Talk:Northeast Blackout of 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Northeast Blackout of 2003 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents 1 Enron 2 Inadequate situational awareness at FirstEnergy 3 Amateur radio's role 4 what's in a name? 5 2003 is superfluous 6 Page Protection 7 Fake Images 8 Link 9 Statements 10 2003 Northeast American blackout 11 How about name it... 12 Sequence of events- America bias 13 Montreal 14 North American blackout 15 "Grimsby Transmission Towers" ??? 16 A: Grimsby Transmission Towers 17 What is the point of this statement? 18 Area affected ? 19 Map 20 Broken External Link 21 Article needs a lot of work in my view 22 Conspiracy theories 23 Railroads 24 Unix ? 25 of 2003 26 Lengthen the lead, or trim the article.

[edit] Enron

Why isn't Enron's role in the blackout mentioned? This article makes it sound like it was an accident or something...

Wrong side of the continent. Rmhermen 23:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inadequate situational awareness at FirstEnergy

The fault alarm The primary cause of the loss of situational awareness was failure of the fault alarm part of a computer system. The operators noticed and switched to another system but that also failed a few minutes later. Attempts to restore service failed until the main system, its backup and all connected systems were restarted after the blackout.

Loss awareness of the state of their network First Energy operators, in part due to failure of the computer system which should have alerted them to failures in their transmission system and failure to sufficiently trim trees under its power lines in part of its Ohio service area, which led to normal heat-caused sagging of power lines operating within their capacity limits to touch the trees and go out of service. These problems were compounded, but not caused, by the Eastlake 5 power plant near Cleveland, Ohio going offline and causing an increase in the need to transfer power over the lines. It also found that FirstEnergy did not warn other control centers until it was too late because of faulty monitoring equipment and inadequate staff. The cascading effect that resulted ultimately forced the shutdown of more than 100 power plants.

[edit] Amateur radio's role

I wish to add the following text to this article: "With regular telephone service overwhelmed with traffic and local Internet service compromised, many people turned to Amateur radio operators for assistance in getting emergency and welfare messages to their friends and family members." Denelson83 07:09, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] what's in a name?

Shouldn't it be 2003 U.S.-Canada blackout? Kingturtle 09:06, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 is superfluous

The title really should be Canada-U.S. blackout...were there other canada-U.S. blackouts that we keep track of? Kingturtle 09:08, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was one around 1965 or 1955 on the same grid. -Fizscy46 06:31, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There were several blackout(s) prior to the building and commissioning of new [~1975] Nuclear Generating Stations in the North Eastern USA and Canada. Primarily during scorching August Heat waves when temperatures in the '90s F - '30s C blanketed the North East from Tennesee to Quebec.

One blackout was highlighted with the movie "Where were you when the lights went out" , that occurred in 1965.

See Northeast Blackout of 1965 at this point in the Wikipedia Northeast Blackout of 1965

Another happened in 1977

--Richard416282 04:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

Why is this article protected? (If there's an explanation on some central "list of protected pages", I hope that explanation would be echoed or summarized here as well.) --Uncle Ed 14:38, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It should be obvious from the page history. --Jiang

Because there's still no consensus on how this article should be titled. The result is the "Renaming War" Drbug 17:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Images

Doea a fake image really have any place in an encyclopeadia? I think we should remove it.

Looks like a reasonable illustration to me. Jamesday 23:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind it - it's marked as fake and gives an impression of the area affected. (eg I tend to think of Ohio as farther west =p) 142.177.124.178 18:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We seriously need to delete those images to me - it's a fake. It doesn't show lights or power or anything. Backup generators wouldn't have been able to generate that much power. It doesn't show electricity or power - it shows clouds. Look over to the left, you see clouds there. And what's with the line? Even if that was a real image, couldn't we get others without the line? If you need proof of what this is showing, look at Detroit. In either picture. It's not "lit up" at all - it was a sunny day. I'm taking them out - if anyone has a problem, relpy here. yourmom 02:16, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what pictures you removed, but I have added two legitimate satellite images from the NOAA. --J Morgan^(talk) 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Do you guys think this would be an appropriate link to add?

What's wrong with the electric grid? http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p8.html
RoyBoy 21:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a fake satellite image associated with this event that is documented [here], should someone be interested in including actual satellite images from this event, they are available [on Noaa's website]. PaigePhault 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --J Morgan^(talk) 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements

There are two things I remember that I think would be worth mentioning in the "Statements made in the aftermath" section. One is that southern Ontario media (680 News, and CBC for example) had a caller (or callers) reporting a "big fire" at a Petro-Canada refinery in Oakville, Ontario, which reporters kept suggesting could be a cause (apparently without sending anyone to check it out, though my guess is such a hard shut down would produce lots of smoke)

Another is that I recall reports that the FBI had determined that there was no terrorist involvement only 30 minutes or so into the blackout (which I found pretty ridiculous, and I've always wondered if they indeed said this and, if they did, what they based their assertion on). --Ben 17:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 Northeast American blackout

I realize that this has been hashed out already, but I hardly find the title fitting - unless of course you consider the blackout as really affecting Alaska, Panama, Jamaica, and California. This hardly is a North America article, it only affected a region that of Northeastern America. When the power goes out in Tegucigalpa, White River Junction, and Inuvik, then we can consider North America for a title.

The power went out across Eastern Canada also so - Northeast America is not an appropriate title. Rmhermen 14:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about name it...

How about name this the Northeast Blackout of 2003? (as in the name of the similar blackout that occured in 1965 -- see Northeast Blackout of 1965)

Sounds like a good idea, but that is definitely americentric (assuming you consider canada as part of america, unlike Rmhermen). I was thinking Northeast American power outage (2003). First, it specifies the region fairly well, second it uses the phrase power outage, rather than blackout, which isn't the title of the article, and also because it places the date at the end where most disambiguators are (though the format is debated. We could use official government terminology U.S.-Canada power system outage (2003), and I think there would likely be less regional doubt.

Titling it using "of 2003" seems an acceptable alternative. Most of all, I think the current title is too broad considering that the power outage affected nine state/provinces out of 63 (62 contiguous) in the countries it affected. 134.250.72.141

[edit] Sequence of events- America bias

The above section appears to be biased in favour of America, there is no mention of Canada (which of course was also affected). Although I was there it was 2 1/2 years ago, so I cant remember the sequence of events. Medscin 12:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article which mentions Canada in the first sentence and then in one or two dozen more paragraphs after. Rmhermen 00:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that in this article or in another. I was just commenting on the impression I got from that sectionMedscin 16:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just realized that you meant the section "Sequence of events" in the article, not the "above section" in the talk page. I am looking at the official report to see if its timeline includes Canadian power failures. If it does I will update the article. Rmhermen 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montreal

Interestingly, Montreal was the only major city on the eastern seaboard in the affected area that did not lose power. Hydro-Quebec claims it was they who were able to keep the power running for the city.

I've removed this for a number of reasons:

1. There seems no point in having it in the first paragraph. That is for a definition of what the topic of the article is.
2. Montreal is not on the "eastern seabord." It is many hundreds of kilometres inland. Boston, which actually is on the eastern seabord, did not lose power, nor did Halifax.
3. Montreal was not "in the affected area." Quebec was not affected by the blackout.

- Montréalais

Nor did Philadelphia, Baltimore, and points south on the eastern seaboard lose power. Maybe OP meant Canadian easter seaboard.--J Clear 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North American blackout

Shouldn't this be "North American blackout"? The adjective form, as opposed to the noun? Isopropyl 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have proposed it before; although, I was too intimidated by the mess of redirects to be bold. Rmhermen 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Grimsby Transmission Towers" ???

What and where are the "Grimsby Transmission Towers" mentioned in the paragraph about media disruption? The only references to this phrase on all of Google are all copies of this article. Are these power transmission towers or radio/TV transmission towers? The former makes more sense, but the sentence in question refers to radio and TV stations "relaying their broadcasts" through these mysterious towers. All in all, "it just don't add up" and someone needs to clarify this.

[edit] A: Grimsby Transmission Towers

A) What?

-Microwave VIDEO/Audio Transmission towers with backup power generators as part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporations (CBC) and provided by the Trans Canada Telephone Service (part of the Bell Canada Network).

B) Where?

-Grimsby Ontario, E. of Stoney Creek, Ontario, and W. of Niagara-On-The-Lake, on the S. shore of Lake Ontario. --Richard416282 05:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point of this statement?

"In New York, about 3,000 fire calls were reported,many from people using candles. It was similar to the amount of calls during the September 11th, 2001 attacks."

I mean..... just... what? Why does it matter that there were a similar amount of emergency calls as 9/11? Is the author of that statement trying to imply something, or what? 24.43.219.141 22:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems more a statement for shock value. It isn't directly relevant to the article and should be removed.129.2.50.56 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Area affected ?

The article states that the affected area was only 24,000 km². Is that really correct ?

[edit] Map

I've created a map for this article. However, not being American myself, could someone just make sure I've not missed anywhere out or marked anyway that shouldn't be marked (the lead to this article claims eight states were affected, but I can only find seven in the article). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to stick a dubious label on your map. You show all of Pennsylvania and New Jersey as out. The PMJ Grid folks were alert/quick/lucky enough to protect their grid. So eastern PA, and most of New Jersey stayed lit. Follow up discussion in Talk:2003 North America blackout#Disputed below.--J Clear 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also only part of Michigan was affected - not the entire state. Rmhermen 20:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if I recall correctly, Massachusetts was largely unaffected as well. Cg-realms 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late: but I was as far south in Southeastern Virginia and was affected. Userpie 01:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken External Link

While browsing the main article, there was a link to the report and a press release at the FERC communcations department. However upon clicking with my browser I obtained a dreaded 404 file not found Http error. Not being from the lower 48 states, In my previous posts as corrections , I reserve the possibility that something else is busted.

The original link was here

http://www.nerc.com/pub_doc/media-statement-08-16-03.doc

with a pointer to media-statement-08-16-03.doc

If you find the missing link in the interim, great!

Please post it here or update the page. I have not found it yet. --Richard416282 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs a lot of work in my view

Many recent edits have helped significantly, but lots more to do.

I would agree with suggestion to rename "North American blackout of 2003"

Blackout images are poor. They show, for example, reduced light intensity in Montreal, Boston and Philadelphia, which were not affected. Also, coastlines and lights are not properly aligned -- look at NE New Jersey or Boston Harbor. Images combine effects of blackout with other differences and don't seem to do a good job of clearly conveying the former. Images would be nice if better were available.

overall seems overly wordy and not to the point.

24,000 square km is, indeed, way too small.

Regarding candidate map, area covered is far too large, since many states were only partly affected. Details available in report at https://reports.energy.gov/BlackoutFinal-Web.pdf

Hope this doesn't come across as overly negative - I would be willing to work with others to make improvements.

Steve 67.172.157.77 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are better images on the NOAA website, specifically [this one], and [this one]. These show the extent of the power outage everywhere, not just New York City. I would replace the images in the article myself, but I don't know how. I'd greatly appreciate someone's help in doing so. 68.0.212.218 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Joe

[edit] Conspiracy theories

Propose removal of section pending procurement of proper sources. Isopropyl 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree; why would the Gov. risk lives to secretly test security? Sounds too far-feteched and unsourced. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed, as the section has been marked with {{unsourcedsect}} for a while and no sources have turned up. If citations can be found, feel free to add it back. Isopropyl 19:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railroads

The articles mentions most interstate railroads shut down (but links to Amtrak). Didn't freight railroads continue to run (since railroad way-side signals are battery/solar powered and dispatching is generator-backed)? This should then change to "passenger rail" or a similar statement.

Skabat169 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Assumed it refered to only Amtrak NEC, LIRR, and Metro-North, so changed accordingly. Skabat169 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unix ?

I consider the inclusion of the word "Unix" in the sentence below, or the name of any operating system, unless a specific bug in an operating system was found to be fault, to be irrelevant and the inclusion here implies a fault with Unix.

"It also found that FirstEnergy did not take remedial action or warn other control centers until it was too late because of a bug in the Unix-based General Electric Energy's XA/21 system"

The referenced article makes no specific mention of Unix and while I don't disbelieve that the software in question runs on Unix I think my point is valid. So, with this in mind I would like to propose revising this sentence. Cliph 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That bothered me also. Seems a bit POV as phrased. If it's not verifible, then it should come out. After doing some more digging than I did last time, I can confirm it is a UNIX (AIX or Solaris) based application http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/scada_software/en/downloads/xa21_overview.pdf. However it's not said in the articles I've seen that the problem was in the OS. Most say it was a deep race condition in the application. And everything says fix is "GE patch" not IBM or Sun patch. So does it add anything to the article? --J Clear 22:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] of 2003

Can I suggest renaming to 'North American blackout of 2003' to bring it into line with the normal way or naming events of this kind. (Note, Blackout in New York was redirecting here, this was not a good idea since there was also the notable New York City blackout of 1977. I've altered this to a disambig, and may nominate it for deletion since nothing is using the page.)--Barberio 12:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the map of the outage, to that of Northeast Blackout of 1965, I'm going to suggest that the outage be renamed to Northeast Blackout of 2003. --Barberio 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthen the lead, or trim the article.

Either the lead of the article is too short, or the article itself could do with trimming down. --Barberio 12:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)