it's for real, people

-- for real (nojoke@notkidding.com), March 08, 1999

Answers

You need to get a life, and in a hurry.

-- Codejockey (codejockey@geek.com), March 08, 1999.

Do your parents know that you are playing with their computer?

-- Watcher (anon@anon.com), March 08, 1999.

Okay... seems like there may be something to this. Check out http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/Reuters19990308_2057.html

Hope that I got it in correctly... Still reading the wire report.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 08, 1999.

same old, same old - The story is valid - but it is repeating the same propaganda from the NIRS - ( Nuclear Information and Resource Service) - and the news media claims people who are preparing against potential Y2K outages are hyper and fear-mongering!!!

Its propaganda from a group whose agenda is shutting down nuclear power plants through public fear-mongering and endless hype couched in semi-techno babble and unverfied exaggerations - repeated by a gullible press.

Gee.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

Robert you are a wonderful and cool-minded person from the righ wing end of the spectrum, and I hope what you say is true. But I wrote a paper once on Chernobyl, and I don't like the sounds of this. NOW we're hearing that the SAFETY systems are timebombed, and BACKUP generators. Those two words send shivers up my spine!!!!! I'd much rather be without power next summer, and have rioting on the East Coast, then have those bad boys running. Hopefully there is SOMe way out of this mess, even if it is costly.

-- Gilles Deleuze (Delezue@thunderhead.com), March 08, 1999.

...then again, I don't live on the East Coast, and I DO live near two nuke plants.

-- Gilles Deleuze (deleuze@thunderhead.com), March 08, 1999.

No -the NIRS is claiming they are at risk - and demanding impossible (and technically very risky and of poor design) repairs to sensitive backup power generators and circuits that work fine and are regularly tested. Diesel gen sets start when a valve emits air into the tops of the cylinders - they are essentially over-grown train engines - and are part of the designed-in safety sequence regulated by the NRC. Once the engine is turning, its has a gear-driven fuel and lube pump - and the generator is attached to the shaft. Power is automatic from the generator ckt breakers to switchgear - manual or auomatic controlled into the power plant from there. So the question is fuel supply (several weeks worth at low service needs such as shutdown conditions) and air pressure - several restarts are kept in several different backup tanks - isolateable as required by hand or automatically.

The plants are designed to self-powered if grid or breaker problems isolate them from outside power. Or you get can power and water from the sister plant next door - from any of several dozen water sources in the plant itself, or from a fire truck if need be.

You don'tever want to add new parts and pieces to try to "fix" something not broken, and not even Y2K affected, especially at the last moment, when nothing is needed in the safety circuits to be changed. But that's what the NIRS wants - then, when their artifical deadline can't be met - they can demand that the plants be shutdown. When no design change was needed in the first place.

The NIRS is making exaggerated statements also about the safety circuits - then demanding that extra diesels, solar power units, etc be added to critical circuits - when they are not needed.

That's why they call it remediation - many things do need proper checking, identification, possible replacement, and the nukes have begun on it and are properly testing their systems (see Peach Bottom) to eliminate early on the remaining problems) not just bits and pieces of the isolated parts of the system.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

This same NIRS propaganda is rattling around in 4 threads this afternoon. (Two fortunately only have one or two answers asking for more information) - so to consolidate things and to avoid me confusing things by skipping somebody. Amazing isn't it, that the news media can really publicize wrong information real quickly when it fits their prejudices and agenda?

So this is copied from the bottom of the the other thread, it has a question in the middle, so I left it there.

< Notice - no fossil-fueled plant is doing this level of testing and repair with this visibility? (They might be doing it - but if so, it's well hidden publicly...)

But every steam plant has similar control and programming problems to this nuclear one: steam, feed, temperatures, recording devices, monitors, regulators, make-up water, generators, power, H2 streams, cooling water, .....

Again people, ignore the press releases from the NIRS.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

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

Hey Robert,

I like reading your posts sometimes and you seem like a really nice guy, but you need to think about the implications of radiation, and imagine what it would do. We are Americans and we can figure out a beteer way, this is what we are good for.

-- CONCERNED (concerned@nuke.com), March 08, 1999.

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

I've studied it, written papers about it, photographed it, been photographed by it, taken classes in it, been exposed to it, cleaned it up, prevented it, minimized it, used it, and surveyed it. I've lived with, in it, and around it.

I never, ever, trivialize it - I respect it, but a commercial pilot gets more exposure (from cosmic radiation) per year from flying than I ever got building, running, repairing and dismantling nuclear power plants. On a surface vessel - the commanding officer and exec. officer -standing duty higher in the ship and so with less steel between them and the universe - often get more radiation than I got standing watch lower in the ship - below the steel and closer to the reactor.

But he (the pilot) isn't measured. He's exposed to and receiving it unknowingly, but he's not measured. And so isn't worried about it.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

Robert,

Am I ever glad you're around here. Puleeez don't go anywhere.

--Greybear, who will make them stop the pink tutu business if necessary

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 08, 1999.

1) This guy (Robert) is a TRUE POWER JOCK (as we used to call them at Niagra Power Institute..AKA Clarkson Univ)

2) ANYONE who has passed Hyman R.'s personal interview to work as a navy nuc person KNOWS HUS STUFF!! I have a couple friends who passed teh interview so, believe me, it AIN'T EASY (errrrr wasn't easy)

(repeat of gist of prev post other thread)

foggy

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 08, 1999.

Chuck, hope your vision clears soon! Am curious if you're happy with good vision in a month or two. Have thought of doing it but am too chicken. Keep us updated. Thanx

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 08, 1999.

It's like swimming through oatmeal. One more time.

Dear Gilles D.,

You stated, "But I wrote a paper once on Chernobyl, and I don't like the sounds of this." I will assume that you are a sincere individual that was honest enough to look up info before you wrote your paper. If you were looking up your info at a public library or university library most lkely all you found was "popular press" type articles and books. If you did some hard digging you would have found information that would calm your fears of US nuclear power plants.

Most popular press info about Chernobyl completely ignored the fact that Chernobyl was a weapons plant, Chernobyl did not have a containment building or even a contanment chamber (at least in the conventional sense of the terms), the Chernobyl STEAM EXPLOSION was caused by a truely wacko experiment that would have been safe (no explosion) if they hadn't tried to bring the unit to full power faster than the system was capable of, and most interesting of all - when measured in man years of lives saved, considering coal fired plants in USSR were (are) such horrible poluters Chernobyl probably saved more lives than it killed, not including the hormetic effect of the radiation which would improve the man lives saved even more.

Ie. your paper, I would guess based on your concerns, was a victim of GIGO.

The most thorough technical review but understandable be educated laymen of the Chernobyl incident was by Bruce Silbey if anybody wants to learn anything.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 08, 1999.

I read that the reactors have to be shut down 5-6 months ahead of y2k if it looks like they won't be compliant. Is this true?

-- Arron Timothy Lee (atlee@aol.com), March 08, 1999.

No, Mr. Lee - that's not true. Get hold of me if you have further quesions, I'll get you the specifc references and links.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 08, 1999.

The NRC audits are interesting reading, but the thing that bothers me about all of them is contained in the first sentence. For example:

From December 14 through 17, 1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff conducted an audit of the Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness program at the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) in accordance with the audit plan for this activity.

Four days!!! Now does this sound like a real "audit", or does it sound like they sat around a conference room and allowed the utility to show them charts while feeding them doughnuts? If the latter, it's basically self-reported progress, not an audit.

-- Michael Goodfellow (mgoodfel@best.com), March 08, 1999.

Been there, done that - it's a real audit. Nasty times. These guys are polite - but deadly in their seriousness - as they should be.

But you aren't interested in counting the thousands of manhours done in checking and analyzing things in separate reports, drills, and inspections before or after the audit itself. To others, this level of audit also is intended to verify the accuracy of the plants independent 100% audits as well - that is, they are inspecting the inspection and design check process as well. Training and drills and and inspection and repair procedures would not be checked at this time. Nor would operational safety - unless as affected by changes in new operating procedures....

Now, how long does a bank audit take? What other power or utility or services distribution systems have been audited at all? Anywhere? By anyone?

(For Y2K compliance audits - and this inspection was just one sub-system of the regulation phases.)

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 09, 1999.

All this stuff is scaring me! I can't seem to think rationally about it, just emotionally. I have been preparing calmly for Y2K for a year. I have a ton of food in my basement and am prepared for long streches without water, electricity, etc. But now I keep reading this stuff about meltdowns at nuclear plants - AND I LIVE ONLY ABOUT 20 MILES FROM THE SEABROOK PLANT GETTING ALL THE PRESS. Help me here. Please! What questions should I be asking, and who should I be asking them of. I'm serious, I am clueless about this and scared.

Jo

-- Jo (notelling@somewhere.com), March 09, 1999.

Robert: Please don't let this guy run you ragged. You don't deserve what he's doing to you. Can I suggest that a few paragraphs of your best (and always truthful) input by put on your own thread? The next time he vomits, you or we can insert a troll alert with a link to "Robert's House of Reason" for any legitimatenewbies to view.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), March 09, 1999.