By David McGuire, Newsbytes

A US Navy document predicting widespread electrical and water system failures come Jan. 1, 2000 was not only based on old data, it used a methodology designed to produce a worst-possible case scenario as well, John Koskinen, chair of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, today told Newsbytes.

"The context for this is that if there was no information (from a utility provider), they put it down as a possible failure," Koskinen said in an interview. That methodology made failures seem far more likely than they probably are, he said.

The report, which was removed from the Navy Website earlier this week, predicted far more significant outages and failures than have periodic reports from Congress and the President's Council.

But in a statement today, Navy officials said the document was a "work in progress," and was not intended as a public statement on Y2K readiness.

"The Department of the Navy maintains an internal working document referred to as the Master Utilities List that records the ongoing status of these utilities' own Y2K assessments," the statement said. "The information contained in the document is used to facilitate the Department's Navy-wide shore contingency planning efforts. There are no indications of likely widespread failures of water, electricity, gas or sewer."

Commissioned to give Naval leaders a clear understanding of their potential Y2K exposures, the report examined the Y2K readiness of utility companies that serve US Navy bases.

Of the roughly 400 communities surveyed, the report cited 60 areas where failures were "likely."

But while the methodology of the Navy survey may have resulted in an overly bleak assessment of the readiness of local utility companies, it does point to the very real Y2K dangers that still exist in many small and midsize communities, Koskinen said.

"There are not going to be national failures, but people need to continue to look" into the readiness of their own community systems, he said.

The report episode should serve as a warning to companies and other organizations about the need for Y2K reporting, according to one congressional source.

"This is why companies need to be communicating with people (about Y2K)," a source close to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem told Newsbytes today. "If you put it out as a big unknown, then it lets people's imaginations go wild."

-- Mild Mannered Reporter (Clark@super.duper), August 20, 1999

Answers

Funny how the article never actually says HOW OLD the "old" data was: JUNE 1999, as in month-before-last. I guess they needed to conserve space or something....

Great job, MMR. Yeah, NORM would have been proud.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

Upon noting the speed and unity in which the supposedly self appointed pollys; or should I say spin doctors have fallen in unison to debuking the Navy report. And the speed in which they have done it. I can make some, to me valid observations.

(1) the report was not intended for public consumption. (2) you boss, The head Y2k point man for the White House must have bent your collective ears to get in here and every other place that you people can think of; and start the smoke and dancing bears routeen.. (3) That the report was/ is important enough for every one to pull out all stops...To even using at least two of the major networks to back up this pitiful story that you are trying to use as a patch!

Ladies and gentlemen...You have made a tactical error..By breaking your necks to debunk the Navy story, you given it a credibility that it would never have atained alone. Your very zeal has insured that the story will have a life all it's own now...And I thank you for your collective mistake...You might just have saved a life or three by drawing the extra public attention to it

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), August 20, 1999.

I'll take on old Kosky and Bob Bennet in a tag team mudwrestling match anytime!!!!

Diane Squires, how about being my team mate?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

You want to look at a y2k worst case senario,well here goes not the worst to the worst. Aug 21 the gps @ 5pm pdt makes the power grids and the telecom hiccup world wide for a few hours just enough to freak people out a little, this then happens again on sept 9 this time for a few days. Then the people will realize that y2k maybe a little more serious than we though. The spin misters will be doing there best to keep the panic buying to a minimum,but they will be losing ground. At this point they will be faced with the decision to spill the beans and mobilize massive fed and statewide preps to lessen the hardship that that massive infrastructure failures will cause. This is not the worst. The worst is that the y2k failures will be low key luling every one into a false sense of security right up until after Christmas then massive all utilities failures, followed by social upheavel,terrorism then war. That's the worst case senario. Caused by Govt's failure to prepare the masses that the remediation for the most part is a serious failure. Can they bluff there way through this one, No way. They got to lay the cards on the table before not after. It will be to uncontrolable after the fact. Read naval war college senario New rules. People are going to have to be told honestly what the sit rep is and use the time remaining to get them ready for the storm as a nation. the y2k sit rep is not good and it's going to take a community effort to make it thru.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), August 21, 1999.

The really worst case senario would be not having a close relationship with Father God thru his son Jesus His word thru the y2k transistion. Only a strong faith in the Living God who forgives all sins and offers the gift of grace and eternal salvation will see you thru what ever may come. May the angles of the Lord encamp around you and your families and deliver you safely from whatever y2k may bring. Dont go thru y2k without Jesus. Love and peace be with you all in the name of our Lord. Look around at your community and see how you can help make your community more resilent. All's it takes is love. Y2k will be a test of love. Love for your family, love for your friends and church,love for your community, love for our nation, love for our planet.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), August 21, 1999.

Help! I am surrounded by government spinmeisters and Jesus freaks! And Y2K hasn't even hit yet. :-(

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), August 21, 1999.

cgbg: The next few months will be noisy. Earplugs will help. And "Just say no."

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 22, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

In Navy Y2K Worst Case Scenario reporter David McGuire quotes Y2K Czar John Koskinen as stating that: The context for [the Navy Utility Assessment] is that if there was no information (from a utility provider), they put it down as a possible failure. In fact, the Navy method called for utilities in that situation to be classified as likely total failures. This is a reasonable attitude for the military to assume. Likewise, in the absence of reliable data, it is reasonable for families to take measures to be prepared for disruptions.

Mr. McGuire reports that on Friday, August 20th, the Navy stated that the document "was not intended as a public statement on Y2K readiness." This is not consistent with the White House position that the document was not secret, that nothing has been withheld from the American Public. The Administration claims that this document had earlier been available on the web, and that this is proof that the government is being upfront with the people. If this information was in a public place, it was not linked directly or indirectly from other government pages, so none of the many independent Y2K researchers had a clue that it was available to be viewed.

Mr. McGuire reports that a source close to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem said: If [utility companies] put [the risk] out as a big unknown, then it lets people's imaginations go wild.

Silly, silly Navy.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 23, 1999.