SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : CSGI ...READY FOR TAKE-OFF!

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tech who wrote (2353)2/5/1998 12:01:00 PM
From: tech  Read Replies (1) of 3391
 
Nuclear Power Industry Is Not Being Forthright, Says Y2K Programmer ___(news)


Link: y2ktimebomb.com


Don Taylor is concerned that the nuclear power industry is not telling the
public the whole truth regarding the industry's noncompliance. The
industry pooh-poohs critics, yet it does not provide evidence of the actual
risks. It even implies that some plants have become compliant, but none is
named.

* * * * * * *

Example: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Nuclear Utilities
Software Management Group (NUSMG) issued a Y2K strategy document
last fall for the industry. Wermiel called it "a FAIRLY (emphasis supplied)
effective program...covering everything a licensee needs to be concerned
about." He WANTS to see a Y2K plan at least as good in place at every
nuclear power facility. Where are the teeth in wanting?

Example: The NEI Director of Operations, Jim Davis, compared the
century rollover to the exercise nuclear power plants must run through
for conversion to Daylight Savings Time. "Not a big deal," he said.
Comparing an event that is happening for the first time in the history of
nuclear power plants to one that has happened twice yearly for the twenty
years or so they have been in operation is too big a stretch to be taken
seriously.

Example: Davis objected to what he called "myths, confusion and
misstatements" about the true state of Y2K affairs within his industry,
saying that it is difficult to "sort stories from facts." But in his next breath
he admitted that until enterprises perform their inventory and assessment,
the magnitude of the situation remains unknown. In spite of this admitted
lack of facts, in spite of the fact that there are less than two years
remaining to resolve a problem of unknown size, he told the public that
everything was in good order. Mr. Davis topped all that off with "But
those that have done it say (the conversion) is a manageable problem." If
one or more nuclear power plants have completed the conversion, why
aren't they spreading the news? . . .

Assurances such as these are the reasons why everyone should be
extremely concerned with the upcoming Year 2000 Crisis. It is disturbing
to imagine that such a major part of the power industry, the one industry
that absolutely must stay in operation during the date change, is so
lackadaisical about their plans to meet this crisis. Instead of trying to
reassure the public that they are ready, the Nuclear Energy Institute
should concentrate on finding any and all possible problems that could
occur in their domain.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext