Dear Mr. Peter de Jager:
I have enclosed three related items regarding Y2K. I hope you, as a computer professional, will be particularly interested in my and my wife's contribution to this collection. I have distributed animated educational software worldwide for about 15 years based on a 100,000 line Assembler-language DOS based animation engine (2 digit-year!). My wife is a senior technical editor for News/400 (an IBM midrange systems magazine).
If you have any questions about the severity of the dangers of an accidental nuclear war (in other words, what it would be like regardless of the possibility of it happening) please see my article listed below about "The Effects of Nuclear War", in my "sig" file (below).
Thank you in advance for your attention, and for trying to alert the world in general to the coming problems, responsibly and yet with good humor and intention. But at your home page I didn't see "the nuclear connection" prominently featured, and I think it should have been.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Hoffman
Owner and Chief Programmer
The Animated Software Company
P.S. #1 My company's own Y2K statement is located here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/faqs/y2kquest.htm
P.S. #2 If you would like to see the animated software I write, please do not hesitate to let me send you a CD-ROM you will almost surely enjoy!
Attachment contents:
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 20:16:49 +0000
To: y2k-nuclear@egroups.com
From: Paul Swann pswann@easynet.co.uk
Subject: [y2k-nuclear] Helen Caldicott: LA Times article
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/COMMENT/t000073327.html
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
PERSPECTIVE ON THE Y2K PROBLEM
The Sky, Indeed, May Be Falling
Millennium bug could cause a catastrophe at any of the world's 433 nuclear power plants.
By HELEN M. CALDICOTT
While societal disruptions are bound to occur in every country at the turn of the century, the most serious and unforgiving aspect of the millennium bug could be a catastrophe at any of the world's 433 nuclear power plants or an accident involving control of the 4,400 nuclear warheads that are maintained on hair-trigger alert in both Russia and the United States.
Yet, at a White House meeting I attended recently with John Koskenin, the head of the president's Y2K committee, representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Defense and four independent experts, the government representatives dismissed concerns that were raised while providing no substantive basis for confidence that we do not face potentially irregular, and possibly serious, nuclear accidents on or after Jan. 1, 2000.
Nuclear power plants are dependent upon an intact external electricity supply to maintain the circulation of about 1 million gallons of water per minute to cool the radioactive core and also to keep the spent fuel pools cool. If a section of the grid goes down, the approximately 100-ton fissioning uranium core in the affected reactor will melt within two hours if the two back up diesel generators--whose reliability has been estimated at 85%--fail.
Unlike the reactor cores, most of the spent fuel pools, which hold four to five times more radioactivity than the core, have no back up power supply nor containment vessel, and thus could melt within 48 hours if the reactor has been recently refueled; if not, they would melt within two weeks without cooling water. Twenty-six U.S. reactors are scheduled for refueling before Jan. 1.
While Koskenin admitted the possibility of random power outages in the U.S. electricity grid, he did not address the issue of the precarious back-up generators nor the fact that the NRC requires only one week of diesel fuel at each reactor site, even though local power outages could last longer.
The NRC representatives told us that contingency plans are in place, which we assume includes evacuation in case of a nuclear accident, and said that they are arguing with the Federal Emergency Management Agency about which agency will pay for stockpiling potassium iodide tablets that are used to block the absorption of radioactive iodine by the thyroid gland in the event of a meltdown.
The situation with regard to 65 ex-Soviet reactors was only mentioned in passing, but all present agreed that the old Soviet electrical grid has not been examined for Y2K problems and will be in great danger in the new year. Most of these reactors do not have back up diesel generators in the event of coolant failure. We then moved to the subject of accidental launching of nuclear weapons. The DOD representative admitted that the U.S. policy of "hair-trigger alert" was a vexatious problem when combined with date-related embedded chips and glitches in the early-warning and automated communications systems.
However, while we were confidently reassured by the presidential Y2K committee that the weapons cannot launch themselves, the issue of date-related problems inherent in the U.S. and Russian early-warning systems was glossed over.
It is known that although Russia initially assessed its early-warning, communications and control systems for nuclear weapons, it has only completed the second stage of a five-part Y2K remediation process. Even if the necessary funds were made available on an emergency basis, there is scarcely time left to complete the next three stages, which include fixing errors and testing those performing "committed testing" of the fixes.
And to make a bad situation worse, Russia is now "blind" to U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile launches three hours each day due to serious deterioration in its early-warning satellite systems.
The Pentagon is worried that computer-related mistakes in the early-warning systems of either side could be misinterpreted in an atmosphere of mistrust. There were diplomatic moves earlier this year to establish a joint early-warning center, but Russia lost interest after Kosovo, and although the U.S. is attempting to revive this liaison, it is now almost certainly too late to establish this complex system.
Although the Pentagon has checked millions of computer parts and interfacing systems for its own Y2K compliance, it cannot be sure that a single embedded chip could not wreak terrible damage. In fact, Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre said on Oct. 19, 1998, "Probably one out of five days I wake up in a cold sweat thinking [that Y2K] is much bigger than we think, and then the other four days I think maybe we are on top of it."
There are two viable solutions, which if implemented now will avert these possible nuclear-related events.
* Provide alternative electrical generators--solar, turbine, fuel cells or wind driven--at all the nuclear reactors in the world. We also recommend taking all 433 nuclear reactors offline during the period leading up to and immediately after Jan. 1, to decrease the risk of multiple failures.
* Physically take the 4,400 Russian and U.S. strategic weapons off hair-trigger status--de-alert them.
There is only just enough time to implement these steps, but with committed global leadership, four and a half months should be enough.
- - -
Helen M. Caldicott Is President of the Standing for Truth About Radiation Foundation, a Long Island, N.y.-based Research and Education Foundation Whose Focus Is Nuclear Reactors
Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ebates.com. Earn up to 25% cash back for shopping online at 75 stores
like Borders, CDNow and Beyond.com. Refer a friend and earn even more!
http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/690
eGroups.com home:
http://www.egroups.com/group/y2k-nuclear
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
www.co-intelligence.org
-- Awakening: the upside of Y2K
www.utne.com/y2k
-- Utne Reader's Y2K Citizen's Action Guide
www.y2kconnections.com
www.resilience2000.com
www.cassandraproject.org
-- individual & community preparedness,
public health concerns, links to Y2K citizen action groups
www.resiliantcommunities.org
www.justpeace.org/y2kcivil.htm
-- prep resources, impact on the poor
www.redcross.org/disaster/safety/y2k.html
www.y2kkitchen.com
www.tmn.com/y2k
-- scenarios, psychology (very progressive & visionary)
www.fema.gov/nwz99/99001.htm
-- feds want everyone to prepare
www.ciao.gov
-- Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office
(feds have a sense of humor -- CIAO "goodbye")
www.ncs.gov
-- U.S. National Communications System
www.fas.org/2000/y2k/analysis.htm
-- Federation of American Scientists
The Year 2000 Problem and the Danger of Accidental Nuclear War
www.basicint.org
The Bug in the Bomb:
The Impact of the Year 2000 Problem on Nuclear Weapons
www.afa.org/magazine/0799midnight.html
"Midnight Crossing"
Our own Y2K-Nukes and Y2K-Preparedness page:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/y2k/index.htm
Statement on Y2K and in support of Dr. Helen Caldicott, written August 24th,1999 by Russell and Sharon Hoffman:
My wife and I are both computer professionals with nearly 20 years' experience each (not in nuclear, although my "All About Pumps" tutorial is used by some nuclear power facilities for training new victims -- er, I mean employees -- who work at the plants).
We have no doubt that the possibilities of imperfect software causing problems are undeniable (except to government toadies). Both of us have had many different jobs and experiences. I (Russell) can claim my own software, which I wrote and distribute worldwide (see my web site if you're curious about it) is fully Y2K-oblivious (i.e., doesn't know or care).
My professional career started in a bank around 1980-81, where we were already well aware of the date "problem" and were expected to write compliant code at all times even back then (besides that, the bank was bought by another so all the code was thrown away).
However, my wife tells me she did indeed, at some points in her career, have to work with code she knew at the time would not be Y2K compliant, generally for business applications (non-nuclear). Millions of other programmers will tell you the same thing. They wrote code they knew was not Y2K compliant, and they had their reasons:
First of all, in these instances it was always expected -- or shall we say assumed? -- that the code would be replaced by now, and that the very real space (computer memory) constraints would be lifted (clients LIKE to save money on disk space, and two bytes times a few million customers made a big difference even in the 1980's). Programs ran faster too, because they used "packed fields" and less disk space. Thus, time and money was saved for the client on a daily, ongoing basis by scrunching things up wherever possible. And the rewrites to make the code Y2K-compatible, when needed (NOW) often are trivial -- they simply need to be done. But testing is difficult at best and sometimes impossible (how many systems have crashed only AFTER going "live"?). Furthermore, the shear volume of software which must be modified and tested is daunting.
But alas, what ended up happening is, the programmers left for greener pastures, the code DIDN'T get replaced, and the client HASN'T spent the money to have their code tested and upgraded. Most literally plan to "take their chances" which is okay if the potential magnitude of the problems is not too great.
Nearly everything runs on computers nowadays, from parts supply programs to payroll to security, and all sorts of equipment talks to all sorts of other equipment. Example: What if a nuke plant's card-entry security program has been tested and works fine after Y2K according to the manufacturer, but in actual operation it relies on the company's payroll program for a final check of valid cards, and the payroll programs works too (according to the developer) but the two programs don't "work" quite the same way after Y2K, each having implemented a different version of the various "Y2K fixes" that are available? Then what happens? The personnel cannot get into the building!
It is because my wife and I have collectively spent nearly 4 decades in the computer business, and I have spent some time watching and writing about the anti-nuclear "business", that we are so worried. We know what people have created. We even understand the general reasons why. And we agree completely with you about what the consequences might be.
Will there be power outages? Will all the backup generators work? Will a missile be launched accidentally (or on purpose) setting off an EMP which would surely cause meltdowns since the EMP would ruin the backup generators? Neither my wife nor I ever worked on these exact types of programs or technologies, but at some level, most programmers with several decades' experience will tell you that programming is programming and no one gets it right all the time, not even the best programmers in the world. It is INCONCEIVABLE to us that there is no reason to worry, so we wish to help you ring the bell and alert people.
Most people with our level of computer knowledge are worried about Y2K at some level, in fact, I am quite sure that generally, the longer a person has been in the computer business, the more they are worried about Y2K (partly because they are more likely to have worked on code which might be Y2K-buggy, but also because they have been humbled time and again, and know that no programmer is perfect).
Some programmers disagree with us, of course. Perhaps they think we do not love our industry (but we do!). There are people with equally good or better credentials who say not to worry -- but do they have proof? Of course not! And people with just as good credentials as them, are genuinely scared about what can go wrong on Y2K. It's the programmers who are buying most of the wind-up radios and such these days -- NOT the "doomsday survivalists" (who presumably bought those things long ago). Programmers think about possibilities and then prepare for those possibilities in the code they write. If the programmers are scared (and we are!) I think it makes sense that others should be too.
But still, despite this fear, most computer programmers are not aware of the deadly aspects of the nuclear sword that hangs above us, which makes a trivial three-day blackout a nightmare which knows no end.
That is why we personally wish to support Dr. Caldicott in her efforts to alert the world to the Y2K dangers we face. My wife and I can jump and scream all we want to warn people that software everywhere WILL have problems -- it's inevitable and it might cause a wide variety of problems. But it is up to people such as Dr. Caldicott, to relate that fact to the nuclear demon so that the world understands what REALLY matters here. Not the bank's software -- that's probably going to work anyway and what does money mean anyway? Maybe it's true that the grocery stores will have trouble ordering stock for a few days. Maybe gas lines will form at the pumps as people fill their tanks, starting in the last weeks of December.
Maybe the phones will go dead come 1/1/00. (1/1/2000!).
All this happening around the world would be sad, but trivial compared to even a single meltdown occurring, let alone an accidental nuclear war occurring. That is our view and that is why we wish to support Dr. Caldicott's efforts.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Hoffman
Sharon L. Hoffman
Carlsbad, California
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com