John H Krempaskys predictions:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002G5H

You wrote:

Well, since it is true I really didn't show up till after the rollover, I basically put nothing on the line beforehand.

So, to show I'm not a big wimp, I'm making a precise, date-specific prediction regarding US Nuclear Reactor shutdowns.

I predict that between now and the end of 1/31/2000, there will be no more than eight US Nuclear reactor shutdowns. As based on

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/drlist.htm

Criteria: I'm only counting (and I've only counted these in my previous posts of comparisons) shutdowns (they all will have a "SCRAM" code in the event report) of OPERATING reactors, or reactors in startup that have some level of power reached.

In 1999, from 1/7 to 1/31, there were four reactor shutdowns, including two on 1/23 alone. In 1998, from 1/7 to 1/31, there were 4 reactor shutdowns. In 1997, from 1/7 to 1/31, there were 6 reactor shutdowns and 5 shutdowns in 10 days, from 1/22 to 1/31.

We've been told over and over again, since there were not massive problems instantly after the rollover, that Y2K problems would "cascade" and slowly build up over time. Hence, 1/7 to 1/31, theoretically, should be a period where we see evermore US reactor shutdowns, if Y2K IS a serious US reactor problem.

Considering we had 6 shutdowns in that period in 97, One would think that 9 or more shutdowns in 2000 would at least hint at systemic problems.

(Personally, mathematically, I think it would be easily possible to get 10 or more shutdowns in the period at random, based on dumb luck, but I'm willing to take that chance.)

I am not counting SCRAMs of reactors already in cold shutdown, or SCRAMs of reactors in refueling. (None of those this year but a few in previous Januaries.)

If there are 9 or more shutdowns I'll NEVER post on this board again after 2/01, and I'll leave by posting a doomer message where I admit they were all correct and society is finished.

If I'm right, we all agree that US nuke power is a total non-issue.

Well John, to date (1/26/2000) we have:

1) 1/07/2000 Arkansas Nuclear 1: Hot Shutdown, Maintenance Outage, 0% power.

2) 1/08/2000 Cooper 1: Cold Shutdown, Aux cooling system leak, 0% power.

3) 1/08/2000 Limerick 2: Hot Shutdown, Automatic Reactor Scram, 0% power.

4) 1/09/2000 Seabrook 1: Hot Standby, reason not listed, 0% power.

5) 1/13/2000 Byron 2: Hot Standby, generator trip/turbine trip/reactor trip, 0% power.

6) 1/14/2000 Calvert Cliffs 1: Hot Standby, Reactor Trip, 0% power.

7) 1/18/2000 Sequoyah 2: Hot Standby, Reactor Trip, 0% power.

8) 1/20/2000 Point Beach 1: Hot Standby, Manual Reactor Trip, 0% power.

9) 1/21/2000 Oyster Creek 1: Hot Standby, Manual Reactor Trip, 0% power.

10) 1/24/2000 Turkey Point 4: Hot Standby, Manual Reactor Trip, 0% power.

How say you, John? Nitpicking is ok, for now...

Spindoc'

------------------------------------------

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000

Answers

Spindoc' - anyone

What is a "Manual Reactor Trip"? (what/where/why/when/how)?

and same question for "Auto Reactor Scram"?

-- steve (WhoCares@nymoreRight?.com), January 27, 2000.

What is a "Manual Reactor Trip"? (what/where/why/when/how)?

I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I assume that a manual trip is when someone perceives a problem with the reactor or associated systems, and manually shuts down the reactor, according to established procedures.

Spindoc'

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000.

John,

As far as I'm concerned, you needn't exile yourself from the board-- just add a little nuance to your positions.

And also, I still haven't seen your response to my questions. Thank you.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), January 27, 2000.

spindoc,

I think you're missing some. Didn't Limerick go down twice?

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), January 27, 2000.

John

Personally I appreciate your comments because they tend to go against the mainstream line of thought here and because you are much more objective than the average poly. Your comments give this forum balance and something to think about.

Please hang on.

-- ilander -- (ilander@minot.com), January 27, 2000.

Spindoc, And January isn't even over yet.

-- Shoo (flyonthewalls@yahoo.com), January 27, 2000.

Limerick went down ( 1 of 2 reactors) Dec 31, 99, and then again in 00. Upwind....got my thyroblock pills!

-- carolyn (carolyn@luvmyhub.com), January 27, 2000.

John hasn't been back since this was posted here

http://greenspun.com/bboard/admin-q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002LMW

under "John H. Krempasky asks Bonkers for a pat on the head"

Do I win a prize? (Contender for stupidest argument with a doomer)

Posted by (146.145.106.230) John H Krempasky on January 16, 2000 at 19:34:59:

Started amusing myself in TB 2000; I've sort of become the bete noir of a Mr. Jenkins, who spams the group with obscure minor glitches around the world.

Basically started when he posted about an electrical fire that killed 14 people in Delhi a few days after rollover, and, unlike his usual vague hints or implications about everything he posts being Y2k..he started claiming those as DEFINATE Y2k deaths.

Then, of course, with a few minutes on Alta Vista, I turned about many reports about erratic Indian power, farmers killing themselves because their generators keep going up in flames due to power surges, a historic hospital going up in flames in an electrical fire..all in 1997-1998. And he shut up about it.

So, here's a good exchange, regarding the failure of a gyro on the Compton orbiting observatory (Carl is convinced there is media manipulation to hide Y2k)...

(See the attached link)

(Note: for the first time in many posts...I had a post deleted from TB 2000, apparently IMMEDIATELY after I posted. You'll see Carl referencing a non-existent post of mine. Contained no profanity, was a sarcastic satire of Carl's opinion that local newspapers should be putting Indian power outages on their front pages instead of worthless stuff like local murders and elections. And his opinion that ANYTHING that ANY news outlet doesn't cover or highlight is evidence of a malevolent conspiracy or censorship).

Looks like he's never going to respond to my last one. I find it difficult to believe this guy actually apparently had a job in the mainstream media at one point.

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/10969.html

-- I (am@the.walrus), January 27, 2000.

Media manipulation could be construed as an obvious lack of interest despite having their newswires reporting various failures of one kind or another. The media reports that which is going to evoke emotional response. Y2K doesn't or maybe they didn't want to beat a deadhorse, least of all they wouldn't want to admit they're wrong after reporting Y2K as a dead issue. Pablum stories about the Cuban boy, supposedly offer us, the consumer, what we desire in news.

I would think its apparent to anybody reading this forum that Y2K is still having a significant effect but it just doesn't make the threshold (based on the emotional factor) for making news. Who cares if Y2K devastates some mid-sized companies accounting program.

The media should be held responsible for their lack of participation in this event in the same way that a doctor could get in trouble for not assisting at the scene of an accident. Screw the media, that's what TB2000 and the grassroots forum is for.

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), January 27, 2000.

I think John has either gone on vacation or moved on. I tried e-mailing him after one of his last posts, and he hasn't responded.

Maybe he's gone over to debunkers? He and LL might make a good pair!

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

Maybe his funding only extended for two weeks past rollover.

-- tim phronesia (phronesia@webtv.net), January 27, 2000.

I guess Hatch 1 on January 26 makes 11 for the month:

Hatch Scram

-- Duke1983 (Duke1983@aol.com), January 27, 2000.

By the way, I called the Hatch facility to get more information on this latest scram. You can get my report on the thread linked above.

If anyone knows about Nukes, please read the report, and tell me if the response I got is plausible.

-- Duke1983 (Duke1983@aol.com), January 27, 2000.

Spindoc -- Thanks, thanks for this post and the stats behind it. I agree, that JHK was one of the more fact-based pollies to make a deposit on this board, and his approach, while sneering, still involved a measure of dialogue. I have been wondering how these reactor incidents stack up against previous years and JHK's predictions; and also wondering if there were FURTHER FACTS behind John's disapperance from this forum. I can now suspect the conclusion: he's chickenshit with current facts contrary to his presuppopsitions. My figuring is he abandoned TB2000 when the refineries started to blow 2-5 a day, about 2 weeks ago. Hope he comes back.

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (niuts@upinaa.cellrelaytower), January 27, 2000.

Actually, Mr.Krempasky posted on this thread 2 days ago:

ARE NUCLEAR PLANTS SUPPOSED TO TRIP AUTOMATICALLY?

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Pc6

Which prompted me to start this thread, since he had not responded to similar data I posted on earlier threads:

SEQUOYAH 2 01/18/00 Hot Standby

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002MaW

Controlled shutdown of nuclear reactor probed; no radiation released

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002NUW

Personally, it is not my intention to drive anyone from this board. I would prefer that he (or anyone) stay, as long as the purpose of posting is to exchange information and opinions. I took Mr. Krempaskys prediction as a challenge to look at the source data, instead of mindlessly accepting press releases. Or as a challenge against accepting his take on the data without checking, for that matter.

But I am surprised that he has not responded to these data, given the "in your face" challenge he issued on 1/7/2000.

BTW, just to throw a bone, Mr. Krempasky is correct on one point: at first glance, May 1999 appears to have quite a few failures of the type we are listing here, perhaps comparable to the failure rate of Jan 2000. I will allow that perhaps he hadn't seen that data before he made his predictions for 1/7-1/30/2000.

Any comments, Mr. Krempasky?

Spindoc'

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), January 28, 2000.

Sorry, that should be: predictions for 1/7-1/31/2000.

Spindoc'

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), January 28, 2000.