-Caveat Lector- -----Original Message----- From:xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sat 4/21/2001 5:22 PM To: xxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Subject: Y2K glitches? Is the tripling of crude oil prices and the quintupling of natural gas prices (!), along with the fantastically high rate of refinery explosions and other oil industry/infrastructure problems in the year 2000, unrelated to faulty embedded systems and other Y2K glitches? I dunno. I really do NOT know. Neither does anyone else, apparently; and whoever *might* know is not talking, at least not on the record. All we have are (putative, unverifiable) "deep throat" characters; see Paula Gordon's interview with "an engineer", below... ------------------ Unexplained explosions, fires and other violent mishaps in factories, mines, power generating plants, gas pipelines, etc.: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl?topic=Grassroots %20Information%20Coordination%20Center%20%28GICC%29&category=Fires%20and %20Explosions http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl?topic=Grassroots %20Information%20Coordination%20Center%20%28GICC%29&category=Gas%20and%2 0Oil%20Pipelines http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003W0O http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003W0A ------------------ http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004WqA An Engineer's Views re Ongoing Y2K Problems By Paula Gordon 1/30/01 Summary of an Engineer's Observations Regarding the Status of Ongoing Y2K-Related Embedded Systems and Complex Integrated Systems Problems (Revised 2/1/2001) (I first posted this Summary on 1/30/2001. The word "module" has now been added in the eighth bulleted item. ~ PG) Preface: I am attaching a summary of observations that I have drafted. The summary is based on observations that an engineer has shared with me. I am sharing these summarized observations for several reasons: 1) because of the relative absence of first hand accounts concerning what is actually going on regarding Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems; 2) because I have heard some similar off the record accounts from other engineers; and 3) because I feel that right now such off the record observations provide the best information and roadmap to further inquiry that we have. Perhaps, those who are in a position to do so, will come forward, at least off the record, and help enlighten the public and those in positions of public and private sector trust and responsibility concerning the significant role that Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems are having in a variety of sectors, including the energy sector. **************************************************************** During the last week of January 2001, I received some information from a seasoned engineer who has been working "on the frontlines". The identity of the engineer cannot be disclosed since the individual's job security could be jeopardized. The individual shared information concerning the many Y2K-related problems that he is continuing to see. (I have not met the engineer in person and do not know his or her real name and will refer to "him" as "he" in this summary.) Also, rather than quote the individual directly, I am summarizing most of the information that he shared with me. ~ Several of the companies that he has worked with have had extremely serious data corruption problems. After much effort and temporary successes in dealing with these problems, the data becomes corrupted again. ~ With respect to the grid, he feels certain that the energy crisis will become increasingly apparent this summer. In his view there have been large numbers of failures involving energy systems. In these instances, he says that workarounds are often not possible. He notes that turning clocks back and going to manual have resulted in some cascading failures and time delays. ~ He notes increasing reports of problems with dirty power and low power and instances of involving the total failure of electrical equipment. ~ He also talks about what he feels is a direct correlation between solar storms and hardware failures. ~ He says that those working "on the frontlines" are being threatened with the loss of their jobs if they speak up about what they know. ~ I had told him that it was my sense that people at the top of private sector organizations do not seem to comprehend the extent of their Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated system problems. He said that of the persons he comes across, less than 20% of those who work with complex systems understand the systems and keep up with changes and that only a small percent is able to address problems effectively. The others don't really understand what is going wrong with their systems. ~ I asked him how large a role he thought Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems were currently playing in the evolving energy crisis. He said that he estimated that 70% of the failures involving the energy sector, and communications (among others) are directly the result of Y2K. He estimated that 20% of the failures could be due to human error on the part of those trying to deal with the problems. He said that those individuals often only have enough ability to deal with normal activities and that they have insufficient understanding to deal with anything that departs from the norm. He estimates that the other 10% of the problems is owing to normal hardware failure, user problems, and environmental issues. ~ He said that manual override and date resetting have been used when automated production systems and SCADA systems have failed. He said that it is not uncommon when he is replacing a system to be told by the client that he has to put in an old date or the application will not run. He added that many of these applications are old and that large networks over the past decade can be composed of a mix of upgrades, networks, and applications that are out of sync. Owing to these problems, he estimates that the country is running at 65% to 70% of last year's production rates on the average. ~ I asked him about problems in all of the high hazard sectors: oil rigs, refineries, oil and gas pipe lines, nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors, chemical plants, hazardous material facilities and sites, electric power plants, water purification plants, waste treatment plants, trains, planes. He responded that most of these have fixed what they could; fixed the rest on failure when possible; or, if the expertise is missing, attempted to make the failing system work manually. In situations where a system is run 24 by 7 and where there is an apparent problem, he says that there is only a narrow window of time during which the system can be analyzed and repaired. Sometimes when there is an apparent problem, but where no hard errors have occurred, he has been asked to replace hardware. When new hardware does not fix the problem, going to partial manual override becomes the only remaining option. He also noted that in many networked environments, date/time is sent in packets and when there are systems broadcasting an old date along with current dates, the data can be corrupted or miscalculated. ~ He said that he has not found anyone who is willing to talk about what is happening, even off the record. He said that some of his more aware customers are asking him what he is seeing and asking questions about the power crisis. He thinks that they are beginning to catch on. ~ I asked him if he knew of any cases involving high hazard sectors where the problems are being publicly recognized AND linked to Y2K? He said that Y2K is never mentioned in explanations as a cause of problems. Instead "silly" explanations are offered and most people take these explanations as fact. ~ I asked him what his prognosis was for nuclear power plants. He said that he was told prior to the rollover by someone in a position to know that in instances that his information source knew about, clocks were turned back where there was a possibility of potential problems and failures. He said that this only works for a time as the interconnectness of these system runs too fast for individuals to keep them going. In his view, the production task has become very costly negating most, if not all profit. In addition mechanical/electronic failures are extremely costly. He said that he felt that many nuclear power plants were running well below capacity due to the failures and owing to manual operations. He feels that they do not seem to be making much progress getting back to normal and that in the end those plants will become too expensive to run. ~ I said that I have been hearing about shortages in the pharmaceutical industry and ask him if he thought this might be related to problems with manufacturing processes. He said that there are manufacturing problems and that too many bugs have slowed manufacturing processes. He added that there is a major shortage of computer components and that the parts that are available are often parts that have been put back in stock even though they do not work. He said he has found the same to be the case when it comes to other technology companies and parts vendors. ~ Regarding health care system problems, he said that they are having all kinds of issues, including claims that are getting rejected for no valid reason, accounts that are coming up blank, or billing where charges and services are being doubled. ~ Regarding air travel, he said that air travel is having its share of Y2K issues. He also feels that solar storms are having an impact on air travel and that Y2K coupled with solar storms have triggered many of the problems that have been occurring. ~ I asked him what he thought about the possibility that manhole cover explosions might be caused by irregularities in transmission. He said that the manhole issue is a very interesting one and that he feels that it is due to electrical power cables overheating and creating a gas that results in an explosion. He thinks that this is probably due to the use of manual power overrides. ~ He said that every time there are major solar flares, he notes an increase in CPU, memory and disk drive failures. He notes that the incidence of failing modules is very high owing to their density, a factor that makes them more sensitive to the effects of solar storms. ~ I asked him if he knew of any cases where problems involving data degradation were being publicly recognized AND linked to Y2K. He said that not one company is going public. The usual explanation is that the company is having "computer problems" and that "the system is new." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004X7G Crossposting: Question re role of Y2K in the Energy Crisis Crossposting of question on ezboard about the role of Y2K in the Energy Crisis http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=21718.t opic&index=15 To Rick Cowles: Do you think Y2K is involved? Posted By: Paula Gordon 2/1/2001 2:00:37 PM Has Rick Cowles expressed any recent concerns regarding the possible connection between Y2K-related problems and unfolding energy sector problems? I have e-mailed him directly during the last week of January 2001, but have not heard back from him as yet. Some current threads on GICC and on EZ Board related questions are being discussed: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004Vzv http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004T3M http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=21122.t opic&index=15 http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=22022.t opic&index=15 http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=22044.t opic&index=15 ________________________________________________________________ Re: To Rick Cowles: Do you think Y2K is involved? Posted By: intothegoodnight (Registered User) Posted At: 2/1/01 3:02:09 pm From IP: Paula, Reviewed your website whitepapers at www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon -- believe that you are on to something that was suspected within my IT engineering group -- after last summer's episodes, we collectively felt that energy and oil refining industries in particular were not Y2K compliant, and were suffering the fallout. Although my experiences with Y2K involved large computer systems, a known bugaboo was the sheer number of non-compliant embedded systems -- many undocumented or unknown to the day-to-day operations folks -- cost to upgrade imbedded systems was prohibitive, and speculation was that many embedded systems were left in a non-Y2K compliant condition -- another issue that is well known in my circles -- management/leadership did not want a Y2K failure on "their watch" -- some were punching the clock until they could advance to the next pay grade/rank, and efforts to sweep Y2K compliance issues under the rug were rampant -- the "don't fail, pass go, get promoted" way of doing business. intothegoodnight Edited by: intothegoodnight at: 2/1/01 3:02:09 pm _______________________________________________________________ Subject: Response to "intothegoodnight" Posted By: Paula Gordon (Registered User) Posted At: 2/1/01 10:26:20 pm From IP: Dear ITGN Thanks for posting and thanks for your very interesting comments. On 1/26/2001 I posted the following on another thread on the Board. I copy the posting here because of its relevance to your comments. To Senses On: You wrote: "One thing is for sure, no one in "authority" will *ever* use the term Y2K in explaining difficulties." What you say may well prove true over time. But I think that you and I probably differ concerning the reasons why this might or might not turn out to be the case. Earlier today I had an e-mail exchange concerning what the highest level officials in the Executive Branch understood (or currently understand) about Y2K-related embedded systems and complex embedded systems problems. I was saying in that e-mail exchange that in my view the highest level officials did not understand the nature and scope of these problems. The other person involved in this discussion took issue saying that they were certain that these officials had the necessary intelligence to understand the technical issues and their implications. They thought that the failure of top level officials to address these problems had to do with "a lack of motivation to put the picture together for the common good of all." The following is based on my response: I know full well that it is difficult to believe that those in the highest roles of public responsibility failed to understand the technical issues involved with Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems. There were moments in the last two months of 1999 when it seemed that Mr. Koskinen had begun to gain a deeper understanding of embedded systems-related concerns. What he learned, however, did not seem to have sticking power and he abandoned his new understanding in the first days after the rollover. By March 2000 (as per his statements in the Q&A piece on my website), he referred to the "fabled" existence of such problems. Note: The Questions & Answers piece includes Mr. Koskinen's responses to many questions that I posed to him in March of 2000. The piece includes an extensive set of appendices and can be found at www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon Mr. Koskinen's views and change in views are also chronicled in the transcripts of the press conferences held just before and during the first week following the rollover. They have been archived at www.y2k.gov Some very intelligent persons have not understood the nature and scope of Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems. One can have a genius IQ and still not have a rudimentary understanding of highly technical subject areas. Even individuals who have extensive technical training and professional experience in a technical field may reach different conclusions about the same issues and challenges. When it comes to Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems, I have found that differences in perspective can even be found amongst software engineers and others with embedded systems expertise. The basis for such differences can often be identified. For instance, the understanding of those whose specialty is in aeronautical engineering can be quite different from those whose area of specialty is oil refineries or gas or oil pipelines. An emphasis on specialization has left society with few generalists and few who have broad ranging expertise that spans a range of sectors. Few specialists seem to be inclined or equipped to try to see the larger picture that includes many different sectors. It is not surprising that any individual whose major training has been in law or business management or both, who does not have a technical background that includes expertise in engineering or a specialty in embedded systems and complex integrated systems would fail to comprehend the nature and scope of these problems. It is not surprising that a person who lacked a technical background would have difficulty in acquiring a working understanding of such a complicated subject in a short period of time especially if there were confusion over whose expertise to trust. There is abundant evidence from the historical record that those in positions of greatest responsibility in the Federal government did not (and do not) comprehend the nature and scope of Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems. The Department of Energy, for instance, did not have and does not to my knowledge have even one person on staff who has embedded expertise AND who made or is able to make the connection between refinery problems that have become evident since the rollover. Incredible to be sure if only in light of the 1999 report and predictions of the International Energy Administration and the IEE's case studies prior to the rollover. This situation is the same in almost every Executive Branch agency and entity that I know of. The failure of top Federal policymakers in the Executive Branch to comprehend the importance of Y2K-related embedded system and complex integrated systems problem seems to me to be owing to a complex of factors. These seem to me to include a lack of technical background and a lack of interest and motivation and the absence of a perceived mandate to focus more fully on these problems. There have certainly been disincentives for those few who do have some understanding of the problems to come forward or to act on their understanding. But the larger problem is that those at the top never understood the most daunting aspects of the problem. My perspective concerning what key Executive Branch officials knew and what they know is based on the public record and on what I have been able to glean from the exchanges that I had with them and/or with those who consulted with them and those who worked in their offices. I believe that we have reached a point in our history when technology has succeeded in "snookering" us. We have reached a point in our history when those in key roles of responsibility need to comprehend as fully as possible the technical aspects of the threats and challenges that we face. They need to know when it is necessary to call upon and rely on individuals with technical expertise. They need to be able to incorporate such technical understanding in the policies they evolve and implement. A lesson of the Challenger Disaster is that it is possible for those at the top (in that case, NASA) to fail to know about the importance of certain technical aspects of a situation. In the case of the Challenger, those at the top did not even know that there were engineers from Morton Thiokol urging a delay of the launch owing to weather conditions and the effect that low temperatures would be apt to have on the O-rings. (Irving Janis' book Groupthink also includes a discussion of what went wrong in the group decisionmaking process that resulted in the Challenger disaster. There may also be something on MSNBC's website on the Challenger Disaster owing to a program aired on 1-25-2001.) I don't blame anyone for being skeptical concerning the validity of my reading of embedded systems and related challenges. It is asking alot for people to believe that decisions about highly complex national and global challenges were made by people who did not place adequate reliance on the technical expertise of those who understood the technical aspects of the challenges and the threats. I have long had a fascination with major debacles, fiascoes, and catastrophes that affect or threaten to affect the public. It seems to me that the approach that the Federal government has taken to Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems has been tantamount to public policy Russian Roulette. They never fully knew, nor do they seem to have any inkling now, of the role that Y2K-related embedded systems and complex integrated systems problems had and are having in any of a number of sectors, including most notably the energy sector. Most of those remaining in positions of Executive Branch responsibility have no basis for even raising basic questions. They believe as the media appears to believe that problem is over. Neither they or the media fully understood the problem. If the complexity of the problem could be explained in sound bites, there might be a chance of raising the level of understanding concerning the problems that we are seeing. However, because of the mind boggling dimensions of the subject, sound bites will not work. The truth in this case strains credulity. It may be that most people will have neither the patience not the interest to wade through longer explanations, explanations that they are disinclined to believe in the first place. Perhaps someone will eventually be successful in figuring out a way to simplify the explanations. Perhaps, eventually, some of those in the highest roles of public responsibility will have their eyes opened by such explanations ___________________________________________________________________ Re: To Rick Cowles: Do you think Y2K is involved? Posted By: bigwavedave (Registered User) Posted At: 2/1/01 5:31:20 pm From IP: intothegoodnight, what you are describing was a known going in to '00 - speculation and suspicion. has anybody followed up with their suspicions to pin down problems in embeddeds to date processing errors? or is the whole ball of wax too complicated for everybody? __________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: To Rick Cowles: Do you think Y2K is involved? Posted By: Moe and Curly (Registered User) Posted At: 2/1/01 7:35:17 pm From IP: Where was the Clinton Department of Energy when all of this natural gas shortage was developing? Asleep, clueless and unknowing? It would appear that if there is already a severe shortage of natural gas that is causing prices to quadruple or more, and if numerous additional natural gas power plants are planned and under construction there will not be an adequate supply of natural gas at reasonable prices for the next several years. At least the current administration has some people that understand energy issues. When the proposed natural gas powerplants come on line, the natural gas for these plants will be even more expensive than current prices, so that electricity costs will be high too. Is there not a permitting process required before permission is granted to build new power plants? Perhaps some plants should be permitted only on the condition that they agree to use coal. There are ample supplies of clean burning coal in Utah if that dumb national monument designation can be reversed. The irritating part is that this undue reliance on natural gas has caused huge increases in electricity prices across the entire United States and the reliance on clean energy has priced electricity so high that many people can no longer afford it. It used to be that old people had to decide whether to spend the money on food or prescriptions. Now they have a third choice. ENERGY. Which do they give up? Not a happy choice. Why should the Federal Government provide heavy subsidies to the Northwest States. If electricity is 10 cents per kilowatt hour or more in Boston, why should it be one half that or less in Oregon or Tennessee where the TVA is still operating? Less natural gas also means less fertilizer or higher fertilizer prices for farmers, lower crop yields, more farm bankruptcies, and finally higher food prices. And we still have no inflation? Give me a break. The "investors" in the stock market are dumb, deluded or hopeful. They are not informed. _____________________________________________________________ End of quoted postings from ezboard -- Paula Gordon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), February 01, 2001 _____________________________________________________________________ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
