Y2K Ken Raggios' newsletter

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bill Clifton wrote:

> >Perhaps the most significant news was reported by WorldNewsDaily on
> January
> >22, 1999, "Concern over potential safety hazards related to the Y2K
> >bug prompted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to announce that
> >all nuclear power plant operators would be required to offer written
> >confirmation that they had a program under way to deal with potential
> >Y2K problems. The requirement specifies that nuclear power plants
> >must be "Y2K ready no later than July 1, 1999." Nuclear plants
> >reportedly require up to four months to shut down, suggesting that
> >nuclear shutdowns could begin as early as this summer if plants
> >cannot demonstrate Y2K readiness.
> 
> A nuke can shutdown at the drop of a hat...normally if you know you will
> have a planned outage you will use a slower more refined method. But to
> say that you cannot shut a plant down in less that 4 months is really suspect.


No, it is totally and completely without merit.  I can walk into any
(and I do mean ANY) nuclear power plant in the country (civilian or
military) and have it 100% shutdown within 30sec of walking into the
control room.

BY DESIGN AND MANDATE a nuclear power plant FAILS safe.  Worst case no
power, no hydraulics they shut down.  Every major component uses
electricity (or hydraulics) to be operational.  The Three Mile Island
incident was nothing more than PROOF of how well the nuclear industry
works.  Don't bother to start listing the distance at which people were
having "radiation sickness"; that was litterally all in their minds. 
Other wise nobody in the plant would have lived.

Skip

PS
Been to busy to breath, much less post, but I couldn't let this Raggio
idiot get away with FUD