In the final analysis, the sole reason for the publication of this website is to impart a sense of the ****sheer magnitude of theY2k problem**** in the electric utility business. Some "high level" suggestions for beating this problem in the electric industry are offered, but only in the context, again, of ***imparting magnitude.***

It is also hoped that this website serves as a catalyst for discussion on why it is paramount that individual electric companies fashion their efforts into a collective industry response to this issue over the coming months.

rick cowles

now i have read this three times and i maintain that what i wrote in my previous posts was well within the bounds.

in order for anyone to make an informed deduction one must know not only the current status but also the history of the object of study.

in order to understand the "sheer magnitude" of the risks we face with y2k as the direct result of a shaky grid and the resultant failure of a nuclear facility we must study the subject from every conceivable angle.

i therefore humbly submit that the discussion of the nuclear industry is indeed within the parameters outlined above.

And lastly, if this website does no more than raise your own personal awareness of the seriousness of this situation, then it has accomplished its reason for being.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Answers

I agree. I just recently moved to Florida. LIved on the west coast all of my life. I can tell you that tho we had nuclear plants out there, we never had a clue as to the critical nature of what happened at TMI. It was only after we moved to Florida and was at a wedding reception where I happened on a bunch of transplants to Florida that were all from the area around TMI. Listening to their stories REALLY opened my eyes. I had about as much a clue as to what went on back then as the public has about y2k now. So....yes, I think a little history is appropriate. I respect Rick and the others on this forum very much, but remember that not all of us have any of the knowledge that you people do. You want to start talking medicine, I can start yawning too. But were you to suddenly come down with a disease, I bet you would be searching the net for info and a lot of that would be historical testimonies. Ever notice how close the word historical is to hysterical? Loosen up guys.

Taz...who is all ears re anything nuclear...past or present tense!!

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

I suggest post be made to the newsgroup alt.engineering.nuclear where the list is not moderated. Updated posts and threads are easy to follow there.

The Davis - Besse incident is a totally valid point about diesel generator viability and Y2K implications.

I will poist a diesel generator failure database at alt.engineering.nuclear

Maybe Rick will allow such posts from now on.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Well,

Credentials: Rick deleted my very first post to this forum. In that post I complained that the summary/question line of a an excellent thread was meaningless and even misleading - I almost scanned over the thread without another thought.

Over the past few months however, I have come to appreciate Rick's point of view and his reason for deleting my post. Rick takes the time to carefully monitor this forum. He deletes self serving political threads and posts, the flamers, and any other OT post. For the most part, I can read everything on this forum beacuse Rick takes the time to ensure that every thread remains focused and on topic. This means the forum can attract the continued support of folks who are interested in more than a Y2K soap opera - engineers, programmers, and others who value their time.

Come on, we all have an agenda. I guess I am saying I appreciate Ricks agenda. The forum is a background reference source for all those who want to speak or write intelligently about electric utilities and Y2K. I hope Rick continues to dedicate the time it takes to ensure the forum's professional viewpoint. If you don't agree with Rick, I think it is time to take a deep breath and get over it. I did.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Marianne, One of the first things I did after becoming concerned with the Y2K flaw was to coral a friend, who was previously a nuclear engineer with the navy and is now studying to be a child psychiatrist, into watching the first half hour of the June 1998 Senate testimony with me. I wanted to observe his reaction and also formulate an idea of how on or off base my level of concern might be. While there was some muted concern on his part one thing he said that stuck with me was "Well the worst that happens is you die" or words to that effect. While one can debate statements like this it does serve to give one a little different lay of the land as it were in the Y2K debate. You state, "the sole reason for the publication of this website is to impart a sense of the ****sheer magnitude of theY2k problem**** in the electric utility business". I don't know if that is Rick's intent, or mission statement as it were, here. I hope not. I am reminded of the story of a med student who is treating a patient, reads assidously on the case and smiling broadly presents an obscure diagnosis of a terminal disease to his staff. "That's great" says the staff, "Now how are you going to tell the patient?" I don't mean to pretend to any false bravado here, I and I'm sure many others are very frightened and concerned. However, unlike self- evident truths or articles of faith, the best way to approach Y2K in the electrical industry is unclear and open to debate. Personally I agree that shutting down all nuclear power plants is reasonable. Balanced against the fear of massive radiation poisoning is the fact that in all its history in North America there is, to my knowledge, not one documented fatality attributable to nuclear generation of electricity. What then is the effect of losing 40% of generating capacity in the Northeast? Could this action alone lead to long term loss of power, death on a massive scale and untold economic hardship? I don't know. Probably not, but what about ten people, that might live if nuclear power remained running? Tough decisions, but let's stay focused on them even as we uncover more about Y2K in the electric industry. God Bless,

-- Anonymous, June 25, 1999

While I'm getting tangential, I forward a notion that all individuals who post under pseudonyms, be banned from contributing. It makes suspect evaluation of the post and is annoying. This would apply to everyone but Sheer Evil Rapist of Truth who may contribute under aforementioned pseudonym with the proviso that he take a minimum of three valium before any such post. I remain Sternly, Paul

-- Anonymous, June 25, 1999

paul,

i know that you meant this in the kindest of ways but let us look at what you have written.

p) While there was some muted concern on his part one thing he said that stuck with me was "Well the worst that happens is you die" or words to that effect. While one can debate statements like this it does serve to give one a little different lay of the land as it were in the Y2K debate.

m) i believe that he is wrong... dying would be a blessing. i have an aunt of japanese descent, she could educate you enormously on the awesome repercussions to life and limb, to air and water, to soil and property... as well as the impact of same for generations to come.

p) You state, "the sole reason for the publication of this website is to impart a sense of the ****sheer magnitude of theY2k problem**** in the electric utility business". I don't know if that is Rick's intent, or or mission statement as it were, here.

m) those were rick's words not mine... i would never be so presumptuous as to determine the purpose of this or any other forum on which i posted. it is only rick's decision. i was simply stating that i felt that my previous posts fell well within the boundaries he outlined.

p) I hope not.

m) here you truly lost me. why would you say something like that? i think that it is a beautiful mission statement and written from the heart.

p) Personally I agree that shutting down all nuclear power plants is reasonable.

m) reasonable? i believe that it is the utmost folly not to shut down those plants. the ramifications of just *one* incident in the northeast corridor would be an unparalleled disaster one from which, dependant upon the magnitude, would render us devastated for many generations to come.

p) Balanced against the fear of massive radiation poisoning is the fact that in all its history in North America there is, to my knowledge, not one documented fatality attributable to nuclear generation of electricity.

m) i don't know about documented... but remember where i live. there are plenty of undocumented deaths, mutations, birth defects, etc., as a direct result of tmi.

p)What then is the effect of losing 40% of generating capacity in the Northeast? Could this action alone lead to long term loss of power, death on a massive scale and untold economic hardship?

m) whatever the effects, and there definitely would be effects, they must be weighed against the terrible devastation wreaked by a nuclear meltdown on the people and land of this nation. there is absolutely no comparison between the deaths from hardship and the death and *total* devastation of a nuclear event. and as for the economic end of it, do you want your progeny, for many generations to come, to know that money was the driving factor in the decision to leave the nuclear facilities online in a time of great uncertainty and the sole reason for what turned out to be the biggest disaster we ever experienced?

then again... what progeny?

p) I don't know. Probably not, but what about ten people, that might live if nuclear power remained running? Tough decisions, but let's stay focused on them even as we uncover more about Y2K in the electric industry.

m) all important decisions are tough decisions. would there be collateral damage? yes, there would be... but it might be a drop in the bucket compared to the damage we would suffer if we lost control of a nuke.

-- Anonymous, June 25, 1999