>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:36:20 -0500 >From: DEW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Electronic Democracy in Nova Scotia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Chernobyling > >Originally To: comp.software.year-2000 newsgroup > >Driving home one recent night I heard a CBC radio program on Three Mile >Island. I was surprised to learn how out-of-control the plant was. Personnel >who retrieved test samples and worked to control the reactor spent hours in >showers scrubbing their skin raw even though they wore state-of-the-art >protective suits. A meltdown can occur around 5000 degrees. Three Mile >Island passed 4000 degrees before it was brought down. It was disturbing to >hear that the same problem had occurred shortly before at another American >reactor but management types had suppressed information about the occurrence >and how to avoid it at other sites. > >Before hearing the program I thought that the worse the year 2000 mess might >bring could be a bit worse than what folks had suffered between 1929 and >1950. I read about power problems but most mentioned shutdowns and >blackouts. The radio program made me think hard about nuclear reactors. > >I searched the Internet for how nuclear reactors and nuclear workers might >behave in the year 2000. I found lots of information on reactor problems; >waste and unplanned environmental releases that remain dangerous >for thousands of years, terrorist threats, weaknesses, disasters and near >disasters, cancer increases, etc. The Virtual Nuclear Tourist site even >told me that 'Chernobyl was not a meltdown in the traditional sense..' >Perhaps we should call it Chernobyling. Comp.software.year-2000 e-mails >turned up on the issue. However, I found few solid answers to my questions >on what might happen in the year 2000 at hundreds of nuclear reactors >around the world. > >Rick Cowles, wrote to comp.software.year-2000 in October 97: >[The folks running the Y2K effort at this particular nuke facility are in a >stage 5 panic. They haven't even finished inventorying their software yet. >Risk assessment? Ha! Embedded controls? Ha! I laugh in your general >direction. They don't have an inkling of a clue (that's the pre-clueless >stage) as to how to approach the embedded controls issue. They can get >absolutely no upper level management support or funding.] > >Rick's words ring true. Nuclear workers and managers are probably much like >ordinary human beings. A Statistics Canada survey released Dec. 97 found >that 9% of Canadian companies had formal plans, 36% had 'informal plans', >46% knew about the problem but had done nothing, and 9% were ignorant of the >problem. If about 10% of the world has taken the problem seriously, the same >probably applies to nuclear reactor staffing, management and officials. >Rick's friends would probably fit into the 'informal plans' group. Should we >have a high level of confidence in their systems when the clock rolls around >to 2000? Considering that some of the 9% with formal plans will fail… > >Many comp.software.year-2000 e-mails argued that nuclear reactor designs >have a kind of built in graceful degradation. Most e-mails avoided details. >A >moose outside a Canadian reactor might be a lovely picture but it does not >mean that the moose is safe. We should try not to be as dumb as a moose >about technologies that can kill millions of us as well as moose, birds, >fish, >pets, etc. > >Daniel P. B. Smith wrote about graceful nuclear degradation. He came closer >to giving details than most and he even wrote with grace. > [ Speaking as a pinko left-wing peace creep, member of the Union of >Concerned Scientists, etc: I hope and believe that nuclear power plants >ultimately rely for their safety on nice, big, simple low-tech things like >big heavy containnment buildings. > Nuclear power plants are supposed not to irradiate state-sized chunks >of real estate merely because the pipe burst and the control rod stuck and >the pump failed. Now, maybe they won't act exactly the way they're supposed >to. But I do tend to credit those that think that the most likely scenario >is that if the nuclear plants have Y2K problems they'll shut down, more or >less safely. And it may then be days/months/years/eternity before they ever >generate any more power.'] > >I would love to have faith in Daniel’s arguments but I have doubts. I doubt >an intelligent and well-trained auditor would accept these arguments as >proof of safety, let alone a scientist. Chernobyl was not supposed to spread >highly toxic radioactivity over the 100,000 square kilometers that surround >it but it did. Russians were not supposed to eat radioactive food, but they >are eating radioactive food. Fins were not supposed to dispose of >radioactive reindeer, Brits were not supposed to dispose of radioactive >sheep, but they have had to because of Chernobyl which is miles away. (I >believe the sheep and reindeer had less radioactivity than the food the >Russians are eating but when you contaminate the area that feeds your >people, you have limited choices.) Three Mile Island was not supposed to >heat to over 4/5th of it's meltdown temperature but it did. Technically >speaking this could have been worse than Chernobyl, I suppose. > >These ‘accidents’ happened without y2k computer problems. Scientist >don’t seem to have built y2k into their risk projections for nuclear so >their >risk analysis is meaningless. One risk book predicted a slim chance of >one major accident at an American reactor in the next 100 years. Y2k was >not mentioned. Y2k drives the needle off the dial. What chance do we have >when hundreds of nuclear reactors around the world hit thousands of >computer problems at the same time? > >Last week Ol'Timer wrote to the newsgroup last week : >[NRC says no new nuclear plants built in over 20 years. 90% of sensors are >analog, not digital. Very little reliance on digital technology for core >reaction (Fission -> heat water -> steam -> electricity). The "ON/OFF" >switch is not digital. > There is a risk of digitial Y2K problem in peripheral systems such as >security, surveillence, testing, event reporting, etc. They claim to be >taking appropriate measures. > This is good news. > For more info, see ITAA's Year 2000 Outlook, Jan 23, 1998, Vol. 3,No. 3 > (I am on e-mail list. I do not have an URL)] > >Ol'Timer used a funny non-traceable e-mail address that would be perfect >for a nuclear industry PR type but that's OK. Any dialogue or information >could help. Thanks. I wanted to take this e-mail at face value and be >reassured. Looking closer, I wondered what Ol'Timer was really saying. Are >heat and pressure sensors not generally analog devices? Computer chips >don't work at thousands of degrees. They are not likely to be embedded in >heat sensors. Are analog sensors read manually at reactors? Is the data >then used to control manual devices? Are fuel rods and reaction control >substances inserted and extracted by hand? I doubt it. What reactor has an >"ON/OFF" switch? Don’t the number of fuel rods inserted, how far they are >inserted and the amount of graphite or heavy water in the reactor control >the reactions? Don’t elevator computers make up way less than 1% of the >elevator system? If you’re stuck on the 54th floor because of y2k code in >the computer chip, it's still a significant exposure. ‘Year 2000 Outlook’ >doesn’t make a hit on this report using Altavista so it’s either not on the >web, not indexed to Altavista, or under a different title. > >Roger Barnett or Elizabeth Veitch wrote (I had trouble figuring out the >quoting.): >>Our nearest nuclear is Hartlepool - I've been told the keywords >>here are "Ferranti Argus" and "assembler", but that is just hearsay. > >Dave Eastabrook replied: >|Been there. That's one of the few stations I had to do a couple of >|days serious work as opposed to educating users in TSO or VM when >|they were converting off VSPC in 1989. As always with the CEGB >|(now National Power etc), very pleasant, helpful and capable people. >|As I recall, I wrote about 3 Assembler programs and the JCL for a >|mini-suite to accomplish the task, as with MVS you always have an >|assembler, whereas they might not have Fortran or Cobol etc. later on. > >Rick, Roger, Elizabeth, Dave, even Homer Simpson, indicate that nuclear >reactors are computerized. I can't imagine that the worldwide nuclear >industry conspired to place redundant and unnecessary computers in their >plants. I'm cynical but not that cynical. The 360 type machines that run >MVS and JCL were state of the art in 1964. Maintaining an unnecessarily >JCL based machine with assembler programs at a nuclear plant would >be a cruel and unusual practical joke. > >I expect that computers at nuclear plants have significant roles. The year >2000 problems probably increase the risk of this dangerous technology >enormously. Considering the lack of time remaining, it is probably the >most serious threat that we face today. Rick indicates that managers and >officials are not taking this seriously. Human actions and reactions figured >into Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. How will nuclear plant operators react >if y2k bugs give them false information? What happens if programs that >control the movement of fuel rods or control substances don’t work? What >are the odds that all operators in the decaying former Soviet Union will be >Vodka free on New Years eve of the millenium? (Before you answer, >remember that our highly trained Canadian operators have been found >drinking and doing drugs on the job.) What exactly will happen in the >hundreds of nuclear plants in all of these countries? (Argentina, Australia, >Austria, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, >Canada, China, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic People's Republic of >Korea, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, >Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Republic of >Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Monaco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, >Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, >Thailand, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) > >I believe, the U.S. alone has 108 nuclear reactors (maybe 108 sites with >multiple reactors) mostly in the northeast quarter of the country - the >former Soviet Union has about 100 sites with an average of three reactors >per site - Canada has 11 reactors, mostly in Ontario, one in New Brunswick >and one or two in Quebec. I don't have a clue on numbers in the rest of the >world. I'm not an expert. I have just been looking at the situation >recently. > >If these technologies are safe, then we should all know the details. If you >know any specifics that we can count on for safety, then please let us know. >Doing whatever we can to stop widespread poisoning of our planet should >be more important than accumulating a few dollars or being a hero with >someone's fixed asset system. If a reactor within hundreds of miles of you >starts Chernobyling you won't be able to hide under your Whole Earth >Catalog. If several of the suckers start spewing radioactive material in >different parts of the world then God help us all. > >David Woodill >Orillia, Ontario >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Know Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
