Sorry, I'm trying to do 'net research and paint the house at the same time:
Which documents? I see the readiness reviews:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10741
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10740 (hmmm---Bonnie Dunbar
still has a job?)

The Washington Post story cites a number of complaints, including defective
or inoperable environmental monitoring equipment, a defribillator which
might explode if used, etc.---the consequences of "extremely limited
resupply". As a result:

" TWO OFFICIALS responsible for health and environmental conditions on the
space station refused to approve the launch of the new crew, instead signing
a dissent that warned about "the continued degradation" of the environmental
monitoring and health maintenance systems and exercise equipment vital to
the astronauts' well-being."

JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
****************
* JOKE *
****************
* SERIOUS *
****************
* SARCASTIC *
****************
* OTHER? *
****************

"James Oberg" wrote in message
...

Hold onto your hats.

Be sure you are sitting down.

I've looked at the documents (see www.nasawatch.com) and the
countermeasures, and the hazard predictions, and it seems to me that the
process worked like I wish it had pre-Feb-1.
---clip---