http://news.excite.com/news/r/990708/11/science-millennium-nuclear

Scared Of Y2K? Head For A Nuclear Reactor Updated 11:30 AM ET July 8, 1999 By Matthew Green LONDON (Reuters) - Deadly radiation, complex computers and the year 2000 bugsound like an apocalyptic mix, but watchdogs say nuclear power plants will be as safe a place as any to greet the new year.

In Western Europe, technicians have been combing bugs from reactor systems and making contingency plans to cope with malfunctions for years. Eastern Europe lags behind, but the International Atomic Energy Agency says it sees only a remote chance of catastrophe.

"One can never rule out some difficulties but what I expect is that there won't be problems of a nuclear safety nature," said Zig Domaratzki, head of the Department of Nuclear Safety at the IAEA in Vienna.

He said the bug might cause faults but only as trivial as those you would tolerate in a new car. "There may be little glitches that show up here and there, but I'll make sure the brakes work and I can turn off the ignition."

Engineers say that even if computer systems freeze as the clock ticks midnight on New Year's Eve, reactor operators can simply throw a switch to shut them down.

PROBLEMS? JUST THROW A SWITCH

They say safety circuitry has none of the software prone to the millennium bug, which can paralyze computers not adapted to handle the change to 2000 and certain other dates.

"Our protection systems are not date-sensitive, they don't know whether it's 1066 or the year 2000," David Hunns, superintending inspector of the British government's Nuclear Safety Directorate, said.

But even if the big, red "shutdown" buttons are bug-proof, more mundane malfunctions could spring nasty surprises. Plants should wedge doors open at the New Year to guard against errant security systems, said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

"We think that the emergency systems these plants have are pretty much invulnerable," he said. "It is the support systems that are more susceptible."

Nuclear engineers admit danger can also lurk beyond reactor walls. A bug-induced failure in the electricity grid could cut a plant's outlet for the power it generates, forcing operators to turn it off to prevent overheating.

Unplanned shutdowns set controllers' adrenaline pumping, increasing the margin for error and piling stress on plants. Reactors then depend on diesel to fuel coolers to prevent them from melting down, supplies of which could be disrupted if the bug hits transportation networks.

Western European grids are working to ensure they do not fizzle out over New Year, updating computers that use only the last two digits of the year and could confuse 2000 with 1900.

"The focus is now turning to Eastern Europe," said Howard Ramsden of Unipede-Eurelectric, which groups international power producers and distributors.

ECHOES OF CHERNOBYL

Ever since the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine exploded in April 1986, wafting a radioactive cloud across Europe, millennium doomsayers have portrayed reactors in the former Eastern bloc as the most accident-prone. A lack of Year 2000 compliance data from more than 60 aging plants across Russia and Eastern Europe makes risk assessment tricky.

"They think that they can get by without a problem, but we're not entirely convinced that that's the case," said IAEA spokesman David Kyd.

Chernobyl's operators say the plant is too obsolete to suffer serious year 2000 problems and the IAEA said it agrees. But former Chernobyl director Serhiy Parashin told reporters in March that Ukrainian officials misunderstood the bug and it could paralyze the country's five nuclear power plants.

To nuclear energy's opponents, the Chernobyl disaster showed that the consequences of a millennial meltdown make even the tiniest chance of an accident unacceptable.

"The very term 'risk' implies some possibility of elimination, but when you look at Chernobyl you see that the worst can always happen," said Dominic Jenkins, nuclear campaigner for environmental group Friends of the Earth.

Meanwhile, in Britain, as much of the nation prepares to party over the New Year, government engineers plan to hunker down in an emergency room -- just in case.

-- Anonymous, July 09, 1999

Answers

Hey, what the hell, the middle of a nuclear plant is as safe as anywhere else. As we used to say in the 60s, "We'll all go together when we go." I guess Tom Lehrer (Harvard professor, songster for the young) said that. Remember the jet stream

-- Anonymous, July 09, 1999

uh,... mara, could you, uh, are you... experiencing a flashback or something along those lines?

-- Anonymous, July 09, 1999

Scared Of Y2k? Head For A Nuclear Reactor - Reuters (07/09/99)

When I saw this headline, I simply couldn't believe the stupidity of the statement. Why would anyone in their right mind want to compound their risk level by heading toward a nuclear power plant? Here are some headlines I think would be a good parallel: "Scared of Earthquakes? Why not hike the San Andreas Faultline?" "Scared of Volcanos? Join us for a walk up scenic Mt. Pinatubo" "Scared of Bear Attacks? Why not hike through the woods with a jar of honey on your head?"

The article itself wasn't all that bad, but as I've said before, most people don't get past the headline, or at most the first paragraph. It's either unbelievably stupid journalism or propaganda. Do the math.

PS- I was in big unamed department store chain yesterday (buying gas cans 5-gal for $4.99!) when I noticed a shirt for sale which said "Y2K, Who's Ready - Who's Toast!" Another sign that bubba is getting some gentle wake up calls on this issue.

-- Anonymous, July 10, 1999

I have been raising hell at work about this potential problem, so much so that my boss bought me that shirt, "...who's toast?" I wear it proudly. See Above -Draco -The Rookie

-- Anonymous, July 15, 1999