c4i

Lots of links, including one to a y2k article by Allan Simpson.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), November 19, 2000

Answers

Allan Simpson's analysis is skewed. He uses a
technique that I've often seen. He presents a
host of easy-to-refute predictions about Y2K
and then goes on to extend that into areas that
he has no information. In focusing on the extreme
predictions he hopes to create the impression that
the whole thing was a hype.

He creates the impression that there was never
a problem with nuclear power plants. When the
Peach Bottom nuclear plant set the date ahead in
a roll-over test all their monitors went blank.
Hanford could not get their system compliant in
time so they set their system clocks back to 1972.
In January of 2000 their were a record, 12, nuclear
scrams. His argument that embedded chips would
fry if they got close to the reactor core has no
bearing to this argument.

He also creates the impression that after the bump
at roll-over the whole thing was over and There was
no way anyone could extend the misinformation
campaign. It seems to me that he is providing
the misinformation.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), November 19, 2000.

Thanks for the analysis, spider. While we're on the topic, the International Coordination Centre has apparently treated the matter in the same way. However, when I just now glanced at the page I've linked here, I found far more "events" that I hadn't been aware of. Have you seen it?

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), November 19, 2000.

Yes, I remember this report. It only
covers January of 2000. Whereas there
were hundreds of reports from the US at
that time, this report only mentions
three. This report tries to create the
impression that the problems were fixed.
As can be seen by reading this forum,
the problem in ongoing.

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), November 20, 2000.