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 : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Mansfield who wrote (3106)1/1/1999 5:35:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Respond to of 9818
 
'Very interesting reply to my posting...

----------------------------------------------------------

|Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998
|From: [an anonymous insider with a government agency
involved with nuclear energy]
|Re: STORM SPARKS MAJOR NUCLEAR ALERT AT PLANT

At 09:03 PM 12/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>>>
Nothing will happen like this in 2000, right???
<<<<

<grin> Not if the NIRS gets the NRC to shut down nukes in July . . . .

This is a scary event. It gives *me* shivers. I do want to
complain about one tiny thing, though. The reporter who wrote
this up doesn't know from nukes, or so I guess. This bit:

>>>>
...
They couldn't restart the back-up generators, vital to keep the
reactors' two cores from overheating.

Frightened staff were called from their homes and battled for
five hours to manually try to reset the safety systems before the
cores went "critical".
...
<<<<

When a core goes "critical," that simply means that it has
started doing what it's supposed to do. Analogy: turning the
key in the ignition of your car causes a spark that starts the
internal-combustion process going. The moment you can let go of
the key, your car has "gone critical," if cars used the same
jargon as nukes. It's an unfortunate term with a lot of baggage
from the medical usage (a person in "critical condition" is close
to personal "meltdown," you might say), but it came out of
engineers figuring out just how much activity they needed in the
core to get the chain reaction into a self-sustaining condition
-- too little activity, and the process shuts *itself* down (too
much and it goes too fast! Not a bomb-type boom, but enough to
vaporize the water into a steam explosion). There is a "critical
point" at which you can take the "key" out of the reactor's
"ignition" and its "motor" can then "idle" -- at least for as
long as it has fuel -- without you needing to constantly send
sparks from the starter coil.

In the old TV show, "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea," nearly every
show had some poor ensign charging onto the bridge (at a
"critical" moment in the plot . . . ) crying, "Admiral! Admiral!
The reactor's critical!"

The Admiral's reply should have been, "Well, I certainly hope
so!" ;-)

At any rate, in Scotland they had *shut down* the reactor --
turned the thing off. They were *not* racing to do stuff before
the reactor "went critical" -- that's like saying you've turned
off your car and now have to worry that it will turn itself back
on before you've changed the oil or something.

They *were* racing to get that core cooled before it overheated!
That certainly qualifies as a "critical condition" in the
ordinary sense of the word "critical," as with an accident victim
-- the core overheats and melts down into a pile of radioactive
slag ("The China Syndrome") which is a *very* bad thing to
happen.

It would not have been Chernobyl-like, however; it would have
been like Three Mile Island, where they lost coolant water (and
yes, the reactor *did* slag, but of course it didn't melt through
the earth, or even through the floor). I suppose it's possible
that the Scottish reactor could have heated to the point of
causing a steam explosion (and it was exploding *steam* that blew
Chernobyl's guts all over Europe), but I imagine they could just
have drained the water out, before it came to that. A Three Mile
Island is nobody's picnic either, but at least it's all
contained.

Back to Y2K -- I do think this event makes a good argument for
NIRS's position. If the grid goes down, how *do* the reactors
cool their cores? How many have backup generators with *four
months* of fuel on hand? How many would have four months' worth
of dedicated employees coming in despite what's going on in their
own homes and communities? Do the reactor operators all have
reserve tanks of gasoline at home so they can GET to work?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roleigh Martin ourworld.compuserve.com
( easy to remember alias is: webalias.com )
(A Web Site that focuses on Y2k threat to Utilities, Banks & more)
To subscribe to free e-letter, fill in the form at the bottom of the page:



To: John Mansfield who wrote (3106)1/1/1999 5:39:00 AM
From: John Mansfield  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9818
 
'Very top highlights below -- a very important interview; my
few comments are in brackets. -- The below URL is 3 lines long
but must be joined as all one line. If you can't get to the original
source that way, go to usia.gov
and search for "DECEMBER 17, 1998 - Transcript of video conference"

--Roleigh

pdq2.usia.gov@pdqtest1.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=VKQCIPCMMLYM&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124045&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_PDQ_DOCUMENT_VIEW=1&CQSUBMIT=View&CQRETURN=&CQPAGE=1

United States Information Agency

Title: TRANSCRIPT: ABRAMS CITES INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT Y2K
COOPERATION (Industry to help other groups become Y2K ready)

Date: 19981223

Text:

Washington -- A U.S. official says senior people in government
are working closely with private industry to develop contingency
plans to deal with the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem and find
ways to respond to emergencies that may occur.

Janet Abrams, executive director of the President's Council on
Year 2000 Conversion, told a USIA digital video conference
December 17 that the council's 25 working groups -- made up of
senior federal officials -- are in the process of assessing the
Y2K readiness of key industrial sectors such as air, rail,
electric power, oil and gas, and food supply.

...

MS. ABRAMS: We're here in Washington on a gray, rainy day. And
let me explain first of all, my position. I am the Executive
Director of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. I
serve as the deputy to John Koskinen, who is the chair of the
council. And he is an assistant to the President.

President Clinton -- for your background, President Clinton
established the Council on Year 2000 Conversion in February of
this year, 1998. The council is made up of approximately 40
senior federal government officials. It's an inter-agency
government panel. And we meet monthly. Yesterday we just had our
eighth meeting -- our December meeting. The council began meeting
in April.

We are divided into some 25 working groups. And each of the
working groups focuses on a particular area of concern --
electric power, oil and gas, state and local government --
outreach to those entities, Native American governments, et
cetera -- transportation, food supply, I could go on and on.

These working groups have each formed relationships with the key
umbrella organizations in the private sector, or in state and
local government, if that is what's relevant, to be their
partners.

...

We're working to develop an over-arching capacity to manage what
could be a series -- a large series of mild to moderate
disruptions in our country.

...

We work very closely with all 50 states. We've had a summit here
in Washington with Y2K experts from the states. We had 45 of the
50 states here in July. We will be repeating that in the coming
months here in Washington.

[Why did 5 states not participate--how out of the loop is the
situation in those 5 states?]

...

Our real concern beyond the states is the readiness of cities and
counties. And we have a major push underway to raise the
awareness of those local officials.

The National Association of Counties has just completed a survey
-- one of these assessments that they've done -- in cooperation
with our working on state and local government. And they found
and published just last week that roughly 50 percent of county
governments in our country -- and we have some 4,000 counties in
the United States -- 50 percent do not have a comprehensive Y2K
readiness plan.

...

Also, we are working through our Federal Emergency Management
Agency to reach down to state emergency management officials and
local emergency management officials to get them prepared.

In addition to getting them to become Y2K compliant with their
own systems, we need to get them prepared for the unique
experience that we may all encounter in 12 months because this
will not be business as usual in the emergency response world.

We may have a situation of lots of small disruptions across the
country -- a small utility, a power plant out, a water
purification plant out in another community.

These are situations that in usual times you might be able to
call on the state or the federal government to help solve, but we
are stressing to our local officials that they're going to have
to take care of these problems on our own.

...

And let me add to our priority for 1999 the prevention of public
over-reaction -- public over-reaction to the Y2K problem.

...

We do not envision major massive disruptions, but we want to be
honest with the public. Mr. Koskinen's philosophy is the public
should know all that he knows. And that's why we are publishing
these quarterly reports that -- our first, One Year Out report,
as I mentioned, will be issued to the pubic in a week or two by
year end.

And we will continue to report quarterly through a document and
then regularly, week to week, through meetings with journalists
and events that we create to show the public what is happening.

But again, I'll stress, we are telling the American people that
there may be disruptions in their communities. But the
organization is in place -- number one to prevent to the full
extent possible -- any major disruption, and to respond to
problems that may occur.

...

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, one of our priorities for
the coming year is the prevention of public overreaction to the
Y2K problem. And we believe this is real because it is rational,
as you mentioned, for individuals to have a Y2K contingency plan,
to have a certain amount of cash with them, to make sure they
have a certain amount of food with them, et cetera.

But we know that if 150 million Americans go to the gas station
on December 31, 1999, there is literally not enough gas in the
pipelines here in this country to fill up all those cars, to fill
up those tanks.

And then you know what happens, if people have to wait in long
lines, then a measure of hysteria could ensue.

...

Secondly, let me say that the Federal Reserve Bank in Washington
has publicly announced -- and they did this several weeks ago --
that they are printing $50,000 million to $75,000 million extra
dollars to prepare. Because they understand people will want to
have some more cash with them.

...

But let me comment also on a growing movement in our country --
I'm not sure if you've seen it yet in Italy -- and that is a
movement of citizens coming together to do planning, to do local
planning. They're calling it civic preparedness in their own
communities.

And we see this as a very healthy movement, and we're very
supportive of it. We're not, as you might imagine, very excited
about giving lots of attention to those people who say they need
to buy a gun and move to the hills and take their dried food with
them and their generator and they'll live on their own and
they'll be protected through the Year 2000. We're not too excited
about that group.

But there are some very responsible Americans coming forward and
saying that our communities have got to come together and --
number one -- put positive pressure on their local leaders to do
the work they have to do to fix their system and develop their
contingency plans over the coming months.

And number two, they want to make sure as a community that if
there are a few days of difficult transition into the Year 2000
that, for example, you might store some extra food in a local
school building. Or make sure that there is a building that has a
generator where people could go to as a shelter.

So we are supportive of these efforts that are grass roots, that
are growing from the grass roots.

...

Product Name: WASHINGTON FILE
Document Type: TEXT
Keywords: Y2K; ABRAMS; INDUSTRY; COMPUTERS
Thematic Codes: 5B
Languages: ENGLISH
Originating Team: 98122301.TGI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roleigh Martin ourworld.compuserve.com
( easy to remember alias is: webalias.com )
(A Web Site that focuses on Y2k threat to Utilities, Banks & more)
To subscribe to free e-letter, fill in the form at the bottom of the page:
ourworld.compuserve.com
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe" message to
roleigh_for_web-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Print out this Y2K brochure to give to your neighbors, friends & relatives:
ourworld.compuserve.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: John Mansfield who wrote (3106)1/1/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: John Mansfield  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9818
 
'Great Atomic Energy Site for Y2K info!

asked in the Electric Utilities and Y2K Q&A Forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found an excellent site for Y2K & Nukes. iaea.org

This report (brand new draft - comments due 12/21/98) is titled "Guidance for the Assessment and Remediation of the Year 2000 Problem to Maintain the Safety of Nuclear Installations"

I hope some of you more technically adept forum members can read through this one and give us your imput. There is a whole series of sites located around this document that look very interesting.

-- Meg Davis (Meg9999@aol.com), December 19, 1998

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contribute an answer to "Great Atomic Energy Site for Y2K info!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rcowles@waterw.com

greenspun.com



To: John Mansfield who wrote (3106)1/2/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: Secret_Agent_Man  Respond to of 9818
 
USATODAY 1/1/1999-Year 2000 bug hits some a year early BOISE, Idaho - Thousands of people using outdated accounting
software in their homes or businesses run the risk of being bitten by
the Y2K bug a year earlier than expected.

Cougar Mountain Software Inc. of Boise rushed the newest version
of its Act Plus accounting program to Lynn Electric on Thursday
after the small Bluefield, W.Va., company tried to close its 1998
payroll.

It was using 4-year-old software unable to translate dates that
included the year 2000.

"All the documents reverted to 1944," Cougar Mountain spokesman
Dave Lakhani said. "They were unable to process their payroll and
had to order the update to correct the problem."

Even with the lost man hours, potentially lost data and the hassle of
trying again to close its books over the New Year's holiday
weekend, Lynn Electric got off cheap. The software upgrade cost
only $400.

But experts estimate larger businesses and those using customized
software could face $50,000 to $100,000 expenses.

Vincent Hamm, president of Aim High Inc., a computer consulting
firm in Golden, Colo., said he expects to hear similar tales of woe in
coming days as accounting software users open 1999 financial
calendars that typically extend 18 months - into 2000.

"This is the first one that I've heard, but it makes perfect sense," he
said. "Anytime that you've got something that's forward looking and
it crosses that threshold, you've got a potential problem."

The Y2K problem arose when programmers of early computers
represented each year by its last two digits rather than by all four -
for example, 1972 as 72 - mostly to save computer memory.

Trouble begins when computers try to add or subtract dates using
that two-digit format and the world approaches the year 2000, or 00.
The larger, older mainframe computers still used by government and
big corporations for many vital functions are particularly vulnerable.

Lakhani said Cougar Mountain started notifying all its customers
two years ago that certain software was not Y2K compliant, and
initially offered free upgrades. Additional warnings were issued at
least quarterly through the company's newsletter, Internet site and
direct mail, he said.

Like so many others, Lynn Electric President Lindon Taylor said he
did not expect it to be a problem until late 1999.

"That's what we were thinking, when it kicked over to 2000. We
didn't think about it happening this year," said Taylor, whose
company remanufactures electrical generators and motors.

The company shuts its doors on New Year's Eve each year, so
employees tried to close the annual payroll records and open a 1999
file on Wednesday. Taylor said he thought upgraded software
already had been installed.

"We had checked with our bank and our financial people as best we
could, and we thought we didn't have a problem. But we did."

Hamm said the first Y2K problems actually hit almost 14 months
ago when users of some newly issued credit cards found computers
would not recognize expiration dates in 2000, embossed as "00" on
the cards. He said it took the industry about five months to
completely clear up the difficulty.

As for why Lynn Electric's computers would revert to 1944, Hamm
said a number of personal computer programmers arbitrarily used
that year as the start date for operating system clocks. Some PCs
recognize no dates before 1944, he said, while most outdated
mainframe and other larger computers simply read a date with 00 as
1900 rather than 2000.

By The Associated Press