Hello all, -

I got this from the Coalition 2000;

<< And a word or two about the 3 to 7 day thing as it relates to that guide, and Coalition 2000's position (as I understand it). There was an extensive discussion about it on their mailing list (that you may want to subscribe to - I'm sure the directions are at the site). The key word was/is "concensus." Most people on the list shared the views expressed thus far in this thread that 3 days to 2 weeks just isn't enough. But it was eventually agreed that at this point - given the massive lack of organization/concensus of _any_ kind - gaining the agreement of _everyone_ - Red Cross, FEMA, John Koskinen's office, municipal governments, y2k groups, and individuals, everywhere - on the simple fact that concerted preparations are needed, was the most important issue. The idea being that while 3 days to a couple of weeks may not seem like much, a solid, broad concensus would at least put all municipale officials, emergency services people, organizations, individuals, "on official notice" that plans needed to be made, and put into action ASAP. "No more MAYBE." >>

There is one that somehow aren't mentioned at all in this consensus-building process. The _process_ itself is on the time table - and this is the kind of understanding that seems to be missing from all theoretical discussions about Y2K. What is missing in the whole equation - is leadership of the kind that would inspire people to action on the level that at this point must somehow transcend the very process itself. So, while the politicians were building consensus and were trying to establish the lines of possible control districts _after_ the Y2K - they have forgotten about the Y2K itself and the fact that it just doesn't care about consensus - and is just ticking away with every clock cycle.

<< As you'll notice at the site, Coalition 2000 has taken the position that those timeframes may have to be modified according to each communities perception of their needs, and that they will be reviewed at least a couple of times in the near future to see if they still seem realistic, or if they need to be upped. (And by the way, what's being recommended as a base there is communitywide prep for 3 days of infrastructure disruptions, and two weeks worth of supplies). >>

How would you propose that we address two following facts;

a) September 9, 1999 is a null event. Microcontrollers don't know what to do with it. They will malfunction.

b) Microcontrollers control mission-critical systems at nuclear power stations - and at nuclear weapons installations.

Based on those two and on the fact that at least a couple of months would be needed to safely shut down the nukes ( which would, by the way, provide a perfect storage solution for the rods ) - when would you be inclined to actually shut them down?

I say - July the latest. Which means that by July we had better have a common solution of some sort - because if we don't - we consiously go into a risk of nuclear holocaust without doing a thing about it. This is, actually, my personal moral dilemma.

<< The problem with recommending longer term prep (when it comes to local governments charged with tending to the basic needs of "the masses"), >>

The problem of the government is that it still thinks of us in terms of the 'masses' that need to be prepped in order to provide for our own basic survival. For it is a basic survival that we are talking about - and on an individual basis, however difficult - it is possible and even probable. Humans go through the worst of ordeals with dignity that has always been underestimated by those, tending to the 'masses'. If they don't get it - they are done with. Mistakes like that they won't forgive themselves.

<< And while that may sound puny to anyone who takes this mess seriously, one of the things that occured to me is that an "officially galvanized" community preparing for 3 days to a couple of weeks of y2k trauma would find itself going through a relatively monumental process that could "easily lead people" to the old, "Well... As long as we're doing all this, how much more work would it be to see to it that we were at least half-ready for an extra couple of weeks?" The "while we're at it" thing. >>

For now, however - it looks like what the government is really doing is more like - 'while you are at it, - we're at something completely different, pretending that we don't know that you already know what we still don't have the guts to tell you.'

<< It also occured to me that in those parts of the country where frigid temperatures are a January reality, 3 days without the infrastructure is no walk in the park. >>

There are fourty plus nuclear stations in the Eastern interconnect. To shut them down takes a couple of months. What do you think it would take to bring them back up? Those nukes' aggregate input into that interconnect is so great, that if you take them off-line - you are going back to a wooden stove, no less - unless you happen to have the generator that will last you for as long as you will be trying to bring the nukes back up. Now, considering that there are several thousand control modules per _each_ station and considering that we are shutting them down because of the possibility of _one_ of them failing - how many years do you think it would take to have them working reliably again? :)

<< But again The main point (in the Coalition 2000 discussion, anyway), seemed to be that the "concensus factor" could prove to be a highly valuable, momentous thing in itself. >>

I don't know what needs to happen at this point - but I sincerely hope that someone in that Government of ours will start taking a proactive leadership in organizing this movement. << "What Might We Face?". >>

Let's see - if the issue is not addressed properly and immediately - we might face the explosion of cancer ( in one of the possible scenarios, in which the nuclear weapons did _not_ explode - but some nukes actually melted down - and the people just weren't told about it. Of course, given the Web - this would be impossible to hide ) - and every family would have to go through what Chernobyl families went through - with no medical facilities to speak of, no reliable power, no reliable food source, no reliable water source. I.e. - the pain of cancer without the drugs. For generations to come.

What else? Since the state of the chemical plants is also an unknown - we could be poisoned even if the nukes are shut down on time. Then again - the prison doors might open - with no guards in site - for those guards _know_ what Y2K is all about - and they will be home, with their families.

What we might face? It doesn't matter now. We know that better than anyone in the government ever had the guts to ever say openly and honestly. What we need now - is help. Investment, popularization of our efforts, ___HONEST___ disclosure of the facts - and open search for solutions on all levels. Otherwise - none of what we do right now will matter in less than four months. My opinion.

Respectfully, Gene Albinder.

-- Gene Albinder (genesa@best.com), March 10, 1999