I just wanted to make sure everyone saw this from a post from yesterday...

"3 weeks of power outages? asked in the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Q&A Forum

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Z4n

Yesterday, someone posted in the Play by Play thread something about a Georgia representative who appeared on a radio talk show, saying that Koskinen was telling state officials to make contingency plans for a three week power outage. A couple of us raised eyebrows at that, so I inquired who it was. I took the time to call GA Rep. Grindley yesterday. In our conversation, he established this and divulged a bit more. Mr. Grindley is chair of Georgia's Task Force 2000. In speaking with the CIO of Georgian state systems, the CIO mentioned that Koskinen had told them to ensure their contingency plans addressed 3 weeks without electric power. Mr. Grindley said that the CIO had told him the Feds are quite alarmed ("scared shitless" was his phrase) about the ease with which anyone can break into the power grid, as it was never meant to be overly secure. The grid, evidently, runs at 60 MHz, and if anyone broke in and told the system it was anything less than 60 MHz, maybe 59.8, it would all shut down."

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), March 04, 1999

Answers

To clarify: This was originally posted by... -- Brett (savvydad@aol.com), March 03, 1999

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), March 04, 1999.

...but happily, us sheeple only have to prepare for 3-5 days. That is how long it will take Big Brother to come an take us to Prison Camps.

I guess, in the true spirit of double-speak, we should have an appropriate name for shelters. Fun-houses?

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@anonymous.com), March 05, 1999.

Mabel,

While I don'nt ever want to be accused of defending Koskinem, I think what he meant to say was that 3 days of disprution is likely. However, when the states do their contingency planning they should plan for a worst case scenario of three weeks. There are two different scenarios.

-- Watcher (anon@anon.com), March 05, 1999.

Hi all - since I'm the one who posted this, I wanted to point out that I don't believe this is a prediction. Rather, if the states are being told to prepare to this degree, shouldn't we all? I had an interesting conversation with my county EMS guy (Bob, who is a a really good guy). I asked him about this. He said that he hasn't heard this, but he would recommend making personal contingencies for a 7 to 10 day outage. So for those boneheads who suggest we shouldn't prepare, here's a word to ya.

Bob did say that he would define "panic" as getting guns and a year's supply of food.

IMHO, I think it selfish for those who want to store a year's worth of food for themselves and then protect it with guns. For my own family, we bought 3 years worth of non-hybrid seeds and plan to grow that a solid winter's worth of food this summer and to replenish it next year. That doesn't take from the food common to everyone in the grocery stores. Since the food in stores wasn't personally grown, it's kind of common to us all. Make sense? That common food wasn't grown to support everyone buying a year's worth of canned goods this year, so to buy a bunch of it and keep it for yourself really isn't right. It's immoral, in my opinion. If anyone wants that much food - grow it yourself.

As for the guns, to each his own (it's a free country) but the people you're most likely to be defending yourselves against in a worst-case scenario are your neighbors. Is that right?

Bob didn't expressly state it, but I think the fed, state, and local governments fear lots of little fortresses in their cities.

There was a guy named Bruce yesterday who posted saying "Don't panic." I think a problem we have is that there are too many definitions for panic. Is panic storing food? Storing water? Going rural? Buying an AK-47? Selling out of the market and buying every gold coin you can find? We're all a little loose with that word. I'm curious how everyone defines panic. FWIW, I think there is a bit of justified panic with Y2K and I think it's really nobody else's business what we all do to prepare, though we all have our opinions about what it ethical. Panic is an emotion that serves a purpose, so it has positive sides to it.

Ethically, I don't think it's right to do anything that would jeopardize the survival of anyone else in this crisis. Personally, I would define negative panic as outright selfishness that prevents me from thinking about anyone else but myself and my family. And based upon that definition, I have seen very little evidence of that in this group.

Thoughts?

-- Brett (savvydad@aol.com), March 05, 1999.

"While I don'nt ever want to be accused of defending Koskinem, I think what he meant to say was that 3 days of disprution is likely. However, when the states do their contingency planning they should plan for a worst case scenario of three weeks. There are two different scenarios."--Watcher

Here the Yourdonites have always said "Hope for the best, prepare for the worse." That is why we are so keen on wanting to know what the powers that be really think.

-- Chris (Catsy@pond.com), March 05, 1999.

The consensus I'm hearing from the Y2K Project Manager community is 3 days contingency planning for utility disruptions and 2 weeks supplies for supply chain disruptions.

-- Buddy (buddy@bellatlantic.net), March 05, 1999.

"IMHO, I think it selfish for those who want to store a year's worth of food for themselves and then protect it with guns. For my own family, we bought 3 years worth of non-hybrid seeds and plan to grow that a solid winter's worth of food this summer and to replenish it next year. That doesn't take from the food common to everyone in the grocery stores. Since the food in stores wasn't personally grown, it's kind of common to us all. Make sense? That common food wasn't grown to support everyone buying a year's worth of canned goods this year, so to buy a bunch of it and keep it for yourself really isn't right. It's immoral, in my opinion. If anyone wants that much food - grow it yourself."

Just a bit judgmental, eh?

Please explain to me why buying a year's worth of wheat, (or beans, or rice)with prices at near an all time (adjusted) low, and with farmers looking for a way to sell surplus crops, is selfish or immoral?

If you're going to make public judgments of the actions others, please be prepared to offer some rationale for those judgments other than "IMHO."

-- De (dealton@concentric.net), March 05, 1999.

"That common food wasn't grown to support everyone buying a year's worth of canned goods this year, so to buy a bunch of it and keep it for yourself really isn't right. It's immoral, in my opinion. If anyone wants that much food - grow it yourself."

That's fabulous advice for apartment dwellers everywhere.

Perhaps you don't read the Wall Street Journal but farmers are going bankrupt in record numbers. The moral thing to do if, unless you hate farmers, is to purchase a bunch of food so that A. fewer farmers will go under B. You will have the capacity to feed whomever you choose, yourself or others.

Anybody here think that poverty will cease on 1/1/2000 if Y2K is a minor bump in the road? Buy a years worth of food, save your receipts, if you don't need it for Y2K take it down to your local food pantry and get a reciept from them for tax purposes.

"Stop checking that lifeboat for leaks. Don't you relaize that attracts icebergs??

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 05, 1999.

De,

It helps if you read exactly what I wrote, which was in reference to buying canned goods and other foods in grocery stores. You want to buy a year's worth of whole wheat, rice, and beans? Go right ahead. My opinions, pro or con to your actions, won't change a thing. The main point of what I said was this: anything you may do which hinders the welfare of others during Y2K is wrong. Is that judgmental? Of course. We all judge what we see and hear.

Is there a year's supply of food in the grocery stores today for everyone? No, maybe about two or three weeks worth in the entire supply chain (that's a big guess, not based upon fact). In my opinion (yes, we all have them, and no, they aren't always right or fair), people who load up on a year's quantity of grocery store items that others may want/need ought to consider growing that themselves to leave as much as possible for others. Summer's coming - you have the time to do that. No self-righteousness here - just trying to say that I'm putting my actions where my mouth is. I could be wrong, if so, it's what it is.

You need to do what you think is moral and ethical. We all do. Have we gotten to the point in this country that morality lies on such a relativistic landscape that even trying to state a principal of my own is considered rude? Please...

-- Brett (savvydad@aol.com), March 05, 1999.

Bret,

No, I don't find you posts rude at all. Just incredibly naive.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 05, 1999.

Darn, Greybear, beat me to it.

"You need to do what you think is moral and ethical. We all do. Have we gotten to the point in this country that morality lies on such a relativistic landscape that even trying to state a principal of my own is considered rude?"

No, Brett, we've gotten to the point where when you feel that you must resort to name calling -- immoral -- to state that principal that you are rude. Don't try to tar me with the strawman brush of relative morality. The morality I hold to is that I am required to provide for and to protect my family. They are a gift to me, from God, to cherish and to protect. My family, Brett, not all of bleeding humanity.

I don't agree with your position. That's OK. But, I don't call you names because you hold it.

Maybe you simply don't realize that others might be offended when you launch into broadbased ad hominem attacks and label them immoral. If so you should rethink your position.

I strongly object to your use of terms such as 'immoral' to describe those of us who are preparing. Hold your position, naive though I consider it, but consider that you initiated things with your post. Again, your post was not a statement of position -- it was an attack on other's positions.

-- De (dealton@concentric.net), March 05, 1999.

IMHO, I think it selfish for those who want to buy more than a year's worth of seeds for themselves and then protect it with guns. Since the seeds in stores wasn't personally grown, it's kind of common to us all. Make sense? That common seed wasn't grown to support everyone buying more than a year's worth of seeds this year, so to buy a bunch of it and keep it for yourself really isn't right. It's immoral, in my opinion. If anyone wants that much seed - grow it yourself. Anybody that hoards seed is driving up the price of seeds now and preventing other people from getting seed later.

-- Yes Now (i@get.it), March 05, 1999.

I've taken a huge hit in this thread - so be it. I bought three years worth of seed because my farmer neighbors don't intend to abandon their hybrid seeds. If TSHTF next year, I'll be doling out seed to my neighbors to help them survive. I don't expect that when the December/January panic hits, there will be long lines for seed. I do expect there will be long lines for food in the grocery stores.

I don't own a gun. I may buy a gun this year... it depends on what we see happening. If we do, it won't be for defense, but rather for hunting.

Good luck everyone in the next year. I hope the plans you make not only help you, but also others.

-- Brett (savvydad@aol.com), March 05, 1999.

Brett,

Here's something for your consideration. The canned goods purchased today will raise the demand for canned goods tomorrow causing all aspects of production to ramp up this spring and summer to meet that increased demand by the fall and winter. From that perspective, those who have purchased large quantities of canned goods this far in advance could have just saved a whole lot of folks by providing a greater source of food just when they need it AND by distributing the demand for those goods over a greater period of time giving the stores a chance to keep up with it. I haven't noticed any shortage in canned goods due to our efforts. In fact, stores in my area are so loaded with canned foods, they are having large sales to get rid of it.

Not to mention, many of us here are buying more than what we think we need for the express purpose of feeding those who will not have because they did not heed the warnings to prepare.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), March 05, 1999.

"I don't own a gun. I may buy a gun this year... it depends on what we see happening. If we do, it won't be for defense, but rather for hunting."

Brett, you are obviously immoral. By hunting, you would be reducing the animal population, making it hard for the unprepared to get food. You should be growing your own deer, like I do in my apartment.

Sarcasm?

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), March 05, 1999.

Getting back to the original posting, while the grid operates at much higher voltages than the local lines, I think the frequency is the same as local lines: 60 Hz (without the M).

From what I have read in several places, it does appear that maintaining synchronization of the grid, and therefore the frequency, is very important, but I have not seen any info regarding how susceptible the grid is to a break in.

However, there have been several mentions of the susceptibilty of the grid to disruptions resulting from very large customers suddenly shutting down. Any change in load on the grid requires one or more generators to increase or decrease their output. If a change in load is very large and sudden, for example, a large factory suddenly shutting down entirely, it seems that that such a change in load may briefly trigger over voltage and over frequency conditions. If I correctly interpret what I have read (in other words, I have no experience in this field, and the rest of this sentence is a layman's interpretation of what I have read), if the change in load is large enough and sudden enough, then either circuit breakers will pop (somewhat bad) or circuits will fry (very bad).

While I have seen several mentions of concern of such sudden large changes of load on the grid, I have not seen detailed discussions of how resulting failures propagate.

Jerry B

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), March 05, 1999.

P.S. If the frequency measurement circuit of my cheap oscilloscope is accurate, the local AC routinely varies between 59.88 and 60.10 Hz (in a few minutes of observation).

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), March 05, 1999.

Brett,

You're breathing too much of our common air supply. Cut it out, or grow your own.

-- nobody (nobody@home.org), March 10, 1999.

Seems like a definition of terms is in order. Original poster mentioned that it was "selfish" to store food for a year. What does selfish mean in your original context? I personally can't get my brain to wrap around the notion that it's "selfish" to want to eat, aka live. From an investment/economic perspective, is it not always prudent to have in one's Life Portfolio some long-term securites? I'm not a stock market person, but I've heard that's the case. Having a store of food in case of infrastructure failure, AND, being prepared to grow and forage seems simply logical to me rather than "selfish".

Perhaps in the long run, it's best to stop listening to media spin about "selfish wacko survivalist types"...It can cause sane people to question their mental faculties.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), March 10, 1999.