[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Y2K and Nuclear Reactors -- How Do You Feel About Glowing in the Dark?
I have been asked to post thye following internet article to prompt a
formal response(s). The author is apparently an expert since he was
an air traffic controller, and fought in Vietnam::
Y2K and Nuclear Reactors -- How Do You Feel About Glowing in the
Dark? Greg Hobbs October 14, 1999
I came across some information recently that scared the hell out of
me, so I thought I would share it with you. This information concerns
nuclear power plants, their safety and shutdown procedures. I didn't
realize there were so many of these facilities in the US and the rest
of the world. Unfortunately, these plants are not prepared for Y2K,
and that could have significant consequences.
There are 434 nuclear reactor plants in the world, 110 of them in the
US. Using our 1% rule (one percent of all businesses will fail due to
Y2K) that means that there will be 4.34 complete meltdowns with 1.1
of those in the US. How much radioactive material will be released
into the atmosphere? I am absolutely certain that it will be
substantially more than anyone wants.
With a few exceptions, the nuclear industry has had a reasonably good
safety record. The exceptions have been frightening and horrible and,
for the most part, we would like to forget them. In reality, it is
the fear of these consequences that have kept us reasonably safe.
Strict operating procedures and regulations are in place because we
maintain a healthy fear of the nuclear beast.
The Y2K situation is very problematic for this particular industry.
One of those problems is embedded chips. I commented on embedded
chips in a previous piece. Nuclear power plants are, it seems, rife
with embedded chips. The equipment and technology they use is older
and it is very unlikely that the chips used in the equipment that was
installed 10, 15 or 20 years ago is Y2K compliant.
There are other threats to the safety of nuclear power plants, too.
The operation of nuclear plants is dependent on some outside factors.
For example, emergency procedures require that a plant be shut down
if external power or outside emergency services, such as 911, are
unavailable. And there is a reasonable possibility that power or 911
will fail in an area where a nuclear plant is located. This means
they have to shut it down.
So, what's the big deal? Nuclear power plants do not have an "on" and
"off" switch. Shutting one down takes approximately five months!! In
order to shut the plant down they have to remove the fuel rods from
the core and cool them, using sophisticated cooling systems reliant
on external electricity, before they are considered safe. A stable
shutdown needs either outside electricity or reliable backup
generators.
Recent nationwide tests of these backup generators produced
significant failures. Based on those failures and other factors, many
experts wanted to shut down all nuclear plants before this five month
window expired, which would have been the end of July. Well, July has
come and gone and the plants are still running.
That's because nuclear plants provide approximately 25% of all the
electricity in America. To shut them down would cause a certain
amount of business disruptions and problems for all of us. Several
months ago, a minor power outage in San Francisco, lasting less than
one day, was estimated to have caused millions of dollars in damages.
Now, there are lawsuits being filed over those losses. Imagine
shutting down 25% of the power indefinitely. You can hear them
screaming from the rooftops now, can't you? Can't screw with those
quarterly profits, ya know! Our priorities really need a lot of work!
The most glaring example of a problem for us was Three Mile Island. A
couple of pumps malfunctioned, incorrect data was sent to the control
room, and incorrect action was taken - which almost caused a complete
meltdown. Eight minutes into the accident the error was detected and
catastrophe averted. This was not a system failure this was a human-
computer interaction failure. Comforting thought, isn't it?
We are way past the five month shutdown point with all plants still
operating, and here is the score card as of August 1999: Of the 110
plants in the United States, 12 have been audited. Thirty other
plants, like the audited ones, will be certified without audit
because of similar design and construction. I don't know about you,
but I would venture to say that - as complex as each nuclear facility
is - there is very little likelihood that any of them are so alike
that one could be certified based on the audit of a completely
different facility.
Do you think that when they were first built they did not perform an
audit on each and every one of them before they were placed into
service? You can bet your ass they did and for good reasons. If you
live near a nuclear power plant, you might want to call and ask if
they were actually audited or if they were one of the ones that
passed audit based on similar design characteristics. If that isn't
bad enough, the other 68 plants will not finish their Y2K projects
until after the July shutdown deadline if at all.
Just remember, your government knew this was coming for a long time
(more than 14 years ago) and did nothing. Clinton appointed a Y2K
commissioner in January of 1998 to look into the problem. The
government's lack of action in this matter has to be intentional. You
will never convince me otherwise.
Why? I have my own theory, but we will know the answer to that in
another 80 days, won't we? So when you see the talking heads on the
news each evening spewing forth government dribble about how things
will be fine, you will see them for the liars that they are.
How many times has someone come up to you and said, "I have good news
and I have bad news, which do you want first?" What I have written
above is the good news. Are you ready for the bad news?
Most other parts of the world are somewhere between 1 and 4 years
behind the US in fixing their nuclear plants. If my math is correct,
that means that there are 324 nuclear power plants in other
countries, and most of them will not be Y2K compliant. Because of
their extreme reliance on nuclear power, these countries (France 75%,
Japan 36% and about 18 others at 25%) have decided to risk the lives
of their citizens and perhaps all of us by allowing these systems to
continue to function.
They would rather keep the lights on for another few months - and
then possibly have to deal with massive plant failures - rather than
shut them down in time to avert the possibility of polluting the
atmosphere with radioactive material. There is no longer enough time
to shut them down and cool the fuel rods before the end of the year.
Here is another fact that will help you sleep tonight: There are 65
nuclear plants in Eastern and Western Europe built with the Russian
design used at Chernobyl. You might want to ask your mutual fund or
401K manager if they are invested in international utility stocks.
This could be a sell signal, ya think?
Apparently, experts have been pleading with the agencies that control
these plants to shut down, but to no avail. Your nuclear regulatory
agency and the other agencies around the world that control these
plants have decided to gamble that these facilities will not
malfunction and wreak havoc on the world.
This is one high stakes crap shoot, isn't it? And you didn't even
know you were betting your life on the outcome, did ya?
Greg Hobbs was an air traffic controller for six years, served our
country in Vietnam, and currently owns a software company
specializing in Y2K Compliance. Send your comments to:
ghobbs@primenet.com
<http://www.newsmax.com/reprints.shtml> Reprint Information
_____
<http://www.newsmax.com/index.shtml> Home · Free
<http://www.newsmax.com/email.shtml> E-mail News · Columnists
<http://www.newsmax.com/commentmax/commentmax.shtml> · News Links
<http://www.newsmax.com/links.shtml> · Late Night
<http://www.newsmax.com/liners.shtml> Jokes Archives
<http://www.newsmax.com/archives.shtml> · Online
<http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/store/web_store.cgi> Store · TV Talk
<http://www.newsmax.com/talkmax/> Shows · Magazines
<http://www.newsmax.com/magazines.shtml> · Chat
<http://www.newsmax.com/chat.shtml> · Classifieds
<http://www.newsmax.com/classifieds.shtml> · Contact Us
<http://www.newsmax.com/contact.shtml>
_____
All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
"The object of opening the mind, as of opening
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
- G. K. Chesterton -
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html