THE HARRISON FOX TOP 10 LISTgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Electric Utilities and Y2K : One Thread |
at http://www.y2knewswire.com/news.aspA staff member of the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology (Harrison Fox) recently issued a list of the top 10 feared Y2K problems. For your reading pleasure...
1. oil and gas shortages
2. defense weapon failures
3. air traffic control system breakdowns
4. utility grid blackouts and brownouts
5. manufacturing and production shutdowns
6. supply base and service interruptions
7. water and sewer system breakdowns
8. public health and safety-device failures
9. embedded chip failures
10. citizen panic
Here's our take on each one:
oil and gas shortages This is the major Y2K risk. We depend on non-compliant countries for oil production and shipping. Even after it reaches the United States, we have refineries, railroads, trucking, and other systems that must work perfectly for gas to get to the pump. In fact, we think oil shortages will be a major factor in the predicted economic depression.
defense weapon failures Largely unknown. The DoD isn't saying much. We'll only know if these aren't compliant if they have to be used, by the way. Hopefully, we'll never know... because we never needed them.
air traffic control system breakdowns Likely to occur: some areas will have working radar control systems, others won't. There is definitely a chance of an air traffic disaster if these systems fail. However, we don't think there will be a wholesale blackout of FAA radar.
utility grid blackouts and brownouts No nationwide blackout, but local blackouts are very likely. Watch for rolling brownouts and unreliable power (which will be very disruptive to business, causing more down-the-line problems). In other countries, power will fail outright.
manufacturing and production shutdowns Medium-case scenario. The manufacturers hit hardest will be those who depend on the largest number of suppliers: auto manufacturers, for example.
supply base and service interruptions Supplies will undoubtedly be depleted on many items by the time we reach 1/1/2000, and some services will certainly be interrupted (911 for example). Emergency services are one of the key problem areas.
water and sewer system breakdowns We don't expect these to be widespread, but where they occur, expect a crisis. Where there's no water, there are frightened people. And should water treatment fail in any densely-populated city, it's going to result in a near-instant state of emergency.
public health and safety-device failuresA big problem. We think the medical industry (hospitals, pharmaceuticals, health insurance) will be hit hard, and it will take months to straighten it all out. Watch for a disruption in Medicare checks to doctors, for example. If this lasts more then 60 days, medical practice offices will go bankrupt by the hundreds.
embedded chip failuresStill largely unknown what the end result will be, but without a doubt, hundreds of thousands of embedded systems are going to fail (or begin producing bad data). The key, of course, is in knowing where these systems will fail. A failure in your VCR is no big deal. A failure in a satellite is a huge problem.
citizen panicWon't happen in rural areas, but could indeed happen in the cities -- especially if people don't prepare until December. The more we hear bureaucrats discouraging preparedness, the worse we think the panic will get. (Some conspiracy advocates say that's the plan...)
-- Anonymous, March 29, 1999
Fortunately, "loss of gravity" did not make the top ten, it came in at a lowly 14, right behind "coffee pot will not automatically shut off".
-- Anonymous, March 29, 1999
well, fact finder, as it happens, harrison fox has plenty of facts to back up his statements. you reply with sarcasm. do you have facts to back up your sarcasm?
-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999
The more "factfinder" posts the more she seems to be passing from the "Denial" stage to the "Anger" stage. Pretty soon she'll enter "Acceptance". :-)
-- Anonymous, March 30, 1999
Gee guys, You are over-reacting to my attempt at humor, but at least it's consistent with the way you are reacting to Y2K ;)And Drew, you speak of facts....after linking CBN to the newsgroup list of y2k "failures" that has many bogus failures? Ok....:)
Say hi to the family, and don't forget to write :) Regards,
-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999
Andrew my pal! What "facts" did you use to assess that I was a "she"! lol....if you can't tell by my testosterone laden posts that I am a he, I don't think I want you on my Y2k team...;) Regards,
-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999
factfinder, if it is any consolation, i had no doubt as to your gender. now having said that, would you indulge me a tad and tell me just how you see the y2k issue playing out?not just in the electrical industry...but across the board.
-- Anonymous, March 31, 1999
factfinder,it would be difficult to read your reply to the fox post as "humor." sarcasm, yes.
please tell me which y2k failures on that list are incorrect. specifics, please.
i am still awaiting your industry consensus...
-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999
Drew, I have already obtain some refuting information, but need a little more time to verify some items. If I take the time to go through some of this list and provide the proof you ask, will you post a public apology on CBN for linking to such unverified stuff and refrain from doing so in the future, and also agree to try to provide a more balance view of y2k news? The mass newspapers and TV y2k stories are optimistic ones in at least half the stories, CBN y2k news links are overwhelming the pessimistic stories. I assure you, I can produce strong evidence of a number of bogus items, but in fairness, if I cannot, then I will offer the apology. Regards,
-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999
factfinder,first, i still want to see your report on "the emerging industry consensus," complete with statistics/information to back it up. you told me to expect that a month ago. i'm still waiting.
second, that list is a list of news items. i think we have been through this before, but i guess i have to make a point again that i thought i'd made previously here: what i post on the website is news stories and other items (for example, congressional testimony). i do believe people understand this. i comment on these stories et al, at least normally. no one person can go out and verify all of the facts in all of those stories. that includes that list of y2k failures.
now, there's a point i want to make here. you complain that cbn does not fall into lockstep with the mass media (about which i have more to say in a moment). yet, those lists are composed almost *entirely* of examples *from* the mass media (AP, washington post, chicago tribune, pc magazine, techweb, msnbc, cnn, portland oregonian, etc etc etc etc etc)! excuse me, but isn't there more than a little bit of a dichotomy here? on the one hand, you think the mass media is good- when it's optimistic, i guess. but apparently when it prints/airs something you don't like, and i link to it- well, then, it's "unverified" and bad. which is it?
now, when i've posted some things i was cautious about (ie, about their "verifiability"- ie, reliability), i've often said so. for instance, the new governor of california proclaiming "we've got 75% of our mission critical systems fixed!" you should have liked that- it was good news. and i posted it in part because it *was* good news. however, it didn't make sense to me, because i knew what a y2k mess california had been in in late 98 (regardless of the happy-face mainstream stories you seem to like). translation: i used my *brain*, rather simply accept the happy news at face value. i warned readers to be careful until the auditor verified it. well, guess what: the *very*next*day* the state auditor basically declared the whole governor's report wrong, and said that the *real* story was that california's mission-critical systems were 67 percent *not* ready- the exact *opposite* of what had been reported just the day before. the governor's office had to back down completely.
that's hardly the only example of so-called "good news" that's later been proven to be false, time and time again. of course, it takes time and experience in the field to be aware of this; most reporters don't have that due to the nature of their jobs and backgrounds.
you say "at least half the news stories are optimistic." where is your proof of this? do you have statistics? surveys? further, even if this were true, so what? must every website fall in line with what everyone else says? all news organizations must repeat a party line? should we all have just accepted, for instance, the LA Times report of the "good news" from the governor's office? the truth is, the majority in the media, and elsewhere, is often wrong.
example: as i recall, in 1994, the washington post reported, shortly before the congressional elections that the democrats were picking up momentum, and could actually pick up seats in the house of representatives. our political editor, by contrast, predicted that based on his pretty extensive research, the republicans would utterly swamp the democrats, and gain around 50 seats. he was right, the post was wrong. for that matter, practically the entire news media were wrong, with a few exceptions (bob novak, morton kondracke, and a few others). should he have retracted his prediction because he was in a minority, "out of balance with the majority," view? a more educated minority view, i should add.
example: ed yardeni predicted dow 5000 by 1995 & 10,000 by 2000. he was hooted at and jeered on wall street. no one believed him. guess who was right: the educated minority view. certainly not what the "mass tv & newspapers" were reporting.
example: during watergate, only woodward & bernstein, for the longest time, would stick with the story. the rest of the media thought they were nuts. the nixon administration used this as one of their pr tools for a long time: "why is only the washington post reporting this story? where is everyone else?" i'll tell you where they were: late to the party. woodward & bernstein were right, because they had done, and were doing, their homework. the rest of the "mass newspapers and tv" were wrong.
example: on september 12, 1997, i went on the air and said the dow would go down so far in one day that the trading halts would have to be invoked for the first time ever, and trading would be shut down before the normal market closing hours. this came to pass on oct 27, six weeks later. to the best of my knowledge, i was the *only* person in the entire nation to have predicted this on tv. not a single living soul on wall street predicted or expected it. should i have withdrawn my prediction because i wasn't sufficiently in line with the majority in your view? what about the next day, when i said the worst was over & a little later, when i said we're now going to 9000 by spring 98? why, many gurus on wall street were proclaiming the death of the bull market. what about in july of 1997, when i said on air i expected dow 10,000 within 1-3 years? very few on wall street- or in the news media- expected that. should i have retracted that then? after all, i didn't fit into your view of what news was, since "the mass newspapers and tv" sure weren't in line with me. what if someone called "wall street fact finder" had told me, "you are wrong, predicting such a thing. no one else believes this. you're out in left field. provide balance."
in other words, truth is not determined by your view of "balance," and certainly not by what the mass media are reporting. are you familiar with the "conventional wisdom watch" in newsweek? it is published every week. the entire point of that weekly feature is to make fun of how the conventional political wisdom- reflected in the political class and the news media- is usually entirely wrong.
i could go on at great length about this- history clearly shows that the majority is invariably wrong at significant turning points (george orwell wrote a great essay on how stupid the british intelligentsia was about hitler- they were completely, dead wrong on every move he ever made, including their ability to win the battle of britain). but i think you get the idea: what "the majority" is reporting is no determinant of truth or reality. heck, a year ago, the "majority" of economists ignored y2k altogether. now, it is at least a significant component of any major economists' forecast. so, should i have listened to economists a year ago? or now? or neither?
so, no, i really don't care if most of the media says x or y in terms of the y2k outlook. very few reporters have the opportunity or time to actually study the issue; they simply report happy face press releases. no wonder such stories are optimistic; they barely qualify in certain respects as news stories at all. so, i don't feel the need to follow your editorial dictates of "balance." (in fact, if everyone is so optimistic, then cbn et al are themselves *providing* balance.) there are numerous y2k websites out there. anyone is free to ignore ours completely. turn the channel. cbn has an enormous list of links in our y2k resource center to offer multiple views. further, our site *encourages* people to obtain multiple sets of information before even beginning to form an opinion. i know it's all there because i wrote it myself. we aren't limiting anyone to any one view.
there is, however, another aspect to this: in properly covering something like y2k, you look for *where*the*problems*are*. analysis is about seeking truth, not what the majority believes. by your view of what "the majority believes/is reporting," the 1974 recession should have never happened. after all, it was just a problem with one sector of the economy, oil. everything else was okay. let's say there were 24 other sectors of the economy to worry about. oil was just one. that's 96% to the good. yet- we had the worst recession since 1938. since "the majority" were not reporting such things, i guess it shouldn't have happened; by following such views, one would have completely missed foreseeing 74 (as most economists did). yet by my methodology- you look for where the problems are- you'll spot things ahead of time. that's why you may see more negative stories on our site: i'm looking for where the problems are. the good non-problem stuff- which i do link, whether enough for you or not- well, it will take care of itself. that's not where the problem is. the fallacy that "most things are okay, so y2k will be a non-event" is just that: a MAJOR fallacy. i know of some problems- limited to just one sector of the economy- that could cause y2k to be a VERY significant negative event. it's just like the oil situation- it only takes major problems in one significant sector to cause problems for the entire economy. those problems most definitely exist in individual sectors right now in y2k. will they be solved in time? i don't know. no one does. anyone who says they do is lying or ignorant. but you better go looking for them, and not worry about what the majority thinks. (incidentally, i predicted the 1997 mini-crash because only *one* thing was wrong in the stock market, while everything else was basically all right. again, by your definition of "what the mass newspapers & tv are reporting/believe," i was out of "balance.")
by the way, just this afternoon, i posted no less than three positive reports on the power industry (including jon arnold saying he thinks it'll be a non-event). i chose them this morning, before your post came along.
http://www.cbn.org/y2k/insights.asp?file=990401c.htm
if you come up with a list with good documentation refuting some of those examples (again, mostly from the "mass newspapers and tv"), i'll look at it.
-- Anonymous, April 01, 1999