this is from the union for concerned scientists. this is what could happen if things go wrong during y2k.

this is why i say that the gamble is not worth the consequences. this is just one nuclear facility. take this scenario and times it by the current count... 103 nuclear plants across our country.

the preponderance of these plants are in the northeast quadrant...the area with one of the largest population densities in the united states.

electrical grid failure causes reactor scram emergency diesel generators at the nuclear plant fail electrical grid or diesels are not restored rapidly

batteries which power the control room are depleted

operators lose control of the reactor(s)

spent fuel pools begin to boil dry

radiological releases or meltdowns occur no sirens to warn the citizens poor or weakened communications

poor or severe weather conditions make evacuating difficult (snow or ice storm)

one-hundred-thousand dead and dying

trillions of dollars lost land unviable for decade

now ask yourself, what are the chances? and remember these are uncharted waters... we have never had a y2k. we don't know what will happen... no one does.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

Answers

Hi Marianne,

"this is from the union for concerned scientists. this is what could happen if things go wrong during y2k" - - is there a particular URL you are referring to? If yes, could you please send it to me?

Thanks,

Pau

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

The worst case scenario is taken from a statement on Three Mile Island Alert's web site by TMIA not UCS. It was posted because GAO is recommending worst case scenarios become public knowledge.

There is virtually no chance of all 103 reactors experiencing this problem as the poster suggested us to imagine. There is only a small chance of the worst case scenario happening at any reactor.

http://www.tmia.com

The poster has used other quotes from the TMIA page.

People ought to give the URLs to any information they find if they are truly interested in helping others.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999

hi tmi alert,

thanks for the 'heads up.' i posted that at 3:45 this morning and i didn't see anything that signified a break between the paper by david lochbaum, union of concerned scientists and the list of worst case possibilities. i had no idea that it was recommended by the gao. do all the electric companies list the worst case scenario on their web pages?

sorry about the url... i usually list them.

it is different from the one listed by tmi alert as it is more direct. just scroll down a bit and the worst case scenario list is right there. underneath is a very interesting article, actually that whole page is *very* enlightening.

http://www.tmia.com/Y2K.htm

btw, tmi, you misunderstood my post. i did not state that 103 reactors were going to melt down only that it increases the chances by 103 that that we could experience an 'incident.'

after looking at your website opening page i feel alot less secure than i previously did and that wasn't really saying much. i really fear having to evacuate and i feel that tmi should be first on the list to be shut down. one evacuation in a lifetime is enough.

as i said before:

now ask yourself, what are the chances? and remember these are uncharted waters... we have never had a y2k. we don't know what will happen... no one does.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 1999