Well, it seems like the spinmeisters are hard at it, spinning Y2K as a calamity, a non-event, and everything in between. The information I'm seeing spans the spectrum from:

WASHINGTON (AP)  The Year 2000 computer problem could cause serious disruptions abroad, including breakdowns in nuclear reactors and strategic missile systems, midwinter power outages and disruptions in world trade and oil shipments, a CIA official warned today. ... (dated 2/24/1999)

to: reports that John Koskinen is talking to PR firms to convince the public that Y2K is nothing much (after all, the SSA is looking good, right?)

to this from Peter deJager's organization newsletter:

>Year2000_Outbound_Mail_See_Below@year2000.com wrote: > >Frankly, I'm more concerned about the champagne >shortage than I am about electric supplies. If you >happen to have an extra bottle of bubbly...

(According to Antoinette deJager, this was meant to "lighten" the subject up - but does it?)

The question is, which is preferable: a scared public that makes rash decisions, an informed public that makes educated decisions, or a mollified public that makes no decisions at all?

Thanks, Rick, for keeping the tone of this site informative, educational, and pragmatic, and for not blowing with the breeze. You're doing what few others are willing to do.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

Answers

Count me in as endorsing the idea of the informed public making educated decisions.

We have been providing independent heat and power solutions since 1974.

What we need is for the utilities to step forward and say, "We will fix this problem and guarentee it will not affect the delivery of power, or that it will affect the public only a little...something definitive.

I can guarentee that my power will stay on for at least three years at my house, because I have been independent since 1991.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 1999

Hoping for Rick's concurrence, I'm copying here part of a post I made to the Yourdon Y2K BBS. (And expanding on that.) The event related bears directly on the subject of this thread.

"A friend of mine in a Cincinnati suburb (a small, separate township) has been trying to convince his mayor that he should be warning people about possible interruptions in basic services come next January. The mayor is well aware that the situation could get iffy, but he is also getting very mixed messages. He's read a lot of things taken from the Web, but he's hearing quite a different story from other governmental sources. (I have all this second hand, of course.) The mayor told my friend that he had attended a major conference of local government officials this past week, where State, county and "civil defense" representatives had a lot to say about Y2K. [I'm told that] the substance of what they all said was, "there aren't going to be any serious problems, nobody needs to panic, whatever little glitches occur will be fixed right away, we'll have power and water and food, all this stockpiling of stuff is completely unnecessary, and go back and tell your people this." So the mayor is pretty confused. He's read Janet Abrams' talk to Italian officials, given last December (see ABRAMS CITES INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT Y2K COOPERATION) In this discussion Abrams says 'Our real concern beyond the states is the readiness of cities and counties. And we have a major push underway to raise the awareness of those local officials.' "

(Note: the Abrams transcript is available thru the USIA Public Diplomacy Query site at http://pdq2.usia.gov/)

And (as Ted Markow notes) there are substantive dissonances among statements by Koskinen, CIA, Rep. Horn, Sen. Bennett, and the forthcoming report of Sen. Bennett's subcommittee. In a report on a FEMA-sponsored regional workshop in Newark, held 23 Feb 1999, the Trenton Times noted:

"FEMA Deputy Director Mike Walker told participants that despite worries to the contrary, the Y2K problem does not have to bring catastrophe. "Based on current assessments, the sky is not falling. Y2K does not have to be a major problem."

But in his introduction to A Guide for State and Local Emergency Managers, dated February, 1999, James Witt writes:

"Y2K conversion is an all-encompassing problem with the potential for widespread, multiple incidents occurring simultaneously. However, the all-hazards practices and techniques emergency managers routinely use for other disasters and emergencies should well serve our nation in planning for the potential consequences of Y2K conversion.

"Emergency Operation Plans, supplemented by the material suggested in this Guide, should form an effective basis for Y2K contingency planning and consequence management for States and local governments. The Federal Response Plan, with its special Y2K Operations Supplement, will be the basis for providing Federal assistance to States should there be any Presidentially declared emergencies resulting from Y2K conversion.

"This guide is meant to assist States and local governments in preparing Y2K contingency and consequence management plans. It provides information on:

identifying potential problems and risk assessment; keeping the emergency management organization operational; informing and assisting the public; and developing and implementing Y2K consequence management plans."

On page 8 of the .pdf version of this Guide, this statement appears:

"As an emergency manager, your primary focus should be on protecting public safety and health if Y2K-related incidents occur. This guide will help you in the process. It describes the nature of the Y2K problem and explains what you can do to prepare for it."

In the words of the prophet, "Too many cooks spoil the broth."

-- Anonymous, February 25, 1999