NBC says Navy Report is shot downgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
WASHINGTON, Aug. 20 Navy officials scrambled Friday to downplay reports that the service was predicting failures in electrical and water systems for many cities because of the Year 2000 problem, NBC News reports.ARTICLES IN FRIDAYS WASHINGTON POST and by the Associated Press referred to a Navy Y2K report warning that certain civilian utilities in some U.S. cities were likely to fail to provide service when the date changes to the year 2000.
However, the report rates providers as unlikely to provide service only in cases where the Navy has not yet received data requested data from the provider.
Officials say the Navy computer database set up to rate the likelihood of interruption of civilian utilities service to Navy bases defaults to the worst-case scenario when a provider has yet to provide information or it has not yet been entered into the database. In fact, the report shows that in most areas, civilian utilities are expected to be able to continue to provide service when the date changes.
A review of a copy of the report obtained by NBC News shows that in each case where a utility received the lowest marking, the data from the utility provider had not yet been received.
President Clintons top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navys conclusions overly cautious, noting the worst-case default. But news stories reported on the most recent version of the study, updated less than two weeks ago, which predicted probable or likely partial failures in electric utilities that serve nearly 60 of roughly 400 Navy and Marine Corps facilities.
Still listed as likely to experience partial electrical failures, for example, were facilities in Orlando, Fla.; Gulfport, Miss.; Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; and nine other small- to mid-size cities.
Also listed as probable for partial water system failures were Dallas; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; Baton Rouge, La.; Montgomery, Ala; Tulsa, Okla.; and 59 other cities.
The current state of the database shows likely partial natural gas failures - in the middle of winter - in Albany, N.Y.; Fort Worth, Texas; Pensacola, Fla.; Charleston, S.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Nashville.
The military report contrasts sharply with predictions from the White House, which weeks ago said in a report that national electrical failures are highly unlikely. The White House report also said disruptions in water service from the date rollover are increasingly unlikely.
The Year 2000 problem occurs because some computer programs, especially older ones, might fail when the date changes to 2000. Because the programs were written to recognize only the last two digits of a year, such programs could read the digits 00 as 1900 instead of 2000, potentially causing problems with financial transactions, airline schedules and electrical grids.
NBC News Pentagon producer Tammy Kupperman contributed to this story.
-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 20, 1999
I love the next-to-last paragraph.
-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 20, 1999.
Ever had a "probable glass of water" ?. Just get it here in less than three days............
-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.
RUOK is gonna whack me, but I'm gonna quote him wherever applicable:cgbg jr, There was one more option for Koskinen---Ignore Jim Lord AND ignore the story. Based on past history, this would have been his normal response. By deviating from his norm this was elevated to mainstream media status overnight. Even so, given that the media has often completely ignored major Y2K stories, it's odd that they picked up on this one at all, let alone so quickly. Something really does seem "off" about this. Of course, it could all be coincidental and totally benign....but. Suppose the story is a "plant" deliberately leaked to Jim Lord---and Kosky, by not ignoring it, is behaving strangely. Because the media is also behaving strangely, some high-level manipulation could have been involved. If it's a trial balloon to see how the citizens would react to this kind of information becoming public, it would require the participation of the media. Kosky could now allow the line to unreel just far enough to test the waters...THEN completely and irrevocably disprove the story, discredit Jim Lord, make the media hyper-reluctant to print ANY further Y2K stories, and reaffirm the impression that those who are preparing (by "hoarding" and taking money out of the bank) are dangerous whackos...all in one fell swoop! Now, that WOULD be convenient.
-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 20, 1999.
-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 20, 1999.
Lisa, read the report yourself. Take some time with it, and you will see JL blew it. He is to blame for any fallout doomers and tinfoils get for the chest beating about the report.
-- Fat Tony (FatTony@youmammashouse.com), August 20, 1999.
Sorry Fat Tony, you're dead wrong.Koskinian knows this is a true report, no other Washington "spin cycles" have denied that. What they have done, as shown here, is try to deliberately "discredit it" by claiming the "worst case" default" story that Koskinian started with yesterday. the story, the database, and its implications are VALIDATED by these "stories that try to downplay it.
To show the story's CONCLUSION - which are the only things relevant to preparations - all Washington has to do is to show that all of these utilities are in fact ready.
AND THEY CANNOT DO THAT. The only thing that Washington can do is to claim that of the 17% report who bothered to report, roughly the same percetntage reporting "ready" to the original Navy database, is that the ones who bothered to report are most likely the ones that actually fixed things. Well, we know that to be true, people are not generally going to report bad things about themselves: How many people drive down to the police station, and say: "Gee officer, fine me, I just drove through a red light."
Sorry. Your dead wrong on your conclusion.
This validates the report. These bases are at risk because their local utilities are NOT ABLE to say they are compliant, near compliant, or have any real hope of becoming compliant.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 20, 1999.
READ THE REPORT YOURSELF, then comment.Be sure to actually read it and cross reference the data for pending info and such.
Forget that Koski said anything about it, honestly, just pretend you dont know what Koski said and read the damn report yourself.
The spreadsheet shows the info and its not that bad at all.
-- Fat Tony (FatTony@youmammashouse.com), August 20, 1999.
Wow, look at the spin and backpeddling this created. I don't think Koskinen *could* ignore it. It went too far, too fast. But what about that 3 Rating? It could mean a likely failure OR we have no information. Whatsay? "Right, Admiral, we had no classification for "status not known" and could only use 4 possible digits, 0, 1, 2, or 3, so we just threw everything that was totally uncertain into likely- to-happen." Is this the way Naval research really works? Really? Give me a break! Let's see an official copy of the instuctions form that went out. Also, isn't it strange about the time frames? The *new* official report is dated August 4th. Yet, the old report stayed on the web until August 10th. But the new report is not yet on the web, even though it has hurriedly been issued to the press. Uh huh. Uh huh.
-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 20, 1999.
Two key article snippets...[snip]
But news stories reported on the most recent version of the study, updated less than two weeks ago, which predicted probable or likely partial failures in electric utilities that serve nearly 60 of roughly 400 Navy and Marine Corps facilities.
[snip]
The military report contrasts sharply with predictions from the White House, which weeks ago said in a report that national electrical failures are highly unlikely. The White House report also said disruptions in water service from the date rollover are increasingly unlikely.
Semantics. Doncha love word games?
Scrabble anyone? (Or is that... scramble?)
Diane
See also...
Subj: An Open Letter to Jim Lord (Sent By E-Mail From A Navy Dot Mil)
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001H8i
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.
"A review of a copy of the report obtained by NBC News shows that in each case where a utility received the lowest marking, the data from the utility provider had not yet been received."Well, that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard! So, if they didn't get a timely response they just threw an x in there. And they also had to determine which category (partial failure probable, partial failure likely or total failure likely), these utilities who didn't respond would fall into.
Do any of these people at NBC have a brain? NO! Because if one of them had a brain they just might take the time to S+T+U+D+Y the situation, and learn the truth.
Klinton, with the help of his spin mister Koskinen, made a conscious decision from day one to play this thing down at all costs, because of the economy and the year-2000 elections. They are not preparing the people or for the people. They are preparing to clean up the mess after y2k.
If/when the SHTF, I hope NBC and every deaf, dumb and blind idiot like them are the first to go. Go hungry, go without water, go to a 'warming center'.
-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.