NY Times ad: "DEADLIEST GAMBLE IN HISTORY"greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Page A25 of today's New York Times: "Y2K and the world's nuclear systems: The Deadliest Gamble in History" (Huge fonts). "The moste critical Y2K crisis we face--its potential impact on the world's nuclear weapons and power plants--has been obscured by news media focusing only on the trivial and sensational. There has been a surprising lack of skepticism in reporting official reassurances that "the problem is being addressed" and the public won't be at risk on January 1, 2000. The net effect has been to lull nearly everyone into complacency. It has also inhibited responsible scientist, politicians, and government officials who have credible and alarming concerns about Y2K. They haven't spoken out more forcefully because they fear ridicule and humiliation in the present media climate. But among their peers, in professional journals, and even in Congressional hearings, they raise grave questions about the profound--and unnecessary--risk we face. Every historical and environmental disaster in the 20th century might well have been avoided, in retrospect, if people had acted differently at the critical moment when danger became clear. That moment is now." Lead doomer: Sir Joseph Rotblat, Nobel laureate. They claim 4,400 "hair-trigger" missiles are vulnerable, and that few reactors are compliant.
-- Spidey (in@jam.morningpaper), October 22, 1999
Sheeple: Don't forget dip for the chips, big World Series starts this weekend.....
-- They Can't (Handle@The.Truth), October 22, 1999.
More from this full page ad: A bold-face John Hamre quote--"Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat thinking [Y2K] is much bigger than we think, and then the other four days I think maybe we really are on top of it. Everything is so interconnected, it's hard to know with any precision whether we have got it fixed." (U.S. Dep. Sec. Defense). "Less than three months before Jan. !, 2000, hundreds of thermonuclear missiles and atomic reactors remain vulnerable to Y2K bugs...there is a very real danger that Y2K will multiply the false hostile launch reports which have in the past brought both Russian and U.S. forces within minutes of launching before the mistake was discovered...We are also gambling with our nuclear power systems. 433 nuclear power plants worldwide are at risk--103 in the U.S. alone. France, the nation most heavily dependent on nuclear plants, is so uncertain of its nuclear safety during Y2K that it plans to shut all its nuclear facilities except the nuclear power plants during the week of Jan. 1, 2000...If the computer systems which now restrain nuclear technology cannot be relied on to perform within acceptable parameters during Y2K--and they cannot be--then people must intervene. Less than three months...we face a frightening vacuum in political leadership."
-- Spidey (in@jam.typing), October 22, 1999.
Clearly these scientists are right wing fanatics intent on smearing our glorious Commander-in-briefs.Seriously, thanks a lot Spidey ---- I had just decided to forget about his stuff until 12/31. Now I have a good excuse to leave work early and stock up more. I know thats not the total answer, but it makes me feel a little better.
-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), October 22, 1999.
There's not a link to this ad, is there? Too bad.
-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 22, 1999.
Got Potassium Iodide (anbex.com) and/or Potassium Iodate (gotplenty.com)?
-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), October 22, 1999.
yay Helen!!
-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), October 22, 1999.
"Every historical and environmental disaster in the 20th century might well have been avoided, in retrospect, if people had acted differently at the critical moment when danger became clear."When did danger ever become clear?? WHAT critical moment???
Hello John Hamre? Aren't you part of the media? Where have you been 5 years ago???
iDIOt hYEnA!!!! sCROtUM BrEaTH!!!! as dieter would say, go and panic the herd now 70 days before the roll-over so we all are sure to be well trampled flat in advance when SHTF.
-- (flakygirl@home.now), October 22, 1999.
Even if there is herd panic now, I think that people have to know that they have genuinely been betrayed.
-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 22, 1999.
Mara, part of me agrees with you, and part of me doesn't. That's why I'm flaky.
-- (flakygirl@home.now), October 22, 1999.
Sorry, no link to paper copy that I know of. They do offer the following websites for further info: www.basicint.org, and www.trendmonitor.com, and www.y2kwash.org. I think this is the group that recently marched naked in San Francisco (oh, behave!). A full-page ad in section A of the Times costs? $500,000? A cool mill? Someone's worried about sumpin'.
-- Spidey (in@jam.postprandial), October 22, 1999.
***Bizarre isn't it?
Nobody seems to notice the danger.
But there it is.
***
-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 22, 1999.
So, guess this is the reason the Ruskies are having a New Years party with the American military at Cheyenne Mountain.(NORAD) See www.year2000.com Oct. 19th. Sorry,can't link.
-- Betty Alice (Barn266@aol.com), October 22, 1999.
"I think this is the group that recently marched naked in San Francisco (oh, behave!)."Don't know if it's the same group.
DO know, however, after living in SF many years, that marching down Van Ness in the altogether is about the ONLY way to get anyone's attention in that town, w/o actually committing a felony (the other best method, blocking one of the bridges or main arteries, will get you some serious jail time).
It occurred to me along time ago that if I wanted to draw attention to a cause in SF, stripping & marching was either the best or only way to do it. A little cold, though.
-- hold (my@coat.please), October 22, 1999.
Seeing Helen Caldicott naked would be enough to disarm me.
-- Spidey (in@jam.limp), October 22, 1999.
In 1953 I was living in Colorado Springs, about a half mile from the Antlers Hotel. At that time the Army Antiaircraft Command (ARAACOM) was stationed in the basement of the Antlers. The cold war was getting warm in those days, and it was obvious that the Antlers would be a high priority target for any nuclear attack. There wasn't much of an early warning system then, and my plan, if the sirens ever did come on, was to climb up on a roof and watch the show. (I didn't have a car and there would have been no way to get clear anyway.)Things haven't changed much since. Where's to run?
-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 22, 1999.
Hmmmn.Who are they? What is their short-term political agenda, and what is their long-term political and economic agenda?
Who funded the ad? Not the peole who wrote the check - the ones who gave the check-writers the money?
What did the Times actually charge? (Ever consider that the Times itself might be involved?)
Skockley was a Nobel Laureate too - is he credible in all that he wrote?
---
They authors loudly cite - without proof or engineering example, and mix the US's 103 plants with the Soviet's nuclear plants - mix bombs with power plants, that's a sure way to get credibility --- but I bet they support the Clintons' test ban treaty and anti-missile treaty too, right?
---
Sorry - the writer's are the "fanatics" and extremists on y2k - they are using the irrational fears of people with US nuclear plants with the real dangers of Rusian and East Eurpean nuclear plants with the extremist quotes of anybody they can get their hands on.
BUT - if these warnings are real - if these threats are real - in the US nuclear plants in particular - WHY ARE US FOSSIL PLANT NOT AT RISK?
Why would anybody treating these people seriously believe any fossil plant can operate? (Didn't Clinton and Koskinen claim there would be only short, local, and insignificant power outages?)
How can these unknown, anonymous people (with unknown creditionals and no apprent technical background) pretend that there will be no problem in 4800 (untested, unremediated, un-audtied, untrained, poorly maintained, and un-verified) fossil plants and the electric grid - if they claim there are such frightening problems in the (remediated, audited, trained, and tested, well-dcumented and well-maintained, and independently verified) US and Canadian nuclear plants?
---
Either these people are lying to present a self-serving political message, or these people must admit the Clintons (and their adminstration) is lying to present a self-serving political message.
-- OOps - I'm sorry - Kiplinger Magazine just ran a story saying the whole thing is a money-making hoax. Maybe both Clinton and this unnamed group are lying.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 22, 1999.
Robert: Some of the cosignees include Ted Taylor, Nuclear Physicist at Los Alamos Labs (1949-1957), and Philip Morrison, Physicist, Institute Professor (Emeritus), MIT. Maybe a couple of dements that they wheel out for the photo shoots. Ulterior motives? One would think so, given the cost of the ad space. Unlikely coincidence that on page A5 of the same edition the Times carried the CIA warning about "chernobyl" style reactors--maybe the paper offered a reduced rate for the full-page ad. They do assert that the majority of U.S. reactors are not compliant: is this a bald-faced lie?
-- Spidey (in@jam.?), October 22, 1999.
Bizarre isn't it?Nobody seems to notice the danger.
But there it is.
no talking please,
Speaking of not noticing the danger, out of curiosty, I asked a guy at the gas station today what he was doing about Y2K. He said, "I'm just going to spend the evening at my sister's house." Didn't get into a discussion. To late for that.
It would be interesting for everyone here to do a "man on the street" poll and see what the results would be.
-- the Virginian (1@1.com), October 22, 1999.
I would relish the opportunity to contribute time or money to any advertising campaign that would expose the stupidity of the people "handling the situation" for us.
-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), October 23, 1999.
It's an anxiety-inducing conflation: at the precise moment when reasonable people would suggest turning the systems off, the national security imperative will demand a heightened sense of readiness. I would predict that as turn-over approaches, there will be a good many nervous people sitting in command bunkers around the world, and that the slighest deviation from normal will be regarded with extreme suspicion. The threat of accidental launch may not be at its usual minimum.
-- Spidey (in@jam.paradox), October 23, 1999.
Spidey, we found this on csy2k:" The New York Times, Friday October 22nd, 1999
Y2K AND THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR SYSTEMS:
THE DEADLIEST GAMBLE IN HISTORY
_____________________________________________________________
The most critical Y2K crisis we face - its potential impact on the world's nuclear weapons and power plants - has been obscured by news media focusing only on the trivial and sensational. There has been a surprising lack of skepticism in reporting official reassurances that "the problem is being addressed" and the public won't be at risk on January 1, 2000. The net effect has been to lull nearly everyone into complacency.
It has also inhibited responsible scientists, politicians, and government officials who have credible and alarming concerns about Y2K. They haven't spoken out more forcefully because they fear ridicule and humiliation in the present media climate. But among their peers, in professional journals, and even in Congressional hearings, they raise grave questions about the profound - and unnecessary - risk we face.
Every historical and environmental disaster in the 20th century might well have been avoided, in retrospect, if people had acted differently at the critical moment when danger became clear. That moment is now.
_____________________________________________________________
"Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat thinking [Y2K] is much bigger than we think, and then the other four days I think maybe we really are on top of it. Everything is so interconnected, it's hard to know with any precision whether we have got it fixed."
- U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre
_____________________________________________________________
Less than three months before Jan. 1, 2000, hundreds of thermonuclear missiles and atomic reactors remain vulnerable to "Y2K bugs." These bugs, the basic glitches that arise because many computers cannot tell the difference between the years 1900 and 2000, lurk among millions of embedded chips and software. When we enter the new millennium, many computer systems all over the world will undoubtedly fail, inducing chaos in some countries and minor dislocations in others.
The one industry that must not be allowed to fail is the nuclear industry. Yet no precautions now being taken in the world's nuclear arsenals and nuclear power plants are enough to prevent the possibility of catastrophe.
Y2K Risks in Nuclear Weapons
4400 nuclear weapons both in Russia and America are on hair trigger alert, ready to be "launched on warning" by a combination of possible inaccurate computer data componded by the likelihood of human error. There is a very real danger that Y2K will multiply the false hostile launch reports which have in the past brought both Russian and U.S. forces within minutes of launching before the mistake is discovered.
Russia has only recently acknowledged that its military systems have Y2K problems, and its deteriorating economic condition woefully limits any meaningful fix. Many of Russia's nuclear weapons computer systems were stolen from the U.S. The Pentagon's efforts to find their own problems are behind schedule. The reassurances we've received to date are unacceptable, because the Pentagon - which has the largest and most complicated interfacing computer systems in the world - has not been open and honest about its Y2K problems.
A recent decision by the U.S. and Russia to establish a joint early warning room does not obviate the potentially dangerous situation inherent in the hardware, software and embedded chips in both countries' early warning systems. It is a palliative measure, but not a cure.
The only sure way to prevent the mistaken launch of nuclear missiles is to de-alert the nuclear warheads, disabling the weapons systems.
Currently, all other nuclear weapons states are in de-alert status, guaranteeing that these weapons cannot be launched by computer or human error.
Y2K Risks in Nuclear Power Plants
We are also gambling with our nuclear power systems. 433 nuclear power plants worldwide are at risk - 103 in the U.S. alone. France, the nation most heavily dependent on nuclear plants, is so uncertain of its nuclear safety that it plans to shut down all its nuclear facilities except the nuclear power plants during the week of January 1, 2000.
While Y2K can pose a danger to routine reactor control systems, the major risk involves a power blackout engulfing the plant, failure of back-up generating systems, loss of cooling, and meltdown - the consequences of which, within the space of one or two hours, could match the Chernobyl disaster.
Compared to Y2K's military risks, it seems relatively straightforward to ensure that reliable reactor emergency cooling systems are ready for Y2K blackouts. Thirty-five U.S. nuclear power plants are not yet in compliance less than three months before Jan. 1, 2000. The Y2K status of hundreds of other power and research reactors around the world are unknown.
There is still time. There are still solutions.
If the computer systems which now restrain nuclear technology cannot be relied on to perform within acceptable parameters during the Y2K period - then people must intervene. Less than three months before Y2K we face a frightening vacuum in political leadership. The rest of us must act. President Clinton and other leaders will take action only if you do.
CALL, FAX AND EMAIL PRESIDENT CLINTON DEMANDING THAT HE:
1. Negotiate an agreement with President Yeltsin that all 2400 U.S. and 2000 Russian nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert be "de-alerted" before January 1, 2000.
2. Mobilize the deployment of the required number of reliable emergency back up electrical generators at every nuclear reactor in the world.
Telephone: (202) 456-1414
Fax: (202) 456-2461
Email: president@whitehouse.gov
_____________________________________________________________
This emergency statement, based on the latest reports concerning Y2K and the nuclear sector, is endorsed by the following concerned experts and citizens. Among them are eminent physicists who played key roles in the earliest development of nuclear weapons systems.
Sir Joseph Rotblat
Nobel Peace Laureate 1996 (Pugwash Conference)Philip Morrison
Physicist, Institute Professor (Emeritus), MITGeorge M. Woodwell
Biologist, Director, The Woods Hole Research CenterTed Taylor
Nuclear Physicist - Los Alamos Labs 1949-1957, Staff Member, Theoretical division responsible for design of new nuclear weaponsIra Helfand
MD, Co-Founder and Past President - Physicians for Social ResponsibilityMary Olson
Nuclear Waste Specialist - Nuclear Information and Resource ServiceHelen Caldicott, MD
Founding President - Physicians foer Social Responsibility, Founder - Women's Action for Nuclear DisarmamentIan Prior, MD
Wellington Medical School, New Zealand, Past Secretary, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear WarBarry S. Levy, MD, MPH
Adjunct Professor of Community Health, Tufts University School of MedicineJames Riccio
Staff Attorney - Public Citizen's Critical MassPatch Adams, MD
(Affiliations for identification only) "
--------------------------------------------------
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 23, 1999.
Now that ad would have jolted us into some type of awareness if we were October 1999 DGIs sipping our morning java.Any barometers on how effective it's been?
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 24, 1999.
Thanks, A & L, you cyber-sleuths. I'm struck by the lack of interest, even on this forum--maybe it's simple resignation: one can only do so much, but the threat of accidental nuclear war is virtually inconceivable in any context but that of Pat Frank's book 'Alas Babylon.' To have come so far since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and then KA-BLAM! Just not fair. Who would trust Russian missile launch systems? Look at Soyuz. (Or then again, look at the Challenger, as well as the last series of U.S. rocket launches). Is it wise to place mankind's fate in the hands of semi-autonomous systems? I'm ignorant but would suspect that every phase of ICBM usage, from CODE VERIFY to inertial guidance, is chock-a-block with time- sensitive chips. Look at the saviors we have built with our own hands. What genuises we've become.
-- Spidey (in@jam.bemused), October 24, 1999.
Bought KI & K103, and we send support and encouragement-prayerful strength to Paula Gordon. If we lived near any nuke plants/missiles/processing facilities, we would move.Absolutely stunning that this has not caught the attention and highly motivated activism of more people.
Sheep ... Cull ... what else could it be?
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 24, 1999.
Enjoy the Fall in Cascadia.
-- Spidey (in@jam.deciduous), October 24, 1999.
The prophesy by Andy's Sufi prophet rings clearer with each passing day. So many people have said to us, "Y2K just won't be anything because the Bible/Book of Mormons/Hebrews/Jews/Islam etc. doesn't mention it."??? What to say to that? It's a peculiar blend of anti-millennial superstition backed by confidence in age-old veiled religious-book in-vogue interpretations.
Also a sort of "Oh, those are hippie concerns, and we've outgrown that phase."
As if plugging into the system, having kids, putting up with the job for the 401k solved any and all problematic possibilities.
"We've advanced beyond worrying."
And yet they have not advanced to the point of being practical and putting away some insurance in the pantry.
One reason we find relief in the programmer technical discussions on this Forum ...
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 24, 1999.
I think one reason for the lack of response is simple helplessness. There's not a dang thing we can do about nuclear devastation so we may as well sit tight, do our best and hope there is still a planet this time next year.
-- Dolma Lhamo (I'm@nonymous.now), October 24, 1999.
Spidey - ref your question: << They do assert that the majority of U.S. reactors are not compliant: is this a bald-faced lie?-- Spidey (in@jam.?), October 22, 1999.>>
--
Yes - it is an absolute lie. 20 (of the 103 operating reacotrs) required NRC permission to extend remediation past the 30 July 1999 administrative limit on declaring all systems complete and tested.
The majority of these 20 had speciifc jobs affecting one or two items that cannot be remediated (or tested completely, criteria varies in different plants) until regularly scheduled maintenance was finished in Aug, Sept, Oct, and Nov.
For example, one plant needed a feed reg vlave replaced - it is a simple job, done several times already at other power plants with that same vender and model FRV, and can be done in only a few days. But not while the plant is operating. The parts are avialble, are staged in the job site, the work order and tag outs are staged and ready, the crews are briefed on what to do and the job is scheduled to begin in Nov. No threat, no problems, no worries, right?
But, this is typical of the "not ready" plants that these anti-nuclear critics are citing. Not the case. They are using the public's fear, and the new's media ignorance and fears, to try to shut down power plants.
The people cited, and the organizations they represent, are no more "independent experts" without biases in nuclear technology and engineering than the Soviet Union and Communist China and Hitler's Germany are "unbiased experts" in how to wage war and murder their own citizens.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 25, 1999.