next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
As ususal, Peter Montague writing for Rachel's has gone right to the
heart of things. His posting on the Year 2000 problem points out clearly
why this is an ENVIRONMENTAL problem that we should have public and
verifiable ways of being assured is being solved.
Perhaps we should be doing as he suggests and demanding public hearings on
this to assure compliance. How else we we really know if we will
actually have power, food, heat, transportation and communication? How
else will we know that possible environmentl and health problems will be
avoided? Are any of you out there aware of any organized comprehensive
survey of the NS government to be CERTAIN this has been fully dealt with?
Please get the entire post from the web site at
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/
or e-mail INFO@rachel.org with the single word HELP in the message.
Better yet subscribe.
A few brief exerpts are below.
David Wimbberly
---------- Forwarded message ----------
It's a computer problem with possibly-serious environment and health
implications.
The utilities say the lights may go out. This seems like a
problem worth examining.
Mainframes will not be the only computers to fail on January 1,
2000 if they are still noncompliant by then. Many industrial
machines contain "embedded systems" --computer chips that are
literally embedded within some larger piece of equipment, such as
power stations, oil refineries, telephone switches, burglar
alarms, emergency room equipment, air traffic control systems,
military defense gear, and chemical plants, among others.
".... De Jager talked recently with an executive of a company
that makes a volatile gas --he would not identify the company
more specifically --who told de Jager how his plant discovered
the seriousness of faulty embedded chips.
"The plant found a chip that failed when the date was moved
forward. When the chip failed, it shut off a valve that would
have shut down the cooling system. A cooling system shutdown,
the executive said, would have caused an explosion.
"That was great news," de Jager said. "Because they checked
--there will be no explosion. They're replacing the chips."
"De Jager worries about the companies that are not checking,"
Hick wrote.
Conclusion No. 1: If we lived in a community with one or more
chemical plants, we would be asking our local government to hold
public hearings on the Y2K problem, seeking public assurances
from local plant managers that they really have this problem
under control. What written plans do they have for assessing
these problems, and how large a budget have they committed to
solving them? What progress can they demonstrate? Does the plant
manager have sufficient confidence in the plant's safety systems
to be at the plant with his or her family at midnight December
31, 1999, to celebrate the new year?
Conclusion No. 2: Portions of the nation's basic infrastructure
(utilities, transportation, defense, manufacturing) seem likely
to be disrupted by the Y2K problem. Furthermore, parts of the
world's core commercial institutions, such as banking and
insurance, seem likely to be disrupted by the Y2K problem.
Therefore, in our opinion, we each would do well to ask
ourselves: if the electric utilities may not be reliable, the
petrochemical industry (which delivers our gasoline) may have
difficulties of its own, the trains may not run well, and the
world banking system may be plagued by errors and glitches, how
can we be sure that our employers will be able to pay us so that
we can put food on the table? It even seems as if we should be
asking, how can we be sure there will be food in the grocery
stores? Given what we know, these seem to be reasonable
questions.
More next week.
--Peter Montague
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects