this is from dick mills 'electrical adieu.'

it is another of his comments, which taken out of the context of the article would seem innocuous and forthcoming...

this from the faq section of the article:

Sunspots?

2000 will be a period of peak solar activity. We know that has an adverse effect on the power system. Specifically, how will that influence Y2K prospects? That is a great question. Unfortunately, I don't have a great answer. At first blush, the effects should be no worse or better than the last solar peak 11 years ago. That wasn't a big deal except in Quebec. Beyond that, I don't have the capability to analyze how sunspots might worsen an already strained Year 2000 situation.

end of text

m] honest enough... he knows that solar peak activity has an adverse impact on the power system and he does *not* know what the effects will be. he also remarks that *he* doesn't have the capability to analyze how sunspots might exacerbate an already *strained* year 2000 situation.

now... let the games begin.

p] Public fears regarding Y2K and electricity may have been overblown, but they were not unfounded. Industry and government still have not properly answered these fears. Their public statements have, in my opinion, been condescending and that makes the public suspect cover-up rather than feel better. [snippette]

m] this leads one to believe -- no big deal... tends to make one believe that we should 'feel better' about the issue.

p] Keeping things in proper perspective, a national blackout would not be that big a deal.

m] here again... no big deal.

p] My critics often mischaracterize my position as being, "no problem." Actually, the opposite is true. Whereas most pundits talk about the chance of failures, I presumed that blackouts are certain.

m] but as we have already noted above... he has said this is 'no big deal.'

p] Knowledge of power system operations leads me to believe that if a blackout happens at all, that the power companies will be able to restore power to most or all customers within a few hours (Absolute worst case, 72 hours).

m] here again, no big deal. who, but the most fragile among us, can't handle 72 hours without electricity?

p] I do not foresee much risk to the electric supply because of GPS rollover. We'll soon see, GPS rollover is only 58 days away.

m] again no big deal... but here the water starts becoming a bit murky. we have to 'wait and see.'

now, i don't know what they teach you in engineering school but in my world we don't have the data necessary to reach the informed and comforting conclusion of -- no big problem -- only prepare for a *72* hour disruption.

all things being equal, even if the power industry is 100% prepared, which, by mr. mills own admission, we know categorically that it is not, the gps and the solarspot activity defy anyones ability to determine that we will have, at worst, *72* hour blackouts.

this from an 'expert.'

why do we worry? mr mills has taken casuistry to an artform. in addition to his normal mode of equivocation and vascillation he now adds faulty logic.

remember... the sunspots were only a 'big deal' in quebec... and this in the best of times.

how does he reach his pollyanna conclusions with so many critical unknowns... now factor in the 15% error ratio he also addressed.

_never in human history have so many humans blindly trusted that so many other humans won't screw up._

dr ed yardeni

-- Anonymous, June 26, 1999

Answers

Marianne,

That is indeed a very tough question to nail down. The problem is that there are "experts" and there are "expert wannabees." Now, what I usually do is apply the duck analogy. In other words, if it looks like an expert, talks like an expert, and walks like an expert, it is probably an expert. If any one or more of these factors is missing, it is more likely an expert wannabee. Hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 1999

(Don't take this seriously) :-) There are 3 different definitions of "Expert" that I am familiar with.

The first one breaks the word phonetically into its components X and spurt. X algebraically is "An unknown quantity", and "Spurt" is "A drip unde pressure". Therefore an Expert is "an unknown drip under pressure"

The second takes the entire word Expert and breaks it down to its component syllables. Ex means "was or has been", and pert means "saucy or very forward". Therefore an expert is a "very forward has been"

The third definitition is probably the closest to reality: An "Expert" is a person who learns more and more about less and less, untill they finally know absolutely everything about nothing.

Now, after having known these three definitions for some years, I have just learnt a new one. But amanaplanacanalpanama, what is she expert in? And can she help out with Y2K?

-- Anonymous, June 27, 1999

The definition of "expert," as I have come to know it, is as follows: the letters, "ex" mean "has been," and the letters "spert" mean a drip under pressure, so an expert is a "has been drip under pressure."

As far as info on solar acitivity is concerned, use the search engine for this site, and I think you will find all you need to know that will be helpful.

Good luck.

-- Anonymous, June 27, 1999

I suspect there are no "experts" as yet on the manifold global effects of Y2K. The situation is unprecedented, with no books to study, no refereed journals, no post-grad courses, no professional associations.

We're looking at something new. Experts will appear after the event.

-- Anonymous, June 28, 1999