure.
Ulam: It's just made up artificially now a little bit. The only thing that I see that is nice is that some streams are clean. In England, for example, the Thames River is now much cleaner. Of course when coal was used, [inaudible] bleak, dark.
Ulam: That is an improvement. I don't know. This country is so vast that I think there's plenty of environment.
Sherwin: You live in a different environment than I live in. You can see the sky from one end to another.
Ulam: Princeton for me, climatically was a hell when I first arrived. I don't even see how people live there during the summer. It's humid.
Sherwin: Yeah, humidity.
Ulam: Heat, there's some, and it's unlivable.
Sherwin: Everybody's packed in together. I live a lot of my life in terms of—
Ulam: It's the climate.
Sherwin: How I think about problems. It's very related to New York City.
Ulam: Yes. But, still it's an interesting—it's nice to be there for a week or two.
Sherwin: Oh, it's wonderful, no, but what I'm saying, I'm talking about environmentally.
Ulam: But take Italy.
Ulam: The packing of people there is much greater than—or Holland. It's just the climate that is so unpleasant here. Summer, heat. Hot humid summers, which to me—
Sherwin: Intolerable.
Ulam: Intolerable.
Sherwin: Yes. No, but what I'm thinking about is when you talk about environmental issues. One of the things that struck me about your point of view had to do with a sense of how vast the country is.
Sherwin: The large deserts.
Ulam: New York State.
Sherwin: You're surrounded by space.
Ulam: Well, go in New York State, fifty, sixty miles north.
Ulam: Marvelous woods.
Sherwin: Oh, it's wonderful.
Sherwin: But, as you've probably read in the Times about three or four weeks ago, there was a series of stories about pollution up in New York State.
Ulam: Yes, but it's chemical. It's not nuclear.
Ulam: That is something new and getting worse, the chemical pollution.
Sherwin: It's getting terrible.
Ulam: Yeah, but it's the effect of ten thousand times worse than any possible nuclear thing. Now, there are no demonstrations with guitar-players, is there? Could somebody just tell me why?
Sherwin: I think that the danger was not— it sort of snuck up on you. There was no drama involved.
Ulam: People are not that irrational that they have to have a drama, some slogans or catchwords like nuclear [inaudible].
Ulam: Because it really is, literally, thousands of times worse. You don't see any demonstrations.
Sherwin: I think that there will always be a hostility to science, or a certain dimension of it.
Ulam: There used to be admiration of science in this country, in the population.
Sherwin: It's cyclical. It's really cyclical.
Ulam: They were this, at one time, you're right, there's no-nothing groups who—
Sherwin: That's right, it goes up.
Ulam: So now there's the same thing again.
Sherwin: Yeah, and now science is—
Ulam: Evil.
Sherwin: Coming up against a lot of criticism.
Ulam: Yes, because of this feeling that people don't understand it, so they are against it.
Ulam: But on the other hand, maybe so many think of going to a dentist now and 300 years ago having—
Sherwin: Oh, wow.
Ulam: No operations or painkillers, everything. That's right.
Sherwin: One of the things that I think, to a certain degree, science is responsible for some of the reaction to it. Because the public figures in science have often put science forward as being something that will solve all problems. Then when people—
Ulam: Still have problems.
Sherwin: Expect those problems to be solved, and new problems develop as a result of efforts to solve A. You try to solve A and you end up with problem B. In fact, you might solve A, but people get very angry that B occurred.
Ulam: Yes, some people, or many people, yes. Not everybody.
Sherwin: No, but even some scientists. One of the things that's interesting—
Ulam: Well, those that feel not so successful start making, as I said, business out of various things.
Sherwin: But of course, one of the things that's interesting to me in terms of studying science in the political environment is that science has become much more interesting. Because—
Ulam: The impact on your life.
Sherwin: Well, also the science community is a more general reflection of the whole spectrum of American political life now. It used to be, when science was smaller and more progressive, that all scientists thought alike for the—
Ulam: Yes. Oh, yes, now there are disgruntled ones, of whom there must be many.
Sherwin: There is.
Ulam: Take off and join these protestors.
Ulam: Just because they are disgruntled scientists.
Sherwin: But there are a lot of—
Ulam: I'm unfair to a few.
Sherwin: I think so.
Ulam: On the whole it's correct.
Sherwin: Well, I think that you find now a lot of young physicists getting very involved with environmental questions and other things, even before they had a chance to fail.
Ulam: But what does it mean, getting involved? What do they do?
Sherwin: Well, they become interested in questions that—
Ulam: I know, but has anything been done to improve it or help? I don't see it, you know. It's all so natural for young people to be against the previous generation.
Ulam: All of us, this is very natural.
Sherwin: Yes. That's a very healthy thing.
Ulam: Yeah, the grandchildren—I remember when I was very young, certainly less than ten. Some old relative, uncle, great-uncle, my father was telling us a joke and I overheard it: "Why do you like grandchildren so much? Because they are enemies of our enemies."
Sherwin: Yes. That's very good. I love that. That's very, yes. I think that's probably a very good note to end on, sums up.
Ulam: But unfortunately, I didn't know Oppenheimer enough to tell you more.
Sherwin: As I said, I enjoyed reading your book very much.
Ulam: Well, thank you.
Sherwin: I'm delighted to have a chance to talk to you.
Ulam: No, no, it's a pleasure for me.
Sherwin: Freeman Dyson said that reading the book was just like hearing you talk.
Ulam: Is that good or bad?
Sherwin: No, it was good! That it was very much you.
Ulam: He [Oppenheimer] realized that his creativity was not quite what he would wish to be.
Sherwin: The creativity?
Ulam: In physics.
Sherwin: In physics does not match the—
Ulam: The intelligence, the quickness, the brilliance.
Sherwin: Do you think that was involved in—
Ulam: I felt it, but this was a pure guess, as I think, a gratuitous guess on my part.
Sherwin: Other people have said that. I think that—
Ulam: No, I was saying that, but people must have read what—
Sherwin: People who read it—
Ulam: Yes, maybe, I don't know. As I say, it's a gratuitous guess.
Sherwin: Do you think that has something to do with personality?
Ulam: Oh, yes, with philosophy, political views, social views.
Sherwin: What's your sense of creativity in science? What is its origin?
Ulam: If I knew it, I would be creative.
Sherwin: I'm sure you were creative. Do scientists talk about those sorts of things?
Ulam: Very little. Sometimes, mathematicians, for example, will discuss the sort of [inaudible] [0:25:28] who is better than who, which is on the whole meaningless, unless you say it with, okay, on the whole, Einstein was better than some young instructor in some simple college, that much you can say. But almost rigorously, and otherwise it's—
Sherwin: But they never talk about the—have you ever read a book by—
Ulam: No, books about the nature of creativity in mathematics by [Henri] Poincaré. I love books with articles. [George] Polya, you may have heard of him, a mathematician who is now ninety years old, wrote a very nice series of essays and mentions in his books. [Jacques] Hadamard, the famous French mathematician, wrote something about the nature of creativity.
But really little, because people don't know. You cannot explain how a chess player really thinks. There are many books written by the chess champions, but they cannot explain how they really think or react or [inaudible].
Sherwin: I think it's probably a good thing.
Ulam: Probably [inaudible].
Sherwin: Then they would make a business out of creativity.
Ulam: Exactly, immediately, there would be—
Sherwin: Well, very good.
Copyright 2005 Martin J. Sherwin. This transcript may not be quoted, reproduced, or redistributed in whole or in part by any means except with the written permission of Martin J. Sherwin. Rights granted to Atomic Heritage Foundation.
European Refugees
Hydrogen Bomb
Life in the Secret Cities
Nuclear Arms Race
Oppenheimer Security Hearing
Edward Teller
Stanislaus Ulam
Victor Weisskopf


Who's worried about workplace efficiency?
Who's the new face at the DWP, and what does his appointment mean for pensions?
It's now less than a year until the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regulations come into force. Has your scheme started to prepare yet?
BA's battle to get flight schedules back on track this weekend wasn't enough to distract senior minds from another of the company's business concerns - its pension scheme.
The big question: Would the proposed grandparent leave significantly help working parents?